How big was the middle-class where one middle class guy supported a two-car family on his salary? And how much is explained by simple competition for resources?

Robert Reich starts his book on Saving Capitalism with a comment about remembering a time when one middle class guy could support a family and two cars on his income (i assume this is supposed to be the 1950s).

Book then implies that this is disappearance is because of breakdown in capitalism.

I think there are many reasons for this change (and also am dubious how true it was). Question:

• Is this assumption about the world true or is it nostalgia?
• If it is true, what "normal" reasons are there for this – ie. ignoring the arguments about a breakdown (e.g. my stuff on info monopolies, or Reich's argument about corruption of markets and more).
  • e.g. maybe it is just competition for land – there's more of us and land costs have eaten up all the increase in wealth and more
  • or we invest much more in children
  • or the world has got more equal making middle class americans less well off
  • both parents now work which has created a classic red queen / running faster to stay in the same place: everyone has both parents working which makes everyone richer but they compete for the same scarce goods (land) (for this to work we have to have some inelastically supplied good like land)

Land is a scarce rival good, especially in cities.

As population grows more pressure on this scarce good. Whilst we could move to countryside, need for f2f communication and connection means large pressure to colocate so significant pressure in cities.

Secondary question:

• How much have land prices gone up in real terms in major cities (and over what period)