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.
I watched some old home movies last night of my husband's childhood back in the 1950-60s and it reminded me of how family life used to be. Mom stayed home as in most families back then and ran the household while Dad worked long hours. My husband grew up with two siblings in a 1200 sf tract house with one bathroom which was standard back then. They had only one car so often his Mom would drive Dad to work so she could have the car for errands. They did not buy a piece of furniture until they had the cash to pay for it. Their family pet was fed table scraps. The kids had no structured activities other than Scouts but spent hours outside playing outside or riding their bikes. Eating out was limited to a couple of times a year and only on very special occasions. One of the movies showed them taking a road trip to California in their Falcon station wagon with no ac. They would stop at rest stops and assemble sandwiches and drink iced tea brought from home. One of the nights they even pulled over to a rest stop and slept in the car to save money. This was just how many middle-class families lived back then. IMO expectations have changed immensely and contributed greatly to the demise of the one income family.
I watched some old home movies last night of my husband's childhood back in the 1950-60s and it reminded me of how family life used to be. Mom stayed home as in most families back then and ran the household while Dad worked long hours. My husband grew up with two siblings in a 1200 sf tract house with one bathroom which was standard back then. They had only one car so often his Mom would drive Dad to work so she could have the car for errands. They did not buy a piece of furniture until they had the cash to pay for it. Their family pet was fed table scraps. The kids had no structured activities other than Scouts but spent hours outside playing outside or riding their bikes. Eating out was limited to a couple of times a year and only on very special occasions. One of the movies showed them taking a road trip to California in their Falcon station wagon with no ac. They would stop at rest stops and assemble sandwiches and drink iced tea brought from home. One of the nights they even pulled over to a rest stop and slept in the car to save money. This was just how many middle-class families lived back then. IMO expectations have changed immensely and contributed greatly to the demise of the one income family.
I think thats certainly painting with a broad brush.
There are a great deal of families out there that have the neccessity of dual incomes simply to scrape by.
I know that I could not possibly live in a 1200 sqft house, in Hampton Roads, VA, with the expenses of a wife and kid, on the money I make. Its just not remotely logical. Medical and housing would take up 100% of my net income.
I watched some old home movies last night of my husband's childhood back in the 1950-60s and it reminded me of how family life used to be. Mom stayed home as in most families back then and ran the household while Dad worked long hours. My husband grew up with two siblings in a 1200 sf tract house with one bathroom which was standard back then. They had only one car so often his Mom would drive Dad to work so she could have the car for errands. They did not buy a piece of furniture until they had the cash to pay for it. Their family pet was fed table scraps. The kids had no structured activities other than Scouts but spent hours outside playing outside or riding their bikes. Eating out was limited to a couple of times a year and only on very special occasions. One of the movies showed them taking a road trip to California in their Falcon station wagon with no ac. They would stop at rest stops and assemble sandwiches and drink iced tea brought from home. One of the nights they even pulled over to a rest stop and slept in the car to save money. This was just how many middle-class families lived back then. IMO expectations have changed immensely and contributed greatly to the demise of the one income family.
I watched some old home movies last night of my husband's childhood back in the 1950-60s and it reminded me of how family life used to be. Mom stayed home as in most families back then and ran the household while Dad worked long hours. My husband grew up with two siblings in a 1200 sf tract house with one bathroom which was standard back then. They had only one car so often his Mom would drive Dad to work so she could have the car for errands. They did not buy a piece of furniture until they had the cash to pay for it. Their family pet was fed table scraps. The kids had no structured activities other than Scouts but spent hours outside playing outside or riding their bikes. Eating out was limited to a couple of times a year and only on very special occasions. One of the movies showed them taking a road trip to California in their Falcon station wagon with no ac. They would stop at rest stops and assemble sandwiches and drink iced tea brought from home. One of the nights they even pulled over to a rest stop and slept in the car to save money. This was just how many middle-class families lived back then. IMO expectations have changed immensely and contributed greatly to the demise of the one income family.
You just described how everyone on the street where I grew up lived. It was a much simpler way of life and we didn't expect much. I was the oldest child and wore hand me down clothes from the neighbors. I didn't get a new bike until I was 24.
We are a family of 6 and live on one income, near but not 6 figures. Sure it's tight but not horrible in anyway.
Do we have a new BMW, or a 4000sq. ft. house? Nope.
Do we need those things? Nope.
I'm sure where in the country you live would be the biggest factor in how far your dollar takes you. My DH has had options to take jobs that are a little better paying elsewhere but after checking out home prices and general cost of living in the other areas, it would actually come out to be a pay decrease.
Ditto. We actually did move twice to places where my husband's income increased greatly - but it felt like he was making less, due to the higher cost of living in those areas. We came back to a place we had lived comfortably before on his one income and we plan to stay until the kids have moved up and out and on their own. We were just lucky that we were able to move back! He does make 6 figures but just barely. His income in our current town allows us to live very comfortably, and save a lot. In higher cost of living areas, even with the cost of living pay increases he received, it was a huge struggle financially and instead of saving money each month, we were barely breaking even. You are wise to have decided to stay right where you are! We had to learn it the hard way - twice! lol
Perhaps the biggest problem with healthcare is companies are no longer willing to fit the bill most of the time for family coverage. But honestly, if you don't have a family, why should people who have families effectively get a $1000 a month pay raise over a single person? I think that's the two pronged healthcare problem...no matter which way you do it someone gets screwed. I pay around $50 a month for my personal healthcare as a self-employed person...it's dirt cheap. But I would be upset if I worked W2 and received the equivalent of $100 a month in "health coverage" while the guy next to me with 3 kids receives $1000 a month in benefits. Healthy, single people subsidize old, unhealthy families in the corporate world of health insurance. Many companies are realizing this and adjusting their benefit plans. I guess what is "more fair" is all a matter of perspective...
This stuff also extends to "family leave," "sick days" and a lot of other "old school" benefits that effectively penalize healthy, single people who take care of themselves. Paid time off for many, is a much superior system. Perhaps all of these are reasons people don't want to have kids, aside from all the other stuff discussed.
I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here. Maybe it just doesn't apply at the company where my husband works, but how is it that single workers are "subsidizing" other workers who pay extra to have their family members added onto their employee health plans?
Also, I wouldn't assume that single people are healthier than people who have families. Many single people are not as concerned with their health or lifestyle choices as people who have families, and kids to care for.
The single people we know eat junk food, drink a lot, still like to party... they take antidepressants or other prescription meds. They don't get enough sleep. When they aren't working, they sit around watching TV, playing video games, eating fast food. Many of them are overweight. The families we know, including ourselves, live much healthier lifestyles. We play sports, work out, exercise, eat healthy foods, get more sleep... and so on. I think on both sides there will be healthy and unhealthy people. I just wouldn't imply that just because someone is single they are going to automatically be healthier, or that just because someone is a family person they are automatically a liability.
Have you driven around college campuses lately? I ride my bike through a college campus regularly, and the kids are so different-looking than when I was their age. Starbuck's and Adderall do not evidently do a body good.
I've noticed a trend toward the single income family in my neck of the woods. It's surprising that many of these young women, who are college educated and have worked in the professional setting, have decided to become stay at home moms. I can easily see how income influences a family's decision whether or not one parent stays home while the other works. But I also just recently realized that families that are struggling, financially, sometimes find that it's more cost effective if one parent stays home while the other works. It saves money on childcare.
My point is this: health insurance on the open market varies tremendously in cost depending on your age (older costs more obviously), sex (women pay more than men), state (some states are WAY more expensive than others), pre-existing conditions (obviously) and things like smoking, etc. The difference between a healthy 25 year old and an unhealthy 55 year old is probably 500-700 dollars a month in terms of cost to insure (ballpark). The difference between a healthy 25 year old a "normal" family of 4 is probably 1000-2000 a month in premiums.
Let's say you work for a company who offers 100% coverage for an entire family. If you are a healthy 25 year old that benefit is worth around 100 bucks a month. If you have a family of four that benefit is worth around, let's say, 1500 a month. If you're in the same position as someone who has a family of 4 and you are both making 65k, you have effectively "used" around 17k more in benefits. Meaning, your job effectively pays 17k more than the single 25 year old, because HR departments will frequently calculate compensation in terms of "total cost" i.e. salary plus benefits.
Some companies will be on "group plans" where the "total fee" is simply the average of everyone in the group. So every healthy 25 year old essentially pays an "average" rate to subsidize every 50 year old with diabetes. For example, let's say you work with a company that pays 50% of the health insurance premium for single people, which is fairly common among "B" level benefit plans. The "average" group rate for the company is, let's say, $350 a month, so the company withholds $175 monthly for each employee to cover their cost of the health insurance. So basically the healthy 25 year old ends up paying more for "company" health insurance than they would to get it on the open market because they are subsidizing other members of the group...it's "risk pooling" basically.
Now different companies handle things differently but hopefully this explains what I am talking about when it comes to a lot of corporate health insurance plans and why they are unfair to younger, healthier people. Both of the above examples are VERY common.
EDIT: what I am getting at here is fewer companies are falling into category one and more companies are falling into category two, and only paying for the employees themselves or only 50% or 70% of the premium. This means for a single income household they are required to buy health insurance for kids on the open market. This is REALLY EXPENSIVE, especially for a single income household, and when health insurance increases by a rate that's double that of inflation. So while companies are correcting "unfairness" to a certain degree against single people, they are effectively making it WAY more expensive for families and putting a lot of families in a position where another member has to work to pay for health insurance, or needs to find a job that will provide health insurance for the family.
I've noticed a trend toward the single income family in my neck of the woods. It's surprising that many of these young women, who are college educated and have worked in the professional setting, have decided to become stay at home moms. I can easily see how income influences a family's decision whether or not one parent stays home while the other works. But I also just recently realized that families that are struggling, financially, sometimes find that it's more cost effective if one parent stays home while the other works. It saves money on childcare.
Around here a lot of familes have both adults working but they only work part-time.
It seems that two 20-hour/week jobs, a buck or 2 above minimum wage, is enough to raise a few children, in this area.
I've noticed a trend toward the single income family in my neck of the woods. It's surprising that many of these young women, who are college educated and have worked in the professional setting, have decided to become stay at home moms. I can easily see how income influences a family's decision whether or not one parent stays home while the other works. But I also just recently realized that families that are struggling, financially, sometimes find that it's more cost effective if one parent stays home while the other works. It saves money on childcare.
It's becoming a trend here also. Out of people we associate with (I mean any association, friends, coworkers, family, neighbors) I can only think of one mother who works full time, most are sahms or only work while the kids are in school.
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.
