Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not a long term lifestyle but can be expected for young couples starting out before they gain more experience and offer more to employers.
But I think most couples could still afford a kid or two on $40K a year in many US Communities if they cut out the smokes, drinks, fancy meals out and tattoos.
Not with both parents working, which the OP scenario entails. They're going to lose around 1/3 of their income to day care bills, diapers, and other parenting costs. So it's really like a childless couple earning just $27k. And with $10/hour jobs, they are unlikely to have fringe benefits so take out another $6k/year to buy health insurance, and a further $6k/year for private retirement funding. Now it's just $15k. How are you going to pay the taxes, pay the rent and pay for food and cars with that?
A friend of mine and his wife is living in Spokane Washington in a very nice two bedroom apartment which only costs $700 a month. He and his wife work in low wage retail and are both earning about $10 an hour or $20K a year apiece. ($40K) total. They pay about 15% of their income in taxes which leaves them $34,000 a year in net pay. They pay about $10K a year in rent and utilities and that leaves them $24K for everything else. A good relatively comfortable lifestyle most of the people in the world would love to have.
What am I missing?
The problem with your couple is that they are NOT "living just fine on $10 an hour" because it takes both their paychecks to finance their life-style. What you're describing is $10 an hour for 80 hours a week. So, what happens if one of them loses his or her job or can't work for an extended period of time or can only work half time?
I also question most employers paying $10/hour providing health insurance. If they do, it's likely costing the employees a couple of hundred dollars a month for coverage. Furthermore, $700/month two bedroom rentals in decent condition in safe neighborhoods are hardly the norm in "most of America".
57% of married couples are childless. So no, "most couples" do not have kids. Without immigration and the high birthrate of the permanent underclass in the bottom 20%, the US would be seeing the same big population contraction of Japan, South Korea, and Northern Europe.
Got a link to exactly where you came up with 57%? My guess is that that number includes married retirees and empty nesters as well as young couples who haven't started families yet, but since you posted this as fact, please provide a source for the number so that those of us who like to fact check can do so.
Got a link to exactly where you came up with 57%? My guess is that that number includes married retirees and empty nesters as well as young couples who haven't started families yet, but since you posted this as fact, please provide a source for the number so that those of us who like to fact check can do so.
I found a Reuters article that cites 2012 census numbers. It indicates that 57% of U.S. households are childless -- 29% of married couples and 28% of singletons -- so if that's where he got the number, he's misrepresented it.
We could live well on $10/hr if we could minimize or eliminate housing costs. I'm not part of a couple, but I live in a one-bedroom studio apartment for about $500 per month. It's okay, but if I only made minimum wage, I would be looking at a monthly take-home pay of $1000 per month if I were lucky, so I would really just be breaking even once you count phone and internet (about $100 together), car insurance (about $100), gas (another $100-$150), repairs and maintenance (yet another $100), and every day expenses (food, household items--$100).
This could vary drastically, though, because most minimum wage paying jobs are part-time. Also remember that 10/hr on paper may translate to only $7 or $8 to the employees take-home pay; the rest might go to tax and various other fees, especially if the job has an option for health insurance.
We could live well on $10/hr if we could minimize or eliminate housing costs. I'm not part of a couple, but I live in a one-bedroom studio apartment for about $500 per month. It's okay, but if I only made minimum wage, I would be looking at a monthly take-home pay of $1000 per month if I were lucky, so I would really just be breaking even once you count phone and internet (about $100 together), car insurance (about $100), gas (another $100-$150), repairs and maintenance (yet another $100), and every day expenses (food, household items--$100).
This could vary drastically, though, because most minimum wage paying jobs are part-time. Also remember that 10/hr on paper may translate to only $7 or $8 to the employees take-home pay; the rest might go to tax and various other fees, especially if the job has an option for health insurance.
Lol. Yeah let's do away with utility bills, free cars for everyone and free food while you're at it
57% of married couples are childless. So no, "most couples" do not have kids. Without immigration and the high birthrate of the permanent underclass in the bottom 20%, the US would be seeing the same big population contraction of Japan, South Korea, and Northern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Got a link to exactly where you came up with 57%? My guess is that that number includes married retirees and empty nesters as well as young couples who haven't started families yet, but since you posted this as fact, please provide a source for the number so that those of us who like to fact check can do so.
I was wondering about those figures, too. In my family is quite common to be married long enough to have a 50th wedding anniversary (one of my aunts & her husband were married 66 years before one of them died).
Obviously, all of those couples with 50 (or 66) years of marriage are not still raising children. But, if your children are 25 or 35 (or 65) are you considered "child less" in that statistic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
I found a Reuters article that cites 2012 census numbers. It indicates that 57% of U.S. households are childless -- 29% of married couples and 28% of singletons -- so if that's where he got the number, he's misrepresented it.
The article referred to households reported in the 2012 census, so I'm going to make an educated guess that the number includes people who have raised children but no longer have any living at home, which is definitely not the same as saying 57% percent of married couples are childless.
A friend of mine and his wife is living in Spokane Washington in a very nice two bedroom apartment which only costs $700 a month. He and his wife work in low wage retail and are both earning about $10 an hour or $20K a year apiece. ($40K) total. They pay about 15% of their income in taxes which leaves them $34,000 a year in net pay. They pay about $10K a year in rent and utilities and that leaves them $24K for everything else. A good relatively comfortable lifestyle most of the people in the world would love to have.
What am I missing?
What you're missing is that with they both have to work if they have children, which means they'll likely have children later in life, or one won't be able to stay home and raise it before it goes to school, or will have a hard time paying for daycare (which has its own risks).
Decades ago, when companies cared about their employees rather than just saw them as liabilities and business expenses, a single parent could work full time, raise a family in their 20's, have a car payment, take care of a pet, and own a home (if they weren't swamped in debt like they are today). Plus they could get health benefits at affordable prices, contribute to retirement with the help of their employer, and possibly have a pension.
Nowadays you're lucky to find this; you'll mostly find both parents have to work full-time, are more likely to go in debt (and have to), are less likely to have a savings account (or one where the earned interest pays off inflation), less likely to be offered benefits or retirement contributions childcare support from their employers (like maternity leave beyond what the government requires, 2 weeks), are more likely to have temporary jobs, and can pretty much be fired for any reason at any time, oh and their wages have been stagnating for decades in relation to cost-of-living increases.
Life for workers has gotten punishing if you want to do anything other than work in your 20's and the following decades, unless you get lucky, can use your talents, or get college-educated which has become insanely expensive and complicated. Our politicians are getting sold out to the richest global corporations on the planet who have been chaining the worker and middle-class person, shoving many into the poor class (now the majority in America, while the rich get richer), and this punishment is why there's so much populist anger and dislike for Congress right now.
Lol. Yeah let's do away with utility bills, free cars for everyone and free food while you're at it
Nope, I may be obsessed with minimizing housing costs but I don't carry that obsession into other living costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, what happens if one of them loses his or her job or can't work for an extended period of time or can only work half time?
