Startling to imagine that the people starting families, going to college and buying homes earned about 59% less than we do for homes that cost 217% less!
So in other words, a male in 1950 (who made a median income of ~$20K) could buy a median home that would cost him three times his gross income (~$55K), and if the female of the nuclear family was also working she could add about $9K p.a. to the kitty-- meaning a joint income family bought homes in the fifties USA for about twice their gross earnings!
If we reverse that using 2008 numbers: Median Wage was ~$32K, so a single earner should be able to buy a home that costs ~$96K...
According to census.gov the wage gap in 2004 was at ~77%, so that means the median female made ~$25K. The joint earners then have a combined ~$57K, and again, reversing the idea, a home should cost ~$106K!
-OR-
Instead of homes costing between $96K and $106K, we could reverse the wage disparity against home costs:
According to realtor.org, the Median price for homes in Dec. 2008 was $175K nationally. Lets not worry that there have been some slight improvements in the market, or how complex the marketplace really is for our purposes here, and agree that indeed $175K is fair (even in NY and CA).
Going back to the 1950's, that would put (male) wage earners at one-third of home price, or ~$58K per year!
If we accommodate the idea that gender equality has somehow had a negative impact (that is to say, lets make pay equal in our assumption, but reduce by a factor of 77% this reverse affordability [$58k * 0.77]), then we still get two earners who each gross just under $45K each!
And this still lags the 1950's statistic (where not making distinctions of male or female) a dual income family would earn ~$97K (an extra $7K).
Thats median, which means the perfect middle of all people, or in the case of property, a middle of the road home-- an imaginary concept. That said if we have only one person at the median, and everyone else is skewered to the furthest reaches (say very rich and very poor) this does little to promote a middle class, which the Greatest Generation also had the benefit of.
"The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans — those making more than $138,000 each year — earned 11.4 times the roughly $12,000 made by those living near or below the poverty line in 2008." (Note: they quote "median income" as '$50,303,' but they mean MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME!!!)
So the way back to 1950's prosperity? Increase affordability not just for some, but many.
(References: Median Wages and Home Prices, Census.gov; Inflation Adjustment Westegg.com; Chart assumption for 2010 Estimate = [2008 Median Wage according to BLS.GOV = $32,290, but carried ADJUSTED 2000 Median Wage of $36,200 into 2008 value $38,841as parity for estimate of 2010 Median Wage] / [DEC 2008 Median Home Price without adjustment or improvement or decline.].)
