OPINION: America’s “Two-Income” Reality Check: Kids, Costs, Budget That Doesn’t Close

A lot of economic coverage still treats “a married couple with two paychecks” as the safe, stable middle of the American story. InvestorsObserver’s new metro-by-metro affordability analysis basically says: not anymore, at least not if you’re trying to raise children without living on the edge.

Their research team looked at 50 major US metro areas and compared median married-couple incomes (2024, pre-tax) against what a two-working-adult household would need to earn to cover baseline, modern life costs, and then layered in what it takes to raise one, two, and three children. The result is a blunt scorecard of where families still have breathing room, and where the numbers don’t add up even before you get to college savings, emergencies, or any “nice-to-have” life.

At the center of the model is a simple idea: affordability is not just about “low costs” or “high wages.” It’s about the relationship between the two, in the place you actually live. So InvestorsObserver ranks metros by an affordability score defined as:

Affordability Score = Required Income for 1 Child / Median Married-Couple Income × 100

Below 100% means the median married-couple household income exceeds the required income to cover costs. Above 100% means the typical married-couple household is underwater, meaning the “median” couple cannot cover the modeled essentials for raising a child on local wages.

That’s the story in four metros where, according to the analysis, the median married-couple household can’t afford even one child: Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, and McAllen. And once you scale up to bigger families, the bottom drops out: 39 of the 50 metros show a negative difference between median married-couple income and required income for three children.

Put differently: in most major metros in the sample, a larger family isn’t “tight budgeting.” It’s structurally unaffordable based on the study’s baseline cost model.

What InvestorsObserver measured, and why it hits so hard

The “required annual income” figure in this project isn’t just the cost of a child. It’s the full household budget needed for a two-working-adult family to function, calculated using Living Wage data and a basket of components: childcare, food, healthcare, housing, internet and mobile phones, transportation, civic engagement, other necessities, and income/payroll taxes.

Then they separately calculate the cost of raising one child by including only three essentials: food, childcare, and medical costs. That lets them show something families already feel: childcare is often the swing factor that turns “we can manage” into “we can’t.”

The study’s own averages paint the squeeze. The average affordability score across metros is 78.5%. In plain terms, “typical” families would need to spend nearly four-fifths of their median married income to cover the modeled child-related costs and household basics. That’s not a budget; it’s a tightrope.

And the childcare spread is a big part of why metro life feels like a different country depending on your zip code. Childcare costs alone range from $25,463 (McAllen) to $46,106 (San Francisco). Even without changing anything else, that gap can determine whether a family is saving, stagnating, or falling behind.

The “surplus” metros: where money actually stretches

Only 10 out of the 50 metros analyzed have families with incomes exceeding local child-rearing needs, according to the project’s top-line finding. In those metros, the affordability picture looks like what people still imagine the American middle class to be: dual incomes cover necessities, and there’s leftover money after the basics.

Washington, DC sits at the top of the “most affordable” list, not because it’s cheap, but because earnings are high enough to make the costs manageable. The required annual income before taxes to raise one, two, and three children in the DC metro is about $113,313, $125,110, and $138,538. The median married-couple income is about $231,129, which produces a surplus even after three children, roughly $117,816 in the study’s framing. The affordability score is 49%, meaning the required income to cover one child’s baseline costs is only about half of what the median married-couple household earns.

InvestorsObserver frames DC’s advantage as wage strength and stability, a federal employment base (and surrounding industries) that tends to pay reliably and offer benefits. Even with childcare costs listed at $38,960, the metro’s income floor is simply higher.

Louisville ranks second with an affordability score of 41.9% in the supplied material, and the numbers are striking: required income of about $86,221 for one child, $106,185 for two, and $127,894 for three, against a median married-couple income of $205,988. That leaves an estimated surplus of about $78,094 after three children. The childcare and essential child costs in the text are $28,132 annually, in a range that stays survivable relative to local earnings.

Atlanta, Seattle, Austin, Richmond, St. Louis, Tampa, and Virginia Beach round out the top 10 described in the provided report text, and they all share the same underlying pattern: the “required income” number is high enough to reflect modern costs, but the median married-couple income is high enough to keep the household above water — at least for one child, often for two, and sometimes (barely) for three.

San Francisco is the fascinating edge case that shows how fragile “affordable” can be when the baseline is expensive. The report places it in the “most affordable” list, yet notes that while one and two children show surpluses, three children produces a deficit (about $6,798). In other words: even in a high-income metro, family size can flip the math fast when childcare is the highest in the country and housing is already punishing.

The “deficit” metros: where the middle class is arithmetic, not attitude

The bottom of the list reads like a warning label: some places aren’t just hard, they’re mathematically inhospitable to raising kids on typical local wages.

Detroit is the clearest example in InvestorsObserver’s framing. It is the least affordable metro in the analysis: raising a child demands 119% of the local median married income, producing an average annual deficit over $50,000 (in the three-child framing). The report lists required annual incomes of about $87,753 (one child), $107,016 (two), and $126,501 (three), while the median married-couple income is about $73,731. Deficits scale rapidly: roughly $14,022 for one child, $33,285 for two, and $52,770 for three.

Cleveland and Philadelphia also land in the “can’t afford one child” group in the report summary. For Cleveland, the required income for one child is about $91,521 versus a median married-couple income of about $89,067, creating a deficit even at one child. Philadelphia shows the same story: a required income for one child of about $107,604 versus a median of about $105,488.

McAllen is a different kind of cautionary tale. Its childcare cost is the lowest in the range cited ($25,463), yet it still makes the “unaffordable even for one child” list because wages are lower: required income about $73,870 versus a median married-couple income of about $72,700, leaving families slightly short even before anything unexpected happens.

In the “least affordable” section, other metros described include Milwaukee, Miami, New York City, Riverside–San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and (as written in the provided text) a confusing mismatch where the “Orlando” slot contains “San Diego” numbers. I’m keeping the content as presented: it describes “San Diego” figures (required income $91,801 for one child, median $103,115; deficit for two and three children) while discussing Orlando’s rising costs. The underlying point still matches the broader analysis: even where one child may be barely manageable, two and three children frequently push households into deficit.

The bigger point here isn’t that these metros are “bad places.” It’s that affordability is no longer just a housing story. When childcare, healthcare, food, and transportation stack up, the margin disappears, and a two-income household becomes “not enough” rather than “secure.”

Why this lands right now: YouGov’s inflation mood shift

InvestorsObserver’s metro math lines up neatly with what people are telling pollsters about daily life. A recent YouGov polling shows Americans are more likely now than they were in March 2025 to describe the global economy as poor (up to 25% from 16%). The shift is especially pronounced among Democrats (28% now versus 11% in March saying the global economy is doing poorly).

More importantly for households: 32% of Americans now say their household income is falling behind their expenses, up from 24% in March. Another 53% say they’re just keeping up, and only 8% say their income is growing faster than their expenses. That “falling behind” share rose across every major income group in the polling summary — including households between $50,000 and $100,000, where it jumped to 32% from 21%.

When you put that alongside InvestorsObserver’s average affordability score (78.5%), the narrative snaps into focus. If a typical family is already spending most of its income on modeled essentials, it doesn’t take a recession to make people feel worse. It takes daycare increasing, groceries staying high, rent resetting, or a health bill that doesn’t care about your budget.

YouGov’s “top worries” list echoes the same cost basket InvestorsObserver used: housing costs are a top-two concern for 44% of Americans, basic necessities for 35%, and saving for retirement for 22%. Renters are especially squeezed (55% name housing costs as a top worry, versus 34% of homeowners). And 71% say inflation is affecting them at least somewhat, with 33% saying “a great deal.”

This is why the child-affordability conversation is turning sharper: if households already feel like expenses are outrunning income, having children stops feeling like a personal choice and starts feeling like a financial risk.

What this does to family formation and regional economies, without melodrama

The study’s metro split suggests a quiet demographic sorting mechanism. In metros where families have surpluses after one or two children, child-rearing stays thinkable — not “easy,” but possible without constant crisis budgeting. Those metros can become magnets for young families, which matters because families are the long-term workforce pipeline.

Meanwhile, in deficit metros, families face structural pressure: delays in childbearing, fewer children, less savings, more reliance on extended family or public programs, and a higher vulnerability to any shock. InvestorsObserver explicitly notes that in the least affordable metros, “even diligent, dual-income families fall short for one child, let alone multiple children.” That’s not a cultural shift; it’s a spreadsheet problem.

Method matters: what the study actually did

Because these topics get politicized fast, it’s worth being clear about the mechanics, and InvestorsObserver gives enough detail to understand what you’re looking at.

They selected 50 large metros, pulled pre-tax median married-couple household income (2024), then paired it with a “required annual income” for a two-working-adult household based on Living Wage data that includes taxes and a full household cost basket.

They also calculated the annual cost of raising one child using only essentials: food, childcare, and medical. That allowed them to show the percentage of median married-couple income spent on those child essentials, and separately compute a surplus/deficit as the difference between median married-couple income and the required income to cover essential family costs.

Finally, they ranked metros by the affordability score: required income for one child divided by median married-couple income, multiplied by 100.