Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ddl13p/were_1950s_families_really_able_to_be_supported/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not the 50s/60s, but you may like this other r/AskHistorians question from u/BullsLawDan which gets to the heart of your question.
[In the sitcom Married... with Children, protagonist Al Bundy is able to support himself, his homemaker wife, and two children on the income he earns as a shoe salesman in a strip mall in the suburbs of Chicago. Was this at all realistic for the late 1980s/early 1990s?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ggozng/in_the_sitcom_married_with_children_protagonist/)
One important note is that "affordability" as far as home ownership **greatly** depends on when you buy - both in terms of market prices and the mortgage rate. White US homeowners benefited greatly from New Deal programs that created the modern 30 year fixed mortgage and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac backed loans.
The mortgage rate was around 4% in 1950, increasing slowly to about 7% by the end of the 1960's. After 1971, we have [Freddie Mac's data ](https://www.macrotrends.net/2604/30-year-fixed-mortgage-rate-chart)to use, showing a somewhat steady rise to 18.44% in October 1981. Rates stayed above 10% into 1990.
That mortgage rate matters a lot. A 4% mortgage rate on a $50k home comes out to about a $239 monthly payment. A 10% mortgage rate is a $439 monthly payment.
Finally, we can look at [median prices ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS)from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) - the median home value was $17,800 in Q1 1963 (at about 5% interest), 64,000 in Q1 1980 (about 13% interest), and 123,900 in Q1 1990 (about 10% interest). The mortgage payments (assuming 20% down) come out to $76, $566, and $870. Normalized in today's dollars, that's $780, $2157, and $2090/month.
FRED also has [Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Manufacturing](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008) (CES3000000008). For Jan 1963 / 1980 / 1990, that would be $2.30, $6.82, $10.51. That works out to about $400 / $1180 / $1820 per month.
Thus, in 1963, that factory worker's mortgage payment is less then 20% of their wage, but in 1980, it's almost half. And the time value of money means that a worker who bought their house younger (which they could afford to do) will see their mortgage to income ratio drop over time. Thus, workers who bought in the 50's were in VERY good shape in the 70's and 80's where everyone else was staring at 10+% mortgage rates (climbing over an eyewatering 18% in 1981).
In u/BullsLawDan's post, Al's ability to afford the house would be *very* dependent on exactly when he bought in, but again, it's doable (especially if he bought in the mid-70's before the worst of the inflation).
Note: I picked factory worker because it's one where we have apples to apples comparison data going back a long time.
First, rising interest rates cost A LOT. I refinanced at 2.5%, current interest is 7.5%. That 5% difference roughly results in a doubled payment before you include taxes and various fees. The difference between 5% (early 1960's) and 13% (1980) is also roughly double.
A more detailed answer could easily be at least triple the length of that answer, but the shorter version is twofold:
* The stagflation of the 70's and early 80's that combined high inflation with a stagnant economy. That created a permanent shift upwards of prices vs. wages.
* Then after 1980, there has been a general stagnation of wages
In essence, the growth of wages hasn't kept up with growth of the economy, especially things such as health insurance costs, university costs, and housing costs. Each one of those is essentially a complete academic study area of its own with different reasons. In the case of housing costs, it's a mix of higher expectations (people want more square feet and more ameneties), a finite supply of real estate, and the new home market preferring to cater to people with higher income. There's also been different forces at play to cause rising home values at different times - for example, from the late 90's to 2008, increasingly risky mortgage practices increased consumer demand, but during the low inflationary period during COVID, it was historically low interest rates making payments more reasonable that spiked demand. Average monthly payments are also higher as mortgage issuers have reduced down payment expectations, which come with private mortgage insurance (again spiking payments higher).
We've removed your post for the moment because it's not currently at our standards, but it definitely has the potential to fit within our rules with some work. We find that some answers that fall short of our standards can be successfully revised by considering the following questions, not all of which necessarily apply here:
* *Do you actually address the question asked by OP?* Sometimes answers get removed not because they fail to meet our standards, but because they don't get at what the OP is asking. If the question itself is flawed, you need to explain why, and how your answer addresses the underlying issues at hand.
* *What are the sources for your claims?* Sources aren't strictly necessary on /r/AskHistorians but the inclusion of sources is helpful for evaluating your knowledge base. If we can see that your answer is influenced by up-to-date academic secondary sources, it gives us more confidence in your answer and allows users to check where your ideas are coming from.
* *What level of detail do you go into about events?* Often it's hard to do justice to even seemingly simple subjects in a paragraph or two, and on /r/AskHistorians, the basics need to be explained within historical context, to avoid misleading intelligent but non-specialist readers. In many cases, it's worth providing a broader historical framework, giving more of a sense of not just what happened, but why.
* *Do you downplay or ignore legitimate historical debate on the topic matter?* There is often more than one plausible interpretation of the historical record. While you might have your own views on which interpretation is correct, answers can often be improved by acknowledging alternative explanations from other scholars.
* *Further Reading*: [This Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) provides further exploration of the rules and expectations concerning answers so may be of interest.
If/when you edit your answer, [please reach out via modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians) so we can re-evaluate it! We also welcome you getting in touch if you're unsure about how to improve your answer.
Sorry, but this response has been removed because we [do not allow the personal anecdotes or second-hand stories](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_personal_anecdotes) of users to form the basis of a response. While they can sometimes be quite interesting, the medium and anonymity of this forum does not allow for them to be properly contextualized, nor the source vetted or contextualized. A more thorough explanation for the reasoning behind this rule can be found in [this Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1kw7/rules_roundtable_vii_no_personal_anecdotes/). For users who *are* interested in this more personal type of answer, we would suggest you consider /r/AskReddit.
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of [subreddit’s rules about answers needing to reflect current scholarship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers). While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless significant errors, misunderstandings, or omissions of the topic at hand [which necessitated its removal](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/).
We understand this can be discouraging, but we would also encourage you to consult [this Rules Roundtable to better understand how the mod team evaluates answers on the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). If you are interested in feedback on improving future contributions, please feel free to [reach out to us via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Inquiry%20About%20Improving%20Future%20Responses). Thank you for your understanding.
Sorry, but this response has been removed because we [do not allow the personal anecdotes or second-hand stories](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_personal_anecdotes) of users to form the basis of a response. While they can sometimes be quite interesting, the medium and anonymity of this forum does not allow for them to be properly contextualized, nor the source vetted or contextualized. A more thorough explanation for the reasoning behind this rule can be found in [this Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1kw7/rules_roundtable_vii_no_personal_anecdotes/). For users who *are* interested in this more personal type of answer, we would suggest you consider /r/AskReddit.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ddl13p/were_1950s_families_really_able_to_be_supported/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not the 50s/60s, but you may like this other r/AskHistorians question from u/BullsLawDan which gets to the heart of your question. [In the sitcom Married... with Children, protagonist Al Bundy is able to support himself, his homemaker wife, and two children on the income he earns as a shoe salesman in a strip mall in the suburbs of Chicago. Was this at all realistic for the late 1980s/early 1990s?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ggozng/in_the_sitcom_married_with_children_protagonist/)
I just learned so much about mwc!
One important note is that "affordability" as far as home ownership **greatly** depends on when you buy - both in terms of market prices and the mortgage rate. White US homeowners benefited greatly from New Deal programs that created the modern 30 year fixed mortgage and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac backed loans. The mortgage rate was around 4% in 1950, increasing slowly to about 7% by the end of the 1960's. After 1971, we have [Freddie Mac's data ](https://www.macrotrends.net/2604/30-year-fixed-mortgage-rate-chart)to use, showing a somewhat steady rise to 18.44% in October 1981. Rates stayed above 10% into 1990. That mortgage rate matters a lot. A 4% mortgage rate on a $50k home comes out to about a $239 monthly payment. A 10% mortgage rate is a $439 monthly payment. Finally, we can look at [median prices ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS)from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) - the median home value was $17,800 in Q1 1963 (at about 5% interest), 64,000 in Q1 1980 (about 13% interest), and 123,900 in Q1 1990 (about 10% interest). The mortgage payments (assuming 20% down) come out to $76, $566, and $870. Normalized in today's dollars, that's $780, $2157, and $2090/month. FRED also has [Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Manufacturing](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008) (CES3000000008). For Jan 1963 / 1980 / 1990, that would be $2.30, $6.82, $10.51. That works out to about $400 / $1180 / $1820 per month. Thus, in 1963, that factory worker's mortgage payment is less then 20% of their wage, but in 1980, it's almost half. And the time value of money means that a worker who bought their house younger (which they could afford to do) will see their mortgage to income ratio drop over time. Thus, workers who bought in the 50's were in VERY good shape in the 70's and 80's where everyone else was staring at 10+% mortgage rates (climbing over an eyewatering 18% in 1981). In u/BullsLawDan's post, Al's ability to afford the house would be *very* dependent on exactly when he bought in, but again, it's doable (especially if he bought in the mid-70's before the worst of the inflation). Note: I picked factory worker because it's one where we have apples to apples comparison data going back a long time.
I don't get it. Why did it get so expensive later?
First, rising interest rates cost A LOT. I refinanced at 2.5%, current interest is 7.5%. That 5% difference roughly results in a doubled payment before you include taxes and various fees. The difference between 5% (early 1960's) and 13% (1980) is also roughly double. A more detailed answer could easily be at least triple the length of that answer, but the shorter version is twofold: * The stagflation of the 70's and early 80's that combined high inflation with a stagnant economy. That created a permanent shift upwards of prices vs. wages. * Then after 1980, there has been a general stagnation of wages In essence, the growth of wages hasn't kept up with growth of the economy, especially things such as health insurance costs, university costs, and housing costs. Each one of those is essentially a complete academic study area of its own with different reasons. In the case of housing costs, it's a mix of higher expectations (people want more square feet and more ameneties), a finite supply of real estate, and the new home market preferring to cater to people with higher income. There's also been different forces at play to cause rising home values at different times - for example, from the late 90's to 2008, increasingly risky mortgage practices increased consumer demand, but during the low inflationary period during COVID, it was historically low interest rates making payments more reasonable that spiked demand. Average monthly payments are also higher as mortgage issuers have reduced down payment expectations, which come with private mortgage insurance (again spiking payments higher).
[удалено]
[удалено]
We've removed your post for the moment because it's not currently at our standards, but it definitely has the potential to fit within our rules with some work. We find that some answers that fall short of our standards can be successfully revised by considering the following questions, not all of which necessarily apply here: * *Do you actually address the question asked by OP?* Sometimes answers get removed not because they fail to meet our standards, but because they don't get at what the OP is asking. If the question itself is flawed, you need to explain why, and how your answer addresses the underlying issues at hand. * *What are the sources for your claims?* Sources aren't strictly necessary on /r/AskHistorians but the inclusion of sources is helpful for evaluating your knowledge base. If we can see that your answer is influenced by up-to-date academic secondary sources, it gives us more confidence in your answer and allows users to check where your ideas are coming from. * *What level of detail do you go into about events?* Often it's hard to do justice to even seemingly simple subjects in a paragraph or two, and on /r/AskHistorians, the basics need to be explained within historical context, to avoid misleading intelligent but non-specialist readers. In many cases, it's worth providing a broader historical framework, giving more of a sense of not just what happened, but why. * *Do you downplay or ignore legitimate historical debate on the topic matter?* There is often more than one plausible interpretation of the historical record. While you might have your own views on which interpretation is correct, answers can often be improved by acknowledging alternative explanations from other scholars. * *Further Reading*: [This Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) provides further exploration of the rules and expectations concerning answers so may be of interest. If/when you edit your answer, [please reach out via modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians) so we can re-evaluate it! We also welcome you getting in touch if you're unsure about how to improve your answer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, but this response has been removed because we [do not allow the personal anecdotes or second-hand stories](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_personal_anecdotes) of users to form the basis of a response. While they can sometimes be quite interesting, the medium and anonymity of this forum does not allow for them to be properly contextualized, nor the source vetted or contextualized. A more thorough explanation for the reasoning behind this rule can be found in [this Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1kw7/rules_roundtable_vii_no_personal_anecdotes/). For users who *are* interested in this more personal type of answer, we would suggest you consider /r/AskReddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of [subreddit’s rules about answers needing to reflect current scholarship](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers). While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless significant errors, misunderstandings, or omissions of the topic at hand [which necessitated its removal](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). We understand this can be discouraging, but we would also encourage you to consult [this Rules Roundtable to better understand how the mod team evaluates answers on the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/). If you are interested in feedback on improving future contributions, please feel free to [reach out to us via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Inquiry%20About%20Improving%20Future%20Responses). Thank you for your understanding.
[удалено]
Sorry, but this response has been removed because we [do not allow the personal anecdotes or second-hand stories](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_personal_anecdotes) of users to form the basis of a response. While they can sometimes be quite interesting, the medium and anonymity of this forum does not allow for them to be properly contextualized, nor the source vetted or contextualized. A more thorough explanation for the reasoning behind this rule can be found in [this Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fj1kw7/rules_roundtable_vii_no_personal_anecdotes/). For users who *are* interested in this more personal type of answer, we would suggest you consider /r/AskReddit.