Dagette;
You said;
The simple fact that at least two incomes are almost always necessary
to pay the cost of living for a family instead of one should cast enormous
doubt on claims of rising real incomes.
end quote:

There is a factor that is always ommitted when housing prices are discussed.
When the financial institutions were forced to lend on two incomes the
housing market reacted exactly in the way that anyone with half a brain
should have expected. What happens when you put double the money into
any market ? Prices rise to meet the amount of money available.

It is so obvious that it is incredible that it has not been reccognised
by all in sundry.
What would happen if the rules were changed so that loans could only
be granted on one income ?
The prices would fall to meet the amount of money available.

Bazz,

Also, don't forget that loan periods are being extended. Some lending institutions are talking of loan periods of 40 or even 50 years. A generation ago a typical mortgage repayment period was 20 years or less. You should have read Alun Breward's talk of 3 April 2005 on ABC Radio National's Ockham's Razor program at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1335462.htm

This talk shows how economists employed by the AMP and the Commonwealth Bank fiddled figures in order to 'prove', against most peoples' own experience, that housing was far more affordable than it actually was back in 2003.

Yet another example of why we should regard with extreme skepticism any claims that real incomes are rising. This is the card that Howard apologists such as Rhian use in an attempt to trump all the other very serious objections to the way John Howard is running the country.