An interesting post circulated within a social media group that I am part of a few days ago. The hook in the story was how marriage and home ownership among 30-year-olds have dropped off a cliff since 1990. The chart below was provided for a visual representation of the surface-level reality. As you can see, activity is traced from 1950 forward. There is a slight decrease from 1960-1990, followed by a steep dive to today.
The graph was used to make the point of a culture in decline, perhaps one that is dying out but has yet to realize it. Marriage typically leads to children and a perpetuation of society. Home ownership signals an investment in that society’s perpetuation as well as being a major individual asset. But that graph also relies on absolute comparisons rather than relative differences in life now vs. life 50, 60, or 70 years ago.
The graph is also an offshoot of a common theme that features statements such as “A family in the 70s could do A, B, and C on one salary” or “A person could work a minimum wage job for an entire summer and afford the following year’s college tuition.” Those arguments may be technically true, but they are far from accurate as they ignore a series of dramatic changes that have occurred during this timespan.
Before the question of being married comes up, there is the question of being ready for it and two perspectives to consider. The first is age. When I graduated from high school eons ago, people marrying at 19 or 20 was not unusual. It was even more common in the 50s and 60s. Today, the median age for first marriages is about 30. That’s not a small difference, and it undermines the narrative in the chart. When one of the two conditions under review is not being met, it is a good bet that the other condition will not be satisfied, either.
The second part of this point is financial readiness for marriage. Those 19- and 20-year-olds had jobs in what are euphemistically called the skilled trades, jobs that they could pursue for the entirety of their working lives. Ironically, interest in these occupations is rising again in conjunction with another modern concern - student loan debt. That was not an issue decades ago. College itself was not the norm then, either, but those who graduated typically did so debt-free. When I started school, tuition for the academic year was $600. Today, student loans are often the equivalent of a small mortgage.
The third factor is the dramatic change in the nature of housing and the expectations of potential buyers. In my youth, the three-bed/two-bath 1,500 square foot home that housed anywhere from 3-6 people was the norm. Students in my college town chose between spartan dorms and tiny off-campus apartments, the ones where the kitchen/dining room/living room combo was roughly a 15 x 15 space. Today, they live in swanky mid-rise complexes with the latest amenities.
When you have granite countertops, fire pits, grills, 24/7 security, and recreational areas at age 20, how can anyone convince you to take a step down in creature comforts for the sake of being able to claim homeownership? Also, what used to be called starter homes no longer exist. Just watch a random episode of House Hunters where Joe, an EMT, and Buffy, a nail tech, somehow have a combined budget of $500-thousand and treat their first home purchase as if it will be their last. The idea of growing into a home along with one’s income and family size is as outdated as Formica and avocado appliances.
Fourth and last is the explosion in things that compete for people’s discretionary income. Talking about the broader topic with a co-worker led to various kitchen gadgets, specifically the microwave, air fryer, and the Instant Pot, none of which existed in the 60s or 70s. The same can be said of an endless list of other consumer goods, but that factor is never included in the discussion. The question centers solely on the rise of home prices vs. the rise in wages, with no thought given to the multitude of new gadgets, widgets, and toys competing for wallet share.
An absolute comparison of life today with that of the 1970s requires living and spending like people did back then. Scratch the daily trip to Starbucks since the chain did not yet exist. Curtail eating out to maybe once a week. Forget about multiple streaming subscriptions, a smart fridge, or devices in every room for every member of the household. Of course, no one wants to do that, but those things are as much a part of the equation as the rising cost of land and materials.
The base argument – that getting married and owning a home are important building blocks for a stable and lasting society – is a good one, but making it requires more than balky and simplistic comparisons. There is a complicated matrix of issues to consider:
· Govt meddling that artificially restricts housing supply, whether through regulations that prevent new construction, or interest rates that make it unattractive for older homeowners to sell and downsize, and challenging for first-time buyers who remember 2-3% loans. Yes, I realize loans were never that cheap before but this is what today’s prospects saw while growing up.
· Individual factors, whether it’s pushing back the age of adulthood with young people remaining on their parents’ insurance until age 26 or young folks themselves growing up at a slower pace. And for those who mature on a normal curve, many have unrealistic expectations of what a first home should look like.
· General uncertainty about the future, whether that means the unforeseen impact of AI on how people live and work, the eroding belief in and desire for having a family, and a challenging dating scene.
The world today is nothing like it was in the 60s and 70s. It bears only a scant resemblance to the 90s, so comparisons of raw numbers across the timeline tell only a partial story. Complaining about what used to be possible with can be done today misses the point, and that looks intentional.
The abundance of convenience, coupled with the absence of genuine adversity for the great majority of Americans, has created an “I want it all and I want it now” mentality that was never possible. Things like sacrifice, saving, and struggle, however one defines the latter, have little place in the modern world, and their absence makes the current trend more likely than less to continue.
Agreed. So much of the complaining focuses on shifting blame elsewhere - and in particular where it doesn't belong. Yes, a couple can own a home and raise a family on one income if they are willing to live within the means to do so - and yes, people of half a century ago lived much more modestly. And, yes, the high cost of many things are directly traceable to government distortion.
What we hear is that government needs to fix (what it broke), and that someone else needs to pay for people having their lifestyles *and* their homes on one income.
It's always been about choice. We seem to live in a "gimme, gimme, gimme" society. So many more toys and distractions. I remember being surprised when I first found out there were 3 bedroom apartments! It seemed renting a home would be cheaper and many were rent to own. Then again, the maintenance and repairs were a deterrent to some. My parents bought their first house, a little 2 bedroom, in 1939. They borrowed the down payment from my uncle and the payment was $12.00 a month. Many things changed with the war in Europe and our ultimate involvement. I agree, the chart is very misleading. As many are.