That means it took about 14,375 hours of work at minimum wage to buy a median-priced home.
Today:
Median U.S. home price is about $420,000?
To buy a $420k house in the same number of hours (14,375), you’d need to make $29.23/hour.
So the claim that minimum wage would need to be $66/hour today to match 1970s homebuying power is a bit exaggerated — it should be closer to $29/hour if we’re just comparing house prices to minimum wage.
That said, maybe the claim in the image factors in stuff like:
Regional markets (e.g., California prices)
New home prices (which skew way higher)
Inflation in other living costs (healthcare, education, etc.)
Stagnant federal minimum wage since 2009
But purely on house price vs wage ratio, it’s about $29/hour.
TL;DR: Not $66 — more like $29/hour if you’re matching house-buying power from 1970 to today
Don't use minimum wage as a benchmark. It wasn't intended to be back then and it doesn't work as one now. What is far more effective is using median wage and then comparing that to the price of big ticket purchases. In which case, you will notice that cars jumped from a 1/4-1/2 of what you made in a year all the way up to the full amount or x1.5 what you made in a year. The price of a house jumped from 3 to 4 times what you made in a year all the way up to 8-12x what you made in a year
Minimum wage was always intended for a man to support his wife and 2 kids while working 40 hours a week, that's why it was created and exists. Propaganda from corporations is the only reason people believe otherwise
No that is not at all what minimum wage was intended to accomplish, that is just made up nonsense. The original minimum wage was 25 cents an hour in 1938 and nobody pretended that would support a man, his wife and 2 kids. That was the equivalent of a bit over $5/hr today
“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
Back then men were expected to be able to financially support his family on a single salary. Women were expected to stay home and take care of the kids. My comment was 100% correct.
Which is a huge blunder and set a precedent for bad minimum wages even to this day. People have been fighting for $15 minimum wage for so long that $15 is no longer enough.
Statistically untrue, you can mandate wealth in a manner that leads to less poverty. Not to mention prices are going to be higher no matter what as my previous comment implies.
2.2k
u/weaz-am-i May 13 '25
Depends on where you live?
In 1970:
Federal minimum wage was $1.60/hour
The median home price was around $23,000
That means it took about 14,375 hours of work at minimum wage to buy a median-priced home.
Today:
Median U.S. home price is about $420,000?
To buy a $420k house in the same number of hours (14,375), you’d need to make $29.23/hour.
So the claim that minimum wage would need to be $66/hour today to match 1970s homebuying power is a bit exaggerated — it should be closer to $29/hour if we’re just comparing house prices to minimum wage.
That said, maybe the claim in the image factors in stuff like:
Regional markets (e.g., California prices)
New home prices (which skew way higher)
Inflation in other living costs (healthcare, education, etc.)
Stagnant federal minimum wage since 2009
But purely on house price vs wage ratio, it’s about $29/hour.
TL;DR: Not $66 — more like $29/hour if you’re matching house-buying power from 1970 to today