This narrative in this tweet makes absolutely no sense. It seems to me that life is just as easy/difficult now as it was then
The percentage of 25-34y old living with parents or relatives in the US - 1970: 11% 2020: 29%
- Thread starter OfTheCross
- Start date
This narrative in this tweet makes absolutely no sense. It seems to me that life is just as easy/difficult now as it was then
well it seems that instead of getting married and living with a spouse which is what was the only option back in the 70s 80- and maybe part of the 90s for young adults
instead thats really gone down and any alternative to that has resulted in an increase with choosing to live with parents or relatives ...
and in many nations young adults usually have to stay at home or return home so ....
instead thats really gone down and any alternative to that has resulted in an increase with choosing to live with parents or relatives ...
and in many nations young adults usually have to stay at home or return home so ....
JetFueledThoughts
Superstar
I’m more surprised that only 6% of people 24-35 YO are living w/ a roommate.
A core part of my early-mid 20s was living w/ a roommate until I matured into wanting to live alone.
A core part of my early-mid 20s was living w/ a roommate until I matured into wanting to live alone.
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
yea, i found that weird, but then recognized it's only the HCOL metros where the roommate thing is pervasive. like all my friends who left the bay after college and went to places like chicago, houston, even atlanta back were able to buy condos/townhomes or rent solo. while the people in LA, SF, DC, NY were at home or with roommates
JetFueledThoughts
Superstar
Ya know now that I think of it I live in Atlanta and I started living solo at 26 - 27
So maybe it isn’t that weird
Fillerguy
Veteran
This narrative in this tweet makes absolutely no sense. It seems to me that life is just as easy/difficult now as it was then
How so. If wages haven't changed yet inflation has increased, how are things the same?
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Because he is an idiot who lives life with his head in the sand. He is still denying inflation is happening.
JetFueledThoughts
Superstar
I think he’s just a devil’s advocate troll. He made a thread a few months ago saying teachers were actually overpaid
More people are living alone...and the only difference really is that the number of couples went down, while the number of people staying home went up by the same amount.
People just aren't finding love out here
More like women aren't trading the puss for a new residence and instead they are thirstrapping stans for onlyfans donations and hooking up sponsors to pay thier rent ...More people are living alone...and the only difference really is that the number of couples went down, while the number of people staying home went up by the same amount.
People just aren't finding love out here
look at that 'living with spouse' drop.
Found this as I was researching it that I thought was interesting.
www.latimes.com
Few ideas are so deeply embedded in popular consciousness and political debate as what I’ll call the “two-earner myth.” It holds that two workers--a husband and a wife--are now needed to make the same income that one worker, the husband, attained in the 1950s and ‘60s. Women have flooded into the labor market, the theory holds, mostly to offset the lost earnings of their husbands. Her income gets the couple back to where it would have been if his wages weren’t dropping.
The theory has broad appeal. Conservatives see it as one reason that “traditional” families are under assault; liberals view it as a pretext for aggressive government programs to raise economic growth. But the theory is mostly bogus, though not the feelings that go with it. Here’s what actually has happened:
* Women didn’t initially enter the job market to make up losses in their husbands’ salaries. The influx began in the 1950s, two decades before any slowdown in men’s wages. Between 1950 and 1970, the proportion of wives with paid jobs rose from 23% to 39%. By 1995, it was 61%. Maybe the pioneer working wives of the ‘50s and ‘60s sought to raise their families’ incomes; if so, the reason wasn’t their husbands’ falling wages. Most wages rose rapidly during these decades.
* Since the early 1970s, men’s wage growth has slowed.
But the increase in wives with jobs is concentrated among upper-income couples, precisely those who need the extra money least. Among the richest fifth of husbands, the share of working wives rose from 45% to 71% between 1973 and 1993, reports economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. Wealthier husbands not only earn more, but their wages and salaries have shown the best gains. By contrast, wages for many low-skilled workers have dropped (after adjusting for inflation).
* The “real” incomes of most two-earner couples have consistently risen. Among poorer workers, wives’ earnings may offset some drop in their husbands’ wages, but that isn’t true at the top of the income spectrum or probably in the middle. In 1995, the median two-earner couple--the one in the middle of the income distribution--made $55,823, about 23% more in “real” dollars than a similar couple in 1970, says the Census Bureau.
If men’s wages suddenly surged, some wives might stampede back into the kitchen. Most would not. We’ve had an upheaval in attitudes and customs. Call it feminism, call it ambition, call it anything. Most women--and most men, too--now think that women should have the chance to work and pursue a career. In 1945, that wasn’t true. As a society, we’ve created more social choices. In general, this is progress. It gives people more freedom to live as they see fit. But the new choices have spawned new anxieties, complaints and consequences.
One unexpected surprise is more economic inequality. Well-paid workers increasingly marry each other and dominate the top of the income spectrum, while poorly paid workers increasingly don’t marry (or don’t have a two-income marriage) and drift toward the bottom. Between 1970 and 1995, the share of families with only a single mother rose from 11% to 18%. Since the late 1970s, these changes may explain about half of the increase in family income inequality, estimate Burtless and economist Lynn Karoly of the Rand Corp.
Another unintended consequence is that families do increasingly need two earners for a middle-class lifestyle, while only one was required for the 1950s’ or 1960s’ version. But here’s the catch: Today’s middle-class lifestyle is a lot richer. If people want to duplicate their parents’ lifestyles, they can unplug their air conditioners, sell one of their cars, discard their VCRs and PCs and stop sending all their kids to college. As more wives work, the two-earner couple becomes the norm. Couples still can have one partner stay at home, but only if they don’t mind sliding down the income ladder or are exceptionally rich.
Everyone wonders how Mom and Dad could have done it all while Mom stayed at home. One reason is that Mom and Dad didn’t live so well, materially at least. Another reason is that Mom didn’t have much choice--and may occasionally have yearned to do something aside from making the bed, checking the homework and cooking dinner.
The larger point is that the dilemmas of the two-earner couple don’t arise mainly because incomes are growing slowly. People compare themselves to people like themselves. As more women work, the comparisons adjust quietly. It’s women’s wages, more than men’s, that create pressures for women to work. We have more choices now than ever, but they aren’t necessarily easier.
Found this as I was researching it that I thought was interesting.
Debunking the Two-Earner Family Myth
Economy: More women are working, but making up for drops in their husbands' wages is not the main impetus.
www.latimes.com
Few ideas are so deeply embedded in popular consciousness and political debate as what I’ll call the “two-earner myth.” It holds that two workers--a husband and a wife--are now needed to make the same income that one worker, the husband, attained in the 1950s and ‘60s. Women have flooded into the labor market, the theory holds, mostly to offset the lost earnings of their husbands. Her income gets the couple back to where it would have been if his wages weren’t dropping.
The theory has broad appeal. Conservatives see it as one reason that “traditional” families are under assault; liberals view it as a pretext for aggressive government programs to raise economic growth. But the theory is mostly bogus, though not the feelings that go with it. Here’s what actually has happened:
* Women didn’t initially enter the job market to make up losses in their husbands’ salaries. The influx began in the 1950s, two decades before any slowdown in men’s wages. Between 1950 and 1970, the proportion of wives with paid jobs rose from 23% to 39%. By 1995, it was 61%. Maybe the pioneer working wives of the ‘50s and ‘60s sought to raise their families’ incomes; if so, the reason wasn’t their husbands’ falling wages. Most wages rose rapidly during these decades.
* Since the early 1970s, men’s wage growth has slowed.
But the increase in wives with jobs is concentrated among upper-income couples, precisely those who need the extra money least. Among the richest fifth of husbands, the share of working wives rose from 45% to 71% between 1973 and 1993, reports economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. Wealthier husbands not only earn more, but their wages and salaries have shown the best gains. By contrast, wages for many low-skilled workers have dropped (after adjusting for inflation).
* The “real” incomes of most two-earner couples have consistently risen. Among poorer workers, wives’ earnings may offset some drop in their husbands’ wages, but that isn’t true at the top of the income spectrum or probably in the middle. In 1995, the median two-earner couple--the one in the middle of the income distribution--made $55,823, about 23% more in “real” dollars than a similar couple in 1970, says the Census Bureau.
If men’s wages suddenly surged, some wives might stampede back into the kitchen. Most would not. We’ve had an upheaval in attitudes and customs. Call it feminism, call it ambition, call it anything. Most women--and most men, too--now think that women should have the chance to work and pursue a career. In 1945, that wasn’t true. As a society, we’ve created more social choices. In general, this is progress. It gives people more freedom to live as they see fit. But the new choices have spawned new anxieties, complaints and consequences.
One unexpected surprise is more economic inequality. Well-paid workers increasingly marry each other and dominate the top of the income spectrum, while poorly paid workers increasingly don’t marry (or don’t have a two-income marriage) and drift toward the bottom. Between 1970 and 1995, the share of families with only a single mother rose from 11% to 18%. Since the late 1970s, these changes may explain about half of the increase in family income inequality, estimate Burtless and economist Lynn Karoly of the Rand Corp.
Another unintended consequence is that families do increasingly need two earners for a middle-class lifestyle, while only one was required for the 1950s’ or 1960s’ version. But here’s the catch: Today’s middle-class lifestyle is a lot richer. If people want to duplicate their parents’ lifestyles, they can unplug their air conditioners, sell one of their cars, discard their VCRs and PCs and stop sending all their kids to college. As more wives work, the two-earner couple becomes the norm. Couples still can have one partner stay at home, but only if they don’t mind sliding down the income ladder or are exceptionally rich.
Everyone wonders how Mom and Dad could have done it all while Mom stayed at home. One reason is that Mom and Dad didn’t live so well, materially at least. Another reason is that Mom didn’t have much choice--and may occasionally have yearned to do something aside from making the bed, checking the homework and cooking dinner.
The larger point is that the dilemmas of the two-earner couple don’t arise mainly because incomes are growing slowly. People compare themselves to people like themselves. As more women work, the comparisons adjust quietly. It’s women’s wages, more than men’s, that create pressures for women to work. We have more choices now than ever, but they aren’t necessarily easier.
I don't think it's that. Onlyfans is only another symptom to all of this. The problem is pay and the cost of living. My piece of shyt basic apartment is cheap, but even if you have a good shift and hours at Walmart, you may have a problem affording it. A former boss detailed his life in the early 70s. Graduated from college in 72. Was already married and his wife still had a year left. With his basic entry level mail room job, he was still able to pay rent, car insurance, bills, his wife's tuition, gas for the car, groceries, and have enough for a movie or a night of bowling. It's not so much that women aren't trading the puss now. But people are only as moral, or whatever, as their options. When rent out here can be $2220 a month, even if you trade the puss for a new residence, many will still be struggling.
SleezyBigSlim
Banned
Cost of living is a lot higher rent is super high now. No adult lives at home unless they have to. Add to that a lot of parents oppress their own children so they stay home and help pay thier bills. I know a lot of families doing that kinda fukk shyt. Poverty breeds jealousy and envy against their own children you hate to see it.
Not to swoop in out of context and derail a thread but…that’s not a crazy premise. Any profession where practically anyone can come in and fill a position, and schools are desperate for the position, is not gonna be high paid. The argument for paying teachers more has always been based on emotion, not reasonable hiring trends or realityI think he’s just a devil’s advocate troll. He made a thread a few months ago saying teachers were actually overpaid