This might be true as a national average, but it is definitely not true in areas where there has been consistent competition for housing. It's that competition which will push housing prices up to levels that require two middle-class incomes.

This includes most major cities. Even excluding bubbles, desirable urban real estate in the US has skyrocketed much faster than inflation. There are a lot of factors in that, but one of them is that the market has now priced in the fact that most homeowners in these areas are now dual income.

> So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income.

I'm not sure that's true. Take Houston, for example. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods were originally suburbs in the 1950s filled with workers who commuted downtown. Now those neighborhoods are considered urban and there is an entirely new ring of suburbs beyond them (in fact two such rings). The homes in these now-urban neighborhoods are now all $1M+.

A family with a reasonable income of $100k will be completely priced out of all those homes. They'll be forced to either live much further out (meaning very long commutes) or to live in an apartment/condo or, maybe, a townhouse. If they had lived in the 50s, they'd have been living in a neighborhood that is now reserved for surgeons, corporate attorneys, and even CEOs.

I agree with the attitude here but cultural norms have shifted so much that there isn't nearly enough supply of those sorts of homes. The reality is that people typically "downsize" by moving far outside of town and commuting long distances, which isn't really a solution to the problem.