Families as roommates: Changes in U.S. household size from 1850 to 2000

Abstract

Living arrangements have changed enormously over the last two centuries. While the average American today lives in a household of only three people, in 1850 household size was twice that figure. Furthermore, both the number of children and the number of adults in a household have fallen dramatically. We develop a simple theory of household size where living with others is beneficial solely because the costs of household public goods can be shared. In other words, we abstract from intrafamily relations and focus on households as collections of roommates. The model's mechanism is that rising income leads to a falling expenditure share on household public goods, which endogenously makes household formation less beneficial and privacy more attractive. To assess the magnitude of this mechanism, we first calibrate the model to match the relationship between household size, consumption patterns, and income in the cross section at the end of the 20th century. We then project the model back to 1850 by changing income. We find that our proposed mechanism can account for 37 percent of the decline in the number of adults in a household between 1850 and 2000, and for 16 percent of the decline in the number of children.

Marriage, Markets, and Money: A Coasian Theory of Household Formation

“…Salcedo et al. (), e.g., attribute secular declines in household size to income growth plus home (market) goods being inferior (superior). A Coasian view might instead stress reductions in transaction costs: It is easier to shop online that in line.…”

Feeling at Home in a Multigenerational Household: The Importance of Control

“…These include many African, Asian, Middle Eastern and Southern and Eastern European societies (Billari and Rosina 2005;Mehio-Sibai, Beydoun, and Tohme 2009;Izuhara 2010). More recently, research has slowly expanded to cover societies where multigenerational living is not a conventional household practice, including Australia (Cobb-Clark and Ribar 2009), Canada (Gee, Mitchell, and Wister 2003), the UK (UK Office for National Statistics 2012) and the US (Salcedo, Schoellman, and Tertilt 2012), though much of this work has focussed on the influence of immigration and late 2000s economic downturn as catalysts of the recent prominence of multigenerational living in these societies. Despite this, recent evidence suggests that in Australia, multigenerational living may not be fully explained by changing demographics and immigration rates, and instead reflects, at least to some degree, changing social norms and values (Flatau et al 2007, 67).…”

Developing spatial inequalities in carbon appropriation: A sociological analysis of changing local emissions across the United States

“…This finding casts doubt on the hypothesis that growing affluence leads to greater carbon efficiencies in home energy use. Instead, another factor historically associated with development -declining household size -exerts the biggest effect (Salcedo et al, 2012). Again, household size is reverse-coded; thus results indicate that for every 1% decline in average household size, there is a corresponding 1.1% increase in Use emissions.…”