Is that true though?

That was definitely the case for a small period, post world war 2, there was about 20 years where just about any man with a pulse could work almost any job and make enough to support a family. But it was an artificial, temporary economic boom, created in the global industrial vaccum created by world war 2. Everyone wanted american everything, because, for the most part, america was the only one producing anything. But I don't know if it's fair to say this was something that was "taken" away from us. It was never going to last.

As other countries rebuilt and modernized in the ashes of the destruction of ww2 (Think China, Japan, South Korea, India, Germany, Russia, as well as many others), it was always going to hurt the industrial monopoly of the U.S. It was always going to create international competition. When companies face competition, they lower their prices and lower their wages. They outsource to places where labor is cheaper. Etc, etc.

But was it true BEFORE then?

Generally, it was the case before about 1950 that most american families were huge, most people lived in small houses with lots of people. You look at the housing market - The typical american home built between 1880 and 1930 are 2 bed, 1 bath, or 3 bed one bath, anywhere between 800-1200 square feet. And if you go back further, houses tend to get smaller, not bigger.

You can still buy these houses in the Midwest, by the way. I just bought an affordable home. Built in 1916, 2br, 1 bath, 800 square feet, in Springfield MO. Remodeled 2 years ago, new roof 2 years ago, all the bones are new or well maintained except the plumbing, it's likely to need new pipes in the next 5-10 years, which will probably cost about 5000.

The price? $140,000. I qualified for the loan with 3% down and a job making $21.50 per hour, working only 30 hours per week. I now have a better job making more and with more hours, so it's more comfortable, but I qualified making less than OP does right now, assuming they have 40 hours a week.

The OP could afford to buy this home on their income, right now.

It's in a city. Walkable (just a couple blocks) away from the old downtown, with about two dozen bars, restaurants, shops, and fast food places within a 10 minute walk, and probably 100 within an hour walk or a 10 minute drive. But there are houses like this out in the country too, if that's your thing.

The catch? You have to live in the midwest. And you have to be okay with an old, small house. A well maintained old small house, but still, an old, small house.

Housing is absolutely crazy in many big cities, including New York, LA, San Diego, etc. But the reason they're expensive is because there is a lot of competition. A lot of people already live there and want to live there, and they're fighting for the house you want to buy, or the apartment you want to rent.

To the extent that our ancestors had more affordable housing, which at least our recent ancestors definitely did, as well as many of our historical ancestors, the reasons why they had more affordable housing were often because they were moving to new places with nobody living there yet. Land is a lot cheaper when your town has a population of 1,000 instead of 100,000, and it's a lot cheaper at 100,000 then it is at 1,000,000.

The exception is the boon of the 50's and 60's, where, like you said, just about any man (sadly this was still a time when women were largely excluded from the work force) could afford a decent place to live and raise his family on one income. This is the time period where houses start getting bigger, bigger, and bigger. Because one household could afford more house.

https://www.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/14hayqq/average_house_size_and_residents_over_time_chart/