The reason why single earner households can't afford a house on a single earner wage isn't because houses got 2x harder to build, or a single earner got half as productive. It's because there's only so many houses (land) available, and therefore the people with money (mostly 2 earner households) bid up the price until the people who can afford it equal the number of houses available. So yes, those people "with 'traditional values' or whatever" could certainly get that implemented, but that'll involve banning women from the workplace (or similar legislation to prevent 2 earner households from out-bidding 1 earner households).
Here is a radical idea. Build more houses. Maybe put them on top of each other so they don't have to be so far away from jobs. American love complaining about the inefficiencies of centrally planned economies, but then make one of the most important aspects of the economy, where people can live and work, into a entirely centralized way of doing.
>Here is a radical idea. Build more houses. Maybe put them on top of each other so they don't have to be so far away from jobs.
No disagreement here.
>American love complaining about the inefficiencies of centrally planned economies, but then make one of the most important aspects of the economy, where people can live and work, into a entirely centralized way of doing.
Are they really centralized? NIMBYs aren't some cabal of shadowy billionaires, they're a grassroots effort by local residents. By that definition it's quite decentralized.
At the end of the day there are less houses than people, so somebody's going to be priced out of a house. However, the law stipulates that wages must be raised so that everyone can afford a house. Immovable object, meet unstoppable force.
I think it is more likely that some types of industry would become non-viable in really high property value areas (of course this is already the case). This might reduce demand for housing in an area (who's going to live in a town without a decent coffee shop?), so I guess some equilibrium would eventually be established.
Dual-income families are because of equality, not poverty. When women earn nearly the same pay, it's worth it for them to work (and hire childcare) because then you can use the money to buy stuff.
When they don't work, it's because it wouldn't allow the household to buy more stuff on the margin - but rather than "spouse earns so much their income doesn't matter", it's more likely "they wouldn't earn enough to pay for the services they have to hire". Which is a bad thing.
In general? Yeah, I'm sure both factors are considered in many cases (as well as things like keeping long term career options open). But this thread was specifically about where the floor for minimum wage should be set. If it is set to a point where a couple can just afford a place to live with two workers, then the decision is by definition made based on poverty, right?
