posted
Why is it that now just about every family (at least where I live) cannot be supported without both parents holding full time jobs, whilst in the past it only required one full time job?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because so many families have both parents holding full time jobs.
I'm not being flip; that's really why. Once that became the norm, the economy adjusted to it, and now it's more or less a necessity. It would take a depression, or at least a recession worse than any we've had for the past 30 years, to change things back now.
A lot has to do with the change in the standard family structure and people starting families later. A lot has to do with people having higher and higher expectations of what they can own. What would have passed for an upper middle class standard of living 50 years ago would barely cross the poverty line now.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Lisa pretty much nailed it. Its part of the reason homes have skyrocketed in price. With two people holding full time jobs, the demand for homes has grown, causing the prices to go up. Also don't forget all the extras we have now. Cable/satellite bills, cell phone bills, internet bills, security system bills. Both family members attending college, so both need to work to pay back the loans. The list goes on and on.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my family, we've decided that the high cost of child care is not worth what little money we'd net with us both working jobs (I mean, how much is time with your child worth?). Since I'm the family member with the most earning power, I'm currently working while my wife stays at home.
If she could earn as much or more as me, we'd definitely switch. This is just the way things have worked out.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because so many families have both parents holding full time jobs.
I'm not being flip; that's really why. Once that became the norm, the economy adjusted to it, and now it's more or less a necessity.
This seems to be the case here, too. I do like the idea of owning lots of crazy stuff, but...
quote:In my family, we've decided that the high cost of child care is not worth what little money we'd net with us both working jobs (I mean, how much is time with your child worth?). Since I'm the family member with the most earning power, I'm currently working while my wife stays at home.
Why would a person choose to spend more time working than they do with their kids? This I can't understand. And now in Australia a majority are calling for tax breaks to pay for childcare. If you can't afford childcare of all things with two jobs, why not just have one job (or two 'half jobs') and spend more time with the kids?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the boom in demand for childcare is very recent. Within the last 6 years at most. Unemployment was pretty damn high before then, so parents had lots of time to spend with their kids.
So now it's starting that people want the government to help them pay for childcare, and there's some sort of government review going through. I doubt it'll be long.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can fairly easily live off of a one person income in America these days, so long as you live like someone in the 50's did.
One car, most likely used.
One TV, that you keep for years and years. (No paying for cable, bunny ears for you.)
Perhaps a couple of radios.
One telephone, which is a land-line.
Children sharing bedrooms.
Home cooked dinners, only going out to eat on special occassions.
Limited wardrobes for everyone, purchased frugally.
For entertainment, kids would go play baseball or hide and seek, things which cost next to nothing.
But that's not how folks live these days.
Both parents get a car, and usually fairly newer ones. The kids all get cars (if cheap ones) at 16. Along with the cost of additional cars, you need to also add the cost of insuring each car.
Large, color TV in the living room, most likely at least one or two more in the house. Paying ($50+) every month on cable, maybe even digital cable ($100+) and even a DVR or TIVO.
A DVD player to go with that TV, with lots of DVDs of course (~$20 each).
If you are a gamer, or have kids, you'll have a gaming console ($200-600) and games ($50+ each).
You most likely have a stereo, and so do your children, and they probably have MP3 players too. CDs are not cheap either, and a typical family will have tons of those.
Each parent will have a cell phone, and probably each child as well, when they reach around 12 years old.
These days it seems like it is a crime for two teenagers to share a room, and the sizes of houses has grown a lot since then.
The family will have at least one computer, more likely two or three, and cable internet is now the norm ($50 a month).
People go out to eat, or order food to be delivered, far more than they used to. This can add a ton of money to a family's expenses.
The cost of clothes is ridiculous these days, and you kids are going to want to be outfitted by the Gap or by Hot Topic and the like, and you'll be paying hundreds of dollars a year keeping them in trendy clothes. The expected cost of dress for adults has risen exponentially as well.
Like others have said, you're also a lot more likely to have student loans to pay (often for both parents) and each child needs to go to college as well, where 50 years ago maybe one would go.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Home cooked dinners, only going out to eat on special occassions.
Actually, I've read several articles recently saying that with groceries getting more expensive and casual dining/fast food getting cheaper, it may be cheaper to eat out than to cook in (especially once you factor in the value of prep time and cleanup time for the cook). I haven't personally found that to be the case, but I'm an odd situation.
Otherwise, I agree with your overall hypothesis (which Lisa first mentioned) -- our standards have gone way up.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Looking at list one, and then two, I find it hard to believe that if one job will pay for list one, only two jobs will pay for list two.
So my guess is that Americans are in debt? 'Cause I was solidly under the impression that y'all were just freakin' rich as hell up until now.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh it can absolutely be done. Maybe not for every family, every situation, but it takes planning ahead and being willing to make sacrifices and delaying gratification.
How we make it on one person's income:
We started out in a real "starter" home - 800 sq ft in a not-so-nice neighborhood where our house payment was less than rent on an average apartment
We bought land where we eventually wanted to live and paid it off before we started building a house so we began with equity in the land and no debt
We did much of the work on the house ourselves, taking longer to complete it but saving thousands
We regularly bought and drove used cars much longer than the average person keeps a car - my current van was purchased used, my husband's truck has 150,000 miles on it
We do not finance anything other than our house and cars - furniture, electronics - all can be purchased only when we have the actual cash on hand
If we want something and don't have the cash - we wait. Simple as that. Waited 8 years before I got the furniture I wanted for the den of my house
What all these things above have done for us is put us in a situation where we have much less debt than the average American family. We do have a house payment, but it's much less than the average because of how we built our house and we haven't re-financed to consolidate loans or anything like that, we've kept the payment the same and try to pay ahead on it so we have a lot of equity and a relatively low house payment. When we had some debt trouble because of our business, we buckled down and made the payments - it hurt our credit, but we didn't want to borrow against our house or put our personal finances in jeopardy so we just paid it no matter how much it hurt. We're now recovering from that, and it's going well.
Now, I'm not saying everyone can do what we've done or that if they do what we've done they can definitely make it on one income. Because we don't make it on one income after all, my husband has a full time job and has a business on the side, too so it's more like 1.5 incomes in our case. I will be going back to work eventually too, but that will mainly be 1) because I want to and 2) to help make extra money for college expenses for our kids.
If you want one parent home with the kids, then it's going to take planning and avoiding massive amounts of debt. That's the best way to accomplish it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Looking at list one, and then two, I find it hard to believe that if one job will pay for list one, only two jobs will pay for list two.
One other thing that Xaiver didn't include on his list is savings. One job paid for list 1 plus a degree of savings in the 50's. People now don't save as much, and aren't as prepared for retirement. So that helps make list 2 attainable with "only" two jobs, although yes, most Americans have way too much debt.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree with the general sentiment that upper-middle class Americans live much too lavishly...
I think there's a WHOLE lot more to talk about in regard to the rest of the middle class that is barely hanging on to pay rent, their own health care (only 60% of employers provide health care to employees), mortgages and pension plans. I think the problem is the wealth gap.
Screwed is a book I just finished reading that goes in depth about what is essentially a war on the middle class by the corporate elite, and how our government since Reagan has been defending them.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy's basically a wingnut, though. I agree that the idea of a corporation as a legal individual should be eliminated, despite what that will do to the economy (which Hartmann hasn't even considered, I imagine), but his nutty ideas about no company owning another, and "the needs of the community" are nothing more or less than an attempt to nationalize (or socialize) (or national-socialize) other people's money for what he thinks it should be used for.
His idea to make primary school optional, but have university education paid for by the government is interesting, in a "they're coming to take me awaaaaaaay..." sort of way.
posted
It's strange to me, how much different things seem now from when I was growing up. My parents felt like owning a house was the American Dream, and now out of the dozen or so 30-somethings I regularly spend time with, all of whom have jobs and college education, only one couple has a house. The rest of us rent, and don't foresee home ownership in the near future since the prices are so high.
I'm sad that houses have become such an investment commodity, rather than a place to live. On my block, within the last year 3 houses have been bought, fixed up (read painted and landscaped), and put back up on the market. Everybody wants to make a quick buck flipping houses, so they artificially raise the prices while adding little to no real value.
I'm guessing the next investment fad will be to buy out all the food in a grocery store, and set up a stand across the street to re-sell it at a 50% markup. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While that happens, it is by no means universal.
Among my group of friends (all in our 30s as well), pretty much everybody has a house to live in. But then, most of us also have families with children, so YMMV.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Two-Income Trap argues that there is essentially a bidding war on neighborhoods with good schools. In order to compete in that bidding war, most people need two incomes. The book is an extremely interesting read and highly recommend it. It also talks about how the stay at home mom used to be a safety net. If something happened to dad, mom could start working. Nowdays, people are dependent on two incomes to make ends meet. When something goes wrong, there is no safety net.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm guessing the next investment fad will be to buy out all the food in a grocery store, and set up a stand across the street to re-sell it at a 50% markup.
Actually the next big investment is still going to be real estate. Everyone who bought houses with interest only loans, and variable rates will not be able to afford to live there, and may even have to sell for less then the balance of their loan. Investors will swoop in on these deals. My dad sells real estate in a tourist town, primarily second homes, where this is already occuring. Tourists are not willing to pay weekly rental fees that cover the owner's mortgage and condo fees. This will trickle down slowly to the primary home market.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, most Americans live well beyond their means. A big part of this is Cars. People will dive head first into debt if it means having a cool car.
I can not stress enough how stupid this is.
People get their ego and happiness wrapped up in something that will take them from point A to point B.
"Yeah! But it'll do it in Styyyyyle!"
Is that style *really* worth working till you're dead because you went into debt instead of saving?
I've had 3 cars in over 20 years of driving. Two of them were hand-me-downs and one was a Ford Escort. As long as it's got a radio and an A/C and gets halfway decent gas milage, I'm happy.
And guess what! I'm not in debt. In fact, I have a goodly amount of savings.
Another problem is school snobbery. Most people don't care if you went to Stanford or East Podunk State so long you graduated. Shell out 30K a year in tuition alone and you're starting your life in a hole that's difficult to climb out of.
When I graduated from college, I was already saving.
All you've gotta do is remember that for every 20K you spend while you're young, you're adding another year or more of working at the end of your career. If retirement is important to you at all, you'll stick it in the bank instead of in the ignition.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
