> I currently believe that period of time (mid-20th century, esp. in the US) was a historical anomaly set up by a fairly unique set of circumstances

It was a period of high taxation on the highest incomes, large social welfare programs and by relative terms fairly low income inequality.

Finally productivity gains benefitted the labor class and not just the capital class.

That all halted in the 70s and 80s.

I know a decent number of single income families and they even have A/C!

You do have to intentionally budget but you can raise five+ kids on a single salary if you want to.

This is an outdated view.

The essential costs - housing, healthcare and education - have far outpaced inflation while the cost of food and appliances has not. How can a single income compete in buying from the limited supply of houses against dual incomes?

I just had this conversation with a friend today.

Yes - given a small number of rights that frankly we should have always had - women have found all kinds of representation in education, salaries and diverse paths in life. Paths not previously open to us and pursued at tremendously high cost.

But population decline frankly is occurring because society is uninterested in changing its relationship with child bearing and child rearing. Men have limited interested in stepping up, women are doing work at home, work at work, work in society. Corporations have less interested in flexibility where women are near continuously penalized or held back. Even in a "progressive" presidency there were more CEOs named John than women CEOs. There's disinterest even when the next generation of workers is on the line and the government...well they are actively moving to unwind the rights we've won.

> It's because women frankly have better options than motherhood and what stay at home parenting entails.

It's not about having better options so much as knowing that they'll be bringing a child into a world that's only going to get worse. A child who may never own a home, who may struggle to make ends meet. A child who may go bankrupt if they lose the healthcare lotto.

Well there are no security guarantees with being a SAHM. Your husband can easily cheat divorce you now and you don’t get much alimony and only some child support. Its better for the woman and the child to have a backup plan.

While it's true that women's professional opportunities were limited in the past, I disagree that this was the sole or even primary reason for single-income stability. My grandparents' generation, for example, often saw one parent (usually the father) working a manufacturing or union job that paid enough to cover a mortgage, raise several children, and afford basics, even with the mother not working outside the home. The purchasing power of those wages was simply far greater.

Now they don't have the option to be housewives unless they actively seek out a rich husband. Who benefits? (There is only one correct answer):

1. Families. 2. Women. 3. Corporations.

The workforce saw an explosion of productivity, and women added upwards of 100% more members of the workforce.

The problem is that all of that wealth went to the billionaires and the rest of us got the bones in the scrap pile. Now we can't even raise our children because we need to work, but we cannot even not raise our children because it costs more than we make.

Let’s now t forget about the large population of black Americans who were left out, too.

That's kinda still the case. The half below the median can't all magically find jobs above the median. Though talking heads would lead people to believe that's true.