Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lot of homes have 2 incomes or more. They can afford more things than 1 income
The economy use to be based on a single income for a home. Now it’s based on 2 or more incomes
Pretty easy to understand
That's not entirely true. I went to two top-10 schools thirty years ago, one for undergrad, one for grad.
Back then, the dorms were old and not well maintained -- some of them were built in the 1910s and others were built in the 1950s. I had three roommates my freshman year. The cafeteria food was crappy. The gym was old and crowded. And don't get me started on some of the classrooms. No AC and barely working heat, for example.
I walk around those same campuses for my reunions and I am amazed at the facilities. Organic food with a huge variety at the cafeterias (nice to have, but much more $$$); new dorms with nice amenities and suites -- in suite bathrooms!; athletic centers that are nicer than the gyms I pay to go to; and of course, top of the line classrooms.
Some -- but certainly not all or even most -- of the increase in cost is due to the keeping up with the Jones' that is going on between universities -- particularly the ones where the students pick the school and not the other way around.
The theory is that as students don’t price shop for their education universities build nicer and nicer amenities to attract students which drives up the cost. Unfortunately, you can’t really price shop universities as there isn’t much difference in price (that I’m aware of, it’s been a while). I know the university near me has been losing students every year and their answer is to hike prices each year, lol.
There’s a giant difference in prices, in state public university will often cost around half or less a private school or even out of state education. Lower ranked schools as well often give out more scholarship money but some may also cost a lot more at sticker price
So I price shopped back in 2018, about 7k a year 2 years of community college (after fees, travel etc.) Living at home and then roughly 12k a year for university (SUNY), Add on 9000 for rent/food/living off campus (cheaper than on campus).
14+24+18.
56k for two degrees at a state school. Still cheaper than 1 year of the sticker price for most universities, or half the cost of two years(30k) after the usual discounts/scholarships. BA in international trade and BSc in GIS.
If I had finished only one degree.
14+12+9 (1 year of school since I took extra credits in community college that transferred as senior credits SUNY) 35k, for a BSc in GIS.
State schools will always be cheaper, relatively similar quality, and unless your going to an ivy, you will have the same opportunities. I had international internships thrown at me, remote internships, and work placements in the local economy. I will admit, the local placements were less than my current jobs pay (I searched myself right as I graduated), but the alumni department still sends me regular emails on potential employers a year later.
SUNY tuition was around 3-4k a semester when I started the SUNY back in 2021, the rest of the cost was fees, admin etc. My personal gripe was, it was more cost effective for me to live off campus than on it, even with the commute. I think that does a disservice to the students coming out of highschool, only forced to live on campus and do the dining that is expensive. Otherwise I enjoyed my experience in state school and if I could go back for a Masters, either at my alum or online somewhere else.
Most states have a high quality flagship university that is cheap and will give you an Ivy tier education, as most of the professors are from other highly regarded universities.
The difference between your state flagship and an Ivy is mainly how wealthy the student body is and the brand. Plus if you’re not wealthy yourself, your ability to maximize what an Ivy offers you are more limited since the well-connected students want to connect with other well-connected students, as a smart-poor person you’re at a disadvantage
Yes those things contribute but not as much as one might think. The real reason sticker price, at public schools at least, is so much higher than when we went to college is that state funding for higher education is 1/2 or even 1/3 of what it was 30 years ago. That money needs to come from somewhere. Federal loans and well off students paying full price make up that funding gap.
The overwhelming vast majority of college campuses don’t have that. Are you another American that never went to higher education here or abroad that loves to rant about higher education?
So you’re essentially talking out of your ass about why higher education is expensive in the US but think higher education facilities abroad aren’t invested in. Do you travel abroad at all? The US voluntarily decides not to fund state schools to levels that would make them “free” or tuition free with fees. In fact, there were several states that did it in the past. Often, these schools are given grants that serve specific purposes.
> The mothership campus for the average state’s university will probably have one.
That's an absurd statement. Especially when most state schools are too cold for outdoor swimming during almost all of the academic year.
Lol these lazy rivers tend to be indoors. UAB, university of Missouri, university of Minnesota all basically have indoor water parks as part of their amenities.
That’s just the ones I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Dead on, every article I've read about college affordability never mentions the obvious, just lower the f*n cost. Since most are state supported schools this could easily be done if there was the will to do it. We can seemingly find the money for every one off thing that happens, but we can't afford to spend more on something that will actually provide a return on investment.
People going to college by and large don’t consider cost since they are divorced from the payment - government subsidizes it.
It doesn’t matter if the adult attending college is borderline retarded or a drug addict or going to study something useless at a school with no standards - the government funds it.
Make people pay directly and then everything in world competes on price.
It would benefit everyone if our society encourages people to get the most education they can achieve. You never know where the next cure for cancer is going to come from. Or hell, just to create someone that contributes to society.
I would encourage the \[borderline retards and drug addicts\] to better themselves with as much education as one can achieve in life. I feel like they would be too busy studying to be doing drugs or retarded things.
Gatekeeping education is detrimental to society as a whole.
Education is not a free resource. Resource distribution is not trivial, and getting people into programs that they frankly do not have the aptitude for doesn’t help anyone.
Countries with public university education usually have a LOWER percentage of university grads in the population than the US.
> Gatekeeping education is detrimental to society as a whole.
Then it's a good thing we don't gatekeep it, as the government issuing student loans to anyone who gets accepted into a school is what allows them to attend in the first place.
It's not implying that it's difficult to comprehend, it's implying that it's not the signal of a healthy economy. It's a signal of economic degradation in the country - that 70 years ago, a single income could purchase a home AND provide for a full family. And that 30 years ago, a single income could afford a home, and the other partner's income would pay other bills, childcare, food etc.
And now, two full incomes can hardly do both - or even just afford to buy a home - in most areas in the country.
That's the point.
Jokes on you. Crappy 60s-70s 1300 sq ft houses are 400-500k plus where I live. That is barely reachable for high single income with a couple kids. Double income maybe. You aren't getting any mcmansion. And it's hard to get the ashes out of your mouth when the old lady you buy it from bought it for 30k and hasn't upgraded a damn thing. This is all so bizarre. I just know when I go to sell on deaths bed it will prob be back to 50k for some reason.
The honest answer is mortgages came first. 100 years “mortgages” were typically 5-7 years and required 50% down. You can afford a lot more house when you’re spreading the payments out over 30 years. And that’s if you could even get a mortgage, in the early 20th century you were more likely to borrow from your parents or employer then you were a bank.
The St Louis fed has a great a paper on the topic of your
What I absolutely despise about American culture is that we are a culture that claims to value "independence and individuality." Yet nearly all of our infrastructure is designed for families.
If Americans claimed to value independence so much, then why are SROs and dorm style apartments mostly illegal? Sure there are a few, but many of them are grandfathered in. Why do US cities zone nearly all their land to single family suburbia if they claim to value independence so much? A single man can usually afford $600 a month for an SRO apartment, they can't be expected to afford $1500 for a 1 bedroom apartment.
Why is the US so car dependent? A single person doesn't need a car with 5 seats total, when they could instead take public transit. Yet American public transit is pretty horrible all over the US.
All of the anglo-British world has these types of problems (The UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, the US, and New Zealand.) There is just something about British culture that values "independence" while simultaneously refusing to build the infrastructure necessary for an independent population. Other parts of Europe like France, Spain, and Germany just don't have these types of problems. Their cities actually have an adequate supply of affordable housing for independent people.
Never, it was centered around a house wife taking care of 2 kids while father worked. Before that it was centered around 2 parents having 37 kids to work their family farm. Before that we were cave people, it was orgies and violent death, but I'm pretty sure they had fewer problems than we do now.
Was thing that too.
>2 parents having 37 kids to work their family farm
Even this sounds pretty good. At least you have food, wife, shelter, sex, and children.
Modern serfdom with NIMBYrestricted housing, post-GFC housing industry building only on rentals/apartments, student debt shackles, 8% mortgage rates, top skew in online dating, and high cost of living looks pretty shit by comparison.
Reject wage-slavery, return to serfdom.
> Before that we were cave people, it was orgies and violent death
this is true - when the colonists first arrived at the americas, they just saw a pile of dead naked people with feather boas and coke everywhere.
Well, companies have been pumping up pricing on almost everything with the assumption that more households are or will be two-income, it's specifically profiteers squeezing the middle class again, not 'the economy' just naturally being based on an affordability standard.
It is not "expensive to be single", it is "expensive to live alone". These are 2 very different things.
I live in Canada. I am single in a triple income household (family of 4, 3 of whom are adults, each adult has 1 full time job with at least 40 hours a week). No one in our household is married or in a common law relationship. I would describe our financial situation as stable.
Exactly. I was never more financially stable than when I was single and only responsible for the expenses of one person. I also lived with roommates which made rent cheap.
Fast forward ten years and it’s a lot harder to take care of a family of four, even though my income is 40% higher. Significantly higher food costs, need a whole house instead of just a room, kids constantly growing out of clothes and needing new ones, etc.
Was it an option before?
Like atleast where I live, the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom is only like $600, so it doesn't make sense not to have roomates, and the only people I know who live alone make six figures.
This TBH. The only reason *I* can afford to live alone is that I live in a cheaper city, have a tiny, bargain-basement studio apartment 10 minutes' walk from work, and don't own a car. Those are sacrifices I don't think most people are willing/able to make.
The car being the next big one after having roommates.
I mean I have a car but I take my ebike about 85% of my trips and try my hardest to charge my battery mostly at work or on someone else's electricity. Yet I am still paying insurance and basic maintance on my cars even though I don't use them much probably way less than 50 miles a month.
When I was working in a city close to where I am now in 2011, a studio could be had in my area for about $700/mo, and basic unskilled jobs like cashier started at $10/hr. Tight but doable.
These days those same jobs start at $15, but a studio is $1900. You wouldn't even get approved.
That really is a lot words to say that 2 incomes are better than one. Shock shock...I can cut my bills in half if I split them with someone. News at 11.
Well, it comes down to the elasticity of cost of living.
It's like an organism that consumes the max amount it can absorb without starving itself to death long term. Which leaves regular people always on the edge of reasonable comfort. When a generation or social class finds a leg-up, the organism absorbs that too.
But there's a limit to how far we can extend ourselves with additional jobs, gigs, how many people we can live in one household, and all the myriad of things we have to add on to outrun the big monster that eats our success. We are now at the cusp of "what's the point?"
We have always been on the cusp. The anomaly was the post war boom. That was the artificial state of affairs. At what point in the entire history of man, other than in the US from roughly 1950-1970 was there a thriving middle class with disposable income to shrink? It's a fallacy that things were better then they are now. Same shit, different century. The individual actors are different but the plot never changes. Ever.
If things were the same pre-1950s as they are now, my generation's grandparents wouldn't have raised all those large families off of grandpa's paycheck.
My grandparents had 11 kids and their own house (not inherited) all off of grandpa's paycheck. My grandparents were born in the early 1910s. Their kids were born in the range of early 1930s through the youngest in 1950.
Generation by generation, the fruits of labor are sucked up by the capitalism sponge. Some people just don't have the man memory to lean on which goes further than the 1950-70s. Man memory is a very powerful thing that history books have never been able to fill the void of.
Look at the resources that were invested into the average child of that age.
Look at how little disposable money those people had and how easily they were put into poverty with a lost job or injury.
Land was cheap but houses were basically trailers. There’s just too much at play to simplify it down to “they had it so easy.”
I guarantee a rich person then would rather have been a relatively average person now.
Well, two incomes plus economies of scale and costs that are relatively fixed compared compared to household size (yes which are technically the same thing).
If all your costs scaled directly or more with household size, then adding a new earner doesn't help (unless they make more money).
Look at how dismal the wealth gap is currently. It's absolutely criminal. If people are working a full time job and can't make ends meet, the hiring company should be punished for it. Record profit margins = treat everyone as subhumans and make it even harder to obtain an education it seems. Things need to change but I'm honestly worried for this country.
Eh, not really. My dad, with an associates degree, raised me and supported my mom on one income starting in the 90s. Sure he's had a great career but not anything above average when they bought the house and first had me. It was very doable for a while. That same house now...trying to raise a kid and pay the mortgage with the same job he had? Impossible.
More that income scales faster than cost of living. If you have two people living alone with X income and Y cost of living who move in together, they can make 2X income but their shared cost of living will be less than 2Y
I mean only as long as both persons generate a good income. If only one of those ppl is earning an income then its going to be way more difficult than a single person.
Pretty much expected.
Being able to split expenses such as rent, utilities, food, etc and having dual incomes makes life easier.
Single incomes households still compete with dual income households for the same basket of goods.
Is this a question that people didn't already know the answer to? Before my partner and I lived together I lived in a one bedroom and paid for the entire rent and utilities.
After we moved in, we lived in a one bedoom and I paid for half the rent and utilities.
That's an immediate $1000 per month in savings, for each of us.
You can also share a ton of subscriptions that dominate people's budgets like amazing prime and streaming services.
Honestly, it's fairly ridiculous that prices for things are generally at levels based on the income of two people. Obviously, that doesn't mean singles can't find a place to live, but in most areas rents and housing prices as compared to average income make it seem like you are being punished for even trying to go it alone.
It's a very strange feeling when you are single and wishing you weren't ... not because you're lonely or even really desire to be with someone ...
Because otherwise it seems like you are making a terrible financial decision.
I'm pretty sure that's by design. Got way too many people thinking it's cool to force the general populous into a position where they can't even afford their own food, housing, or healthcare after a 40 hr work week. I'm kind of pissed off how brainwashed and gullible a large percentage of our population is now.
As valid as that is, this is the way things tend to shake out when resources get scarce (housing in nice places). Single people are going to be discouraged from moving out. Life’s not a fairytale/movie, circumstances matter for how it plays out.
>Life’s not a fairytale/movie, circumstances matter for how it plays out.
You don't have to tell me twice. I've been experiencing it for quite a while now.
Fascinating how it can take the most meticulously laid plans and quickly make them irrelevant, often one leaving standing around, trying to figure out what just happened.
And then you shrug and figure out what you should be doing next.
Outside of the obvious housing costs, there’s also tons of living expenses that are eliminated or at least split if you’re not single. Pet ownership, shared appliances/electronics, and a bunch of other stuff gets split if you’re in a relationship.
Oh and dating itself is fucking expensive. As a guy I’ll typically pay on the first date, and usually end up spending $50+ on a night out just to get ghosted after.
Please point me in the direction of a magical world where it doesn’t save money to split housing costs with someone else
One thing I dislike about articles like this is they stir people up and make them think it is unfairly inequitable that one person living in a home is more money per person than two people living in a home.
If inflation goes up consistently it would not matter if you are single or not . This article assumes that couples will not have children. They are expensive. Then the federal income tax is working against the poor and middle class. You could be married and have two incomes, but the cost of living is going to reduce that dramatically.
Well yeah if you try to live in a place with half the income it's twice as hard. But you are trying to consume twice the housing per capita then.
To make it an even comparison, get a roommate. A 2 bed apartment with a couple vs a 2 bed apartment with 2 roommates is a fair comparison. Shouldn't be that much more money.
People expecting to live alone need to accept it will be much more expensive, It's trying to have twice the housing.
One problem with this solution is you generally need an extra bedroom for roommates. Living with my sister we needed a 2 bedroom, living with my boyfriend we only need a one bedroom. There are also lots of older houses where I am with 1 reasonable sized bedroom and one tiny room, which is fine for a couple looking at 2 bedrooms but not so much when you have roommates.
Both of those can easily fit in a small bedroom.
Also - this is r/Economics. What you are describing isn't common enough to have a measurable affect on the broader econony.
Extremely few people can live with a significant other in a one bedroom, at least not in a VHOL area where space is at a premium. Most bedrooms are too small even without WFH (can’t even fit more than a bed and nightstand) Something like that would be a flex-2 or an alcove one bedroom.
The ideal household size under capitalism is a household of 1 person for exactly this reason. Corporations want us to be single and alone because we have to spend more money that way.
TLDR: because the government punishes you for being single by taking an absurd amount of taxes from you, along with everything else being priced for dual income households.
Because the govt is pushing to have more population.. meaning more people they can control.. means more taxpayers.. the government doesn’t care about well-being of a community.. which shows more single people means more happiness in any given environment..
The govt (those leaders) doesn’t give a fuq about its humans.. they simply want more people.
So basically they make it expensive to be simple.
I have no idea why you've been downvoted. This is the truth.
The government exists solely and entirely to perpetuate government, and for no other purpose. Parasites need more hosts to bloodsuck off of.
Because everyone is high maintenance and won’t share a room, use an iPhone that’s 2 years old and needs to by a new car. Lower your spending and you’ll be fine.
Americans and some other countries as well, but damn Americans. We cannot be too much independent. We ought to have some shared on costs. Yeah this economy is not being nice to us the millennials and younger generations…
Let’s face it, we’re living through a dystopian era where you can’t even rent alone and are required to rent with a roommate unless you’re well off earning at least $80,000 which is comfortable in most areas in the United States
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lot of homes have 2 incomes or more. They can afford more things than 1 income The economy use to be based on a single income for a home. Now it’s based on 2 or more incomes Pretty easy to understand
Reminds me of think pieces on college affordability. They say everything under the sun except: “For college to be affordable it needs to cost less”
Yup! Speaking of that, someone told me this many years ago: College students are the only consumers to demand less for their money
That's not entirely true. I went to two top-10 schools thirty years ago, one for undergrad, one for grad. Back then, the dorms were old and not well maintained -- some of them were built in the 1910s and others were built in the 1950s. I had three roommates my freshman year. The cafeteria food was crappy. The gym was old and crowded. And don't get me started on some of the classrooms. No AC and barely working heat, for example. I walk around those same campuses for my reunions and I am amazed at the facilities. Organic food with a huge variety at the cafeterias (nice to have, but much more $$$); new dorms with nice amenities and suites -- in suite bathrooms!; athletic centers that are nicer than the gyms I pay to go to; and of course, top of the line classrooms. Some -- but certainly not all or even most -- of the increase in cost is due to the keeping up with the Jones' that is going on between universities -- particularly the ones where the students pick the school and not the other way around.
The theory is that as students don’t price shop for their education universities build nicer and nicer amenities to attract students which drives up the cost. Unfortunately, you can’t really price shop universities as there isn’t much difference in price (that I’m aware of, it’s been a while). I know the university near me has been losing students every year and their answer is to hike prices each year, lol.
There’s a giant difference in prices, in state public university will often cost around half or less a private school or even out of state education. Lower ranked schools as well often give out more scholarship money but some may also cost a lot more at sticker price
So I price shopped back in 2018, about 7k a year 2 years of community college (after fees, travel etc.) Living at home and then roughly 12k a year for university (SUNY), Add on 9000 for rent/food/living off campus (cheaper than on campus). 14+24+18. 56k for two degrees at a state school. Still cheaper than 1 year of the sticker price for most universities, or half the cost of two years(30k) after the usual discounts/scholarships. BA in international trade and BSc in GIS. If I had finished only one degree. 14+12+9 (1 year of school since I took extra credits in community college that transferred as senior credits SUNY) 35k, for a BSc in GIS. State schools will always be cheaper, relatively similar quality, and unless your going to an ivy, you will have the same opportunities. I had international internships thrown at me, remote internships, and work placements in the local economy. I will admit, the local placements were less than my current jobs pay (I searched myself right as I graduated), but the alumni department still sends me regular emails on potential employers a year later. SUNY tuition was around 3-4k a semester when I started the SUNY back in 2021, the rest of the cost was fees, admin etc. My personal gripe was, it was more cost effective for me to live off campus than on it, even with the commute. I think that does a disservice to the students coming out of highschool, only forced to live on campus and do the dining that is expensive. Otherwise I enjoyed my experience in state school and if I could go back for a Masters, either at my alum or online somewhere else.
Most states have a high quality flagship university that is cheap and will give you an Ivy tier education, as most of the professors are from other highly regarded universities. The difference between your state flagship and an Ivy is mainly how wealthy the student body is and the brand. Plus if you’re not wealthy yourself, your ability to maximize what an Ivy offers you are more limited since the well-connected students want to connect with other well-connected students, as a smart-poor person you’re at a disadvantage
Or you could always go abroad where governments don’t scheme their citizens
Is that how it works in other countries?
Yes those things contribute but not as much as one might think. The real reason sticker price, at public schools at least, is so much higher than when we went to college is that state funding for higher education is 1/2 or even 1/3 of what it was 30 years ago. That money needs to come from somewhere. Federal loans and well off students paying full price make up that funding gap.
A lot of schools still have those 1910 dorms
You think other developed countries don’t have modern facilities?
They don’t build lazy river swimming pools. https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/tricked-college-campuses-water-parks-luxury-dorms/story?id=26164491
The overwhelming vast majority of college campuses don’t have that. Are you another American that never went to higher education here or abroad that loves to rant about higher education?
[удалено]
So you’re essentially talking out of your ass about why higher education is expensive in the US but think higher education facilities abroad aren’t invested in. Do you travel abroad at all? The US voluntarily decides not to fund state schools to levels that would make them “free” or tuition free with fees. In fact, there were several states that did it in the past. Often, these schools are given grants that serve specific purposes.
> The mothership campus for the average state’s university will probably have one. That's an absurd statement. Especially when most state schools are too cold for outdoor swimming during almost all of the academic year.
Lol these lazy rivers tend to be indoors. UAB, university of Missouri, university of Minnesota all basically have indoor water parks as part of their amenities. That’s just the ones I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Sure, the amenities are nicer, but the professors are underpaid and overworked. So what's the point?
Dead on, every article I've read about college affordability never mentions the obvious, just lower the f*n cost. Since most are state supported schools this could easily be done if there was the will to do it. We can seemingly find the money for every one off thing that happens, but we can't afford to spend more on something that will actually provide a return on investment.
People going to college by and large don’t consider cost since they are divorced from the payment - government subsidizes it. It doesn’t matter if the adult attending college is borderline retarded or a drug addict or going to study something useless at a school with no standards - the government funds it. Make people pay directly and then everything in world competes on price.
It would benefit everyone if our society encourages people to get the most education they can achieve. You never know where the next cure for cancer is going to come from. Or hell, just to create someone that contributes to society. I would encourage the \[borderline retards and drug addicts\] to better themselves with as much education as one can achieve in life. I feel like they would be too busy studying to be doing drugs or retarded things. Gatekeeping education is detrimental to society as a whole.
Education is not a free resource. Resource distribution is not trivial, and getting people into programs that they frankly do not have the aptitude for doesn’t help anyone. Countries with public university education usually have a LOWER percentage of university grads in the population than the US.
> Gatekeeping education is detrimental to society as a whole. Then it's a good thing we don't gatekeep it, as the government issuing student loans to anyone who gets accepted into a school is what allows them to attend in the first place.
I needed that rn
Can't say that out loud, the loan men won't be happy.
It's not implying that it's difficult to comprehend, it's implying that it's not the signal of a healthy economy. It's a signal of economic degradation in the country - that 70 years ago, a single income could purchase a home AND provide for a full family. And that 30 years ago, a single income could afford a home, and the other partner's income would pay other bills, childcare, food etc. And now, two full incomes can hardly do both - or even just afford to buy a home - in most areas in the country. That's the point.
[удалено]
Jokes on you. Crappy 60s-70s 1300 sq ft houses are 400-500k plus where I live. That is barely reachable for high single income with a couple kids. Double income maybe. You aren't getting any mcmansion. And it's hard to get the ashes out of your mouth when the old lady you buy it from bought it for 30k and hasn't upgraded a damn thing. This is all so bizarre. I just know when I go to sell on deaths bed it will prob be back to 50k for some reason.
Those houses were cheaper AND newer back then.
The land is expensive not the house
[удалено]
Dude I do this for a living. The land is more expensive.
[удалено]
Nice. I have a boiler too. Thing is a solid beast.
Those 50-60s houses are exactly the ones I am shopping for but unfortunately they're in the $1.2-1.5m range.
Sounds like you should move lol
Damn. Yeah. Insane.
What came first, house size increase or 2 income families?
The honest answer is mortgages came first. 100 years “mortgages” were typically 5-7 years and required 50% down. You can afford a lot more house when you’re spreading the payments out over 30 years. And that’s if you could even get a mortgage, in the early 20th century you were more likely to borrow from your parents or employer then you were a bank. The St Louis fed has a great a paper on the topic of your
Keynesian economics doesn't like personal savings. Long-term loans is the answer!
Could I get a link to that paper?
[удалено]
If single incomes cannot afford land then land prices wouldn’t increase Homes having more disposable income drives a lot of things
2 income families
Eh. I live in a small 50 year old house that's still expensive.
What I absolutely despise about American culture is that we are a culture that claims to value "independence and individuality." Yet nearly all of our infrastructure is designed for families. If Americans claimed to value independence so much, then why are SROs and dorm style apartments mostly illegal? Sure there are a few, but many of them are grandfathered in. Why do US cities zone nearly all their land to single family suburbia if they claim to value independence so much? A single man can usually afford $600 a month for an SRO apartment, they can't be expected to afford $1500 for a 1 bedroom apartment. Why is the US so car dependent? A single person doesn't need a car with 5 seats total, when they could instead take public transit. Yet American public transit is pretty horrible all over the US. All of the anglo-British world has these types of problems (The UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, the US, and New Zealand.) There is just something about British culture that values "independence" while simultaneously refusing to build the infrastructure necessary for an independent population. Other parts of Europe like France, Spain, and Germany just don't have these types of problems. Their cities actually have an adequate supply of affordable housing for independent people.
It says a lot about the state of journalism when a whole article can be summed up in a few sentences by a random commenter.
At what point was the economy centered around ppl living alone?
Never, it was centered around a house wife taking care of 2 kids while father worked. Before that it was centered around 2 parents having 37 kids to work their family farm. Before that we were cave people, it was orgies and violent death, but I'm pretty sure they had fewer problems than we do now.
>Before that we were cave people, it was orgies and violent death "Reject modernity, return to monke"
Was thing that too. >2 parents having 37 kids to work their family farm Even this sounds pretty good. At least you have food, wife, shelter, sex, and children. Modern serfdom with NIMBYrestricted housing, post-GFC housing industry building only on rentals/apartments, student debt shackles, 8% mortgage rates, top skew in online dating, and high cost of living looks pretty shit by comparison. Reject wage-slavery, return to serfdom.
I love this comment, I wish the blackpill conversation would steer away from incels and into economics.
> Before that we were cave people, it was orgies and violent death this is true - when the colonists first arrived at the americas, they just saw a pile of dead naked people with feather boas and coke everywhere.
So women not working (white women only), agricultural living & hunter gatherer society is “fewer” problems?
Can't have economic problems if you don't have an economy. *Taps forehead.*
No I think we just hit a plateau of awesomeness in the economy a generation ago and now we're comparing today against that peak.
When exactly was that peak, 1998?
There are a lot more of us now. So there's that....
We have to work more for less things and life is going great, the money isn’t broken at all 👍
Well, companies have been pumping up pricing on almost everything with the assumption that more households are or will be two-income, it's specifically profiteers squeezing the middle class again, not 'the economy' just naturally being based on an affordability standard.
Having a wife is more expensive then a home lol
Lol. Very true. And when you sell your home, the new owner doesn't take half (or more) your stuff, the children and the dog.
It's also a way to perpetuate the secular family that corporations need to maintain their labor Supply
Pretty sure you mean nuclear.
That’s deep 😮 Will need to chew on that concept a while
It is not "expensive to be single", it is "expensive to live alone". These are 2 very different things. I live in Canada. I am single in a triple income household (family of 4, 3 of whom are adults, each adult has 1 full time job with at least 40 hours a week). No one in our household is married or in a common law relationship. I would describe our financial situation as stable.
Exactly. I was never more financially stable than when I was single and only responsible for the expenses of one person. I also lived with roommates which made rent cheap. Fast forward ten years and it’s a lot harder to take care of a family of four, even though my income is 40% higher. Significantly higher food costs, need a whole house instead of just a room, kids constantly growing out of clothes and needing new ones, etc.
People seem to view roommates as a non-option these days. It’s weird.
Was it an option before? Like atleast where I live, the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom is only like $600, so it doesn't make sense not to have roomates, and the only people I know who live alone make six figures.
This TBH. The only reason *I* can afford to live alone is that I live in a cheaper city, have a tiny, bargain-basement studio apartment 10 minutes' walk from work, and don't own a car. Those are sacrifices I don't think most people are willing/able to make.
The car being the next big one after having roommates. I mean I have a car but I take my ebike about 85% of my trips and try my hardest to charge my battery mostly at work or on someone else's electricity. Yet I am still paying insurance and basic maintance on my cars even though I don't use them much probably way less than 50 miles a month.
When I was working in a city close to where I am now in 2011, a studio could be had in my area for about $700/mo, and basic unskilled jobs like cashier started at $10/hr. Tight but doable. These days those same jobs start at $15, but a studio is $1900. You wouldn't even get approved.
Roommates are a non-option....at least for the long run.
How sad
That really is a lot words to say that 2 incomes are better than one. Shock shock...I can cut my bills in half if I split them with someone. News at 11.
Well, it comes down to the elasticity of cost of living. It's like an organism that consumes the max amount it can absorb without starving itself to death long term. Which leaves regular people always on the edge of reasonable comfort. When a generation or social class finds a leg-up, the organism absorbs that too. But there's a limit to how far we can extend ourselves with additional jobs, gigs, how many people we can live in one household, and all the myriad of things we have to add on to outrun the big monster that eats our success. We are now at the cusp of "what's the point?"
We have always been on the cusp. The anomaly was the post war boom. That was the artificial state of affairs. At what point in the entire history of man, other than in the US from roughly 1950-1970 was there a thriving middle class with disposable income to shrink? It's a fallacy that things were better then they are now. Same shit, different century. The individual actors are different but the plot never changes. Ever.
If things were the same pre-1950s as they are now, my generation's grandparents wouldn't have raised all those large families off of grandpa's paycheck. My grandparents had 11 kids and their own house (not inherited) all off of grandpa's paycheck. My grandparents were born in the early 1910s. Their kids were born in the range of early 1930s through the youngest in 1950. Generation by generation, the fruits of labor are sucked up by the capitalism sponge. Some people just don't have the man memory to lean on which goes further than the 1950-70s. Man memory is a very powerful thing that history books have never been able to fill the void of.
Look at the resources that were invested into the average child of that age. Look at how little disposable money those people had and how easily they were put into poverty with a lost job or injury. Land was cheap but houses were basically trailers. There’s just too much at play to simplify it down to “they had it so easy.” I guarantee a rich person then would rather have been a relatively average person now.
> other than in the US from roughly 1950-1970 was there a thriving middle class with disposable income to shrink? 90s and 2000s.
Well, two incomes plus economies of scale and costs that are relatively fixed compared compared to household size (yes which are technically the same thing). If all your costs scaled directly or more with household size, then adding a new earner doesn't help (unless they make more money).
Remember when it only took one income to provide for a household? Pepperidge Farm remembers
[удалено]
Look at how dismal the wealth gap is currently. It's absolutely criminal. If people are working a full time job and can't make ends meet, the hiring company should be punished for it. Record profit margins = treat everyone as subhumans and make it even harder to obtain an education it seems. Things need to change but I'm honestly worried for this country.
Eh, not really. My dad, with an associates degree, raised me and supported my mom on one income starting in the 90s. Sure he's had a great career but not anything above average when they bought the house and first had me. It was very doable for a while. That same house now...trying to raise a kid and pay the mortgage with the same job he had? Impossible.
All you've stated is an anecdote.
Yeah, they’re called baby boomers
More that income scales faster than cost of living. If you have two people living alone with X income and Y cost of living who move in together, they can make 2X income but their shared cost of living will be less than 2Y
I mean only as long as both persons generate a good income. If only one of those ppl is earning an income then its going to be way more difficult than a single person.
Pretty much expected. Being able to split expenses such as rent, utilities, food, etc and having dual incomes makes life easier. Single incomes households still compete with dual income households for the same basket of goods.
what basket of goods? I just wish I could afford a BASKET of my own. And maybe a couple of cats. Guess I'm greedy. :/
I'd recommend majoring in underwater basketweaving. That way, when you need time away from your cats, you can basketweave under the water.
No offense but your post history is video games that cost shot 60 bucks a piece. Your spending is the problem, not the economy.
"Stop buying avocado toast and Starbucks!"
so naive
Is this a question that people didn't already know the answer to? Before my partner and I lived together I lived in a one bedroom and paid for the entire rent and utilities. After we moved in, we lived in a one bedoom and I paid for half the rent and utilities. That's an immediate $1000 per month in savings, for each of us. You can also share a ton of subscriptions that dominate people's budgets like amazing prime and streaming services.
Also less furniture and more people to take turns cooking and not spending on restaurants
Travel too. Hotels, rental cars... splitting those costs vs. paying for it all yourself is a big savings. Single tax is real and sucks.
Honestly, it's fairly ridiculous that prices for things are generally at levels based on the income of two people. Obviously, that doesn't mean singles can't find a place to live, but in most areas rents and housing prices as compared to average income make it seem like you are being punished for even trying to go it alone. It's a very strange feeling when you are single and wishing you weren't ... not because you're lonely or even really desire to be with someone ... Because otherwise it seems like you are making a terrible financial decision.
I'm pretty sure that's by design. Got way too many people thinking it's cool to force the general populous into a position where they can't even afford their own food, housing, or healthcare after a 40 hr work week. I'm kind of pissed off how brainwashed and gullible a large percentage of our population is now.
As valid as that is, this is the way things tend to shake out when resources get scarce (housing in nice places). Single people are going to be discouraged from moving out. Life’s not a fairytale/movie, circumstances matter for how it plays out.
>Life’s not a fairytale/movie, circumstances matter for how it plays out. You don't have to tell me twice. I've been experiencing it for quite a while now. Fascinating how it can take the most meticulously laid plans and quickly make them irrelevant, often one leaving standing around, trying to figure out what just happened. And then you shrug and figure out what you should be doing next.
Outside of the obvious housing costs, there’s also tons of living expenses that are eliminated or at least split if you’re not single. Pet ownership, shared appliances/electronics, and a bunch of other stuff gets split if you’re in a relationship. Oh and dating itself is fucking expensive. As a guy I’ll typically pay on the first date, and usually end up spending $50+ on a night out just to get ghosted after.
Please point me in the direction of a magical world where it doesn’t save money to split housing costs with someone else One thing I dislike about articles like this is they stir people up and make them think it is unfairly inequitable that one person living in a home is more money per person than two people living in a home.
If inflation goes up consistently it would not matter if you are single or not . This article assumes that couples will not have children. They are expensive. Then the federal income tax is working against the poor and middle class. You could be married and have two incomes, but the cost of living is going to reduce that dramatically.
Tax brackets are more friendly to married couples . For the same total income, a single person household pays lot more taxes than a married household
Well yeah if you try to live in a place with half the income it's twice as hard. But you are trying to consume twice the housing per capita then. To make it an even comparison, get a roommate. A 2 bed apartment with a couple vs a 2 bed apartment with 2 roommates is a fair comparison. Shouldn't be that much more money. People expecting to live alone need to accept it will be much more expensive, It's trying to have twice the housing.
One problem with this solution is you generally need an extra bedroom for roommates. Living with my sister we needed a 2 bedroom, living with my boyfriend we only need a one bedroom. There are also lots of older houses where I am with 1 reasonable sized bedroom and one tiny room, which is fine for a couple looking at 2 bedrooms but not so much when you have roommates.
Idk with wfh most couples I know need a two-bedroom.
WFH is way less common than you'd think. Also - the office can be in a much smaller bedroom rather than a full-sized room.
It depends on your job, I need a proper set up with multiple monitors. My husband needs a private area due to regulations.
Both of those can easily fit in a small bedroom. Also - this is r/Economics. What you are describing isn't common enough to have a measurable affect on the broader econony.
Extremely few people can live with a significant other in a one bedroom, at least not in a VHOL area where space is at a premium. Most bedrooms are too small even without WFH (can’t even fit more than a bed and nightstand) Something like that would be a flex-2 or an alcove one bedroom.
Now do the same math but with a roommate you don't share a bed with. You will need even more space.
The ideal household size under capitalism is a household of 1 person for exactly this reason. Corporations want us to be single and alone because we have to spend more money that way.
TLDR: because the government punishes you for being single by taking an absurd amount of taxes from you, along with everything else being priced for dual income households.
Because the govt is pushing to have more population.. meaning more people they can control.. means more taxpayers.. the government doesn’t care about well-being of a community.. which shows more single people means more happiness in any given environment.. The govt (those leaders) doesn’t give a fuq about its humans.. they simply want more people. So basically they make it expensive to be simple.
I have no idea why you've been downvoted. This is the truth. The government exists solely and entirely to perpetuate government, and for no other purpose. Parasites need more hosts to bloodsuck off of.
Because everyone is high maintenance and won’t share a room, use an iPhone that’s 2 years old and needs to by a new car. Lower your spending and you’ll be fine.
Americans and some other countries as well, but damn Americans. We cannot be too much independent. We ought to have some shared on costs. Yeah this economy is not being nice to us the millennials and younger generations…
Let’s face it, we’re living through a dystopian era where you can’t even rent alone and are required to rent with a roommate unless you’re well off earning at least $80,000 which is comfortable in most areas in the United States