Ben there is a disadvantage in having to have both parents working today. It's the fact that Mother is not home when the kids return from school. In the digital age the kids get wrapped up in social media that has its own disadvantages.
In Australia, in 1908 the minimum wage was set at a figure that it could support a stay-at-home wife and three children in a rented house at that time. Is that possible today?
The most meaningful way to look at the cost of housing, at least to me, is the number of years of income required to buy the cheapest two-bedroom, one bathroom house. For a rental, what proportion of the minimum wage is required to rent a house that rates in the bottom 10% of rental values.
Granted a two bed one bathroom house will be a different thing after a long interval of time. Can't do much about that except say that what is provided may be accepted as meeting the minimum standard that the society accepts at the time.
There is another consideration worth thinking about. 100 years ago, you could obtain what you needed to survive within walking range of your residence. Now you need a car to get to a shopping centre. So, part of the cost of the car is involved in meeting the family needs. Secondly, 100 years ago there was no zoning to separate home from work. Today, a lot of travel is required in draining circumstances to get to and from work. So, again, it's not just the house but the car that needs to be taken into consideration. Then consider the opportunity cost of the time lost in travel and what that means in terms of family time foregone.
Hours of work? It gets complicated!
If parents are not in a position to support children and the birth rate falls below replacement levels, this could be considered as an indicative of falling living standards.
If we changed the way towns are set up so that they are more convenient, more social and community support is more readily available, and the birth rate went up I suggest that living standards have improved.
So, it's worthwhile considering the nature of the town planning arrangements and how that impacts the ability of communities to function effectively. In my view, much that has been done by planners that enabled families to live in zones that were dedicated to residential use alone, has been counterproductive. Urban sprawl produces isolation and loneliness and fails to consider the needs of children for safe play space and their ability to find mentors outside the home.
Seriously. You are comparing a single earner household to a double earner household?
Ben there is a disadvantage in having to have both parents working today. It's the fact that Mother is not home when the kids return from school. In the digital age the kids get wrapped up in social media that has its own disadvantages.
In Australia, in 1908 the minimum wage was set at a figure that it could support a stay-at-home wife and three children in a rented house at that time. Is that possible today?
The most meaningful way to look at the cost of housing, at least to me, is the number of years of income required to buy the cheapest two-bedroom, one bathroom house. For a rental, what proportion of the minimum wage is required to rent a house that rates in the bottom 10% of rental values.
Granted a two bed one bathroom house will be a different thing after a long interval of time. Can't do much about that except say that what is provided may be accepted as meeting the minimum standard that the society accepts at the time.
There is another consideration worth thinking about. 100 years ago, you could obtain what you needed to survive within walking range of your residence. Now you need a car to get to a shopping centre. So, part of the cost of the car is involved in meeting the family needs. Secondly, 100 years ago there was no zoning to separate home from work. Today, a lot of travel is required in draining circumstances to get to and from work. So, again, it's not just the house but the car that needs to be taken into consideration. Then consider the opportunity cost of the time lost in travel and what that means in terms of family time foregone.
Hours of work? It gets complicated!
If parents are not in a position to support children and the birth rate falls below replacement levels, this could be considered as an indicative of falling living standards.
If we changed the way towns are set up so that they are more convenient, more social and community support is more readily available, and the birth rate went up I suggest that living standards have improved.
So, it's worthwhile considering the nature of the town planning arrangements and how that impacts the ability of communities to function effectively. In my view, much that has been done by planners that enabled families to live in zones that were dedicated to residential use alone, has been counterproductive. Urban sprawl produces isolation and loneliness and fails to consider the needs of children for safe play space and their ability to find mentors outside the home.