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.
You bring up a sore point, My dad supported a family of seven (and my mom was a SAHM) on less than $100 a week in the mid-60's, but we lived in an inexpensive apartment in a working-poor neighborhood, we had mostly pasta, pot pies, and cheap cereal to eat, we wore secondhand clothes, we had one car, and our only recreation was TV and going to the local park. (A BIG treat was ice cream.) My parents probably could have qualified for some kind of welfare, but they had too much pride to apply for it.
So, I don't think anyone is saying that it was EASY to live on just one (relatively poor) salary, but it was possible.
P.S. And my mom used cloth diapers which she laundered herself.
How many roommates did your family have?
I had 2 roommates when I made that salary, living in a neighborhood of apartments that families like yours would have been able to afford 50 years prior. I couldn't have afforded to live in even the cheapest, most dangerous neighborhoods in a studio apartment on my own. Even living with roommates, I could barely afford my car but needed it because I couldn't afford to move within walking distance or even public transit from work.
I'm not denying that it was difficult, but it was possible. It wouldn't be possible today.
"But the TVs!" I could buy a 55' TV right now for just a little over $300 (though I don't because the Boomers in my life keep giving me their cast-offs every time they upgrade). I can hook up the Roku I got 5 years ago for $50 and have cable for $20 a month. All in all, that's less than the equivalent would have cost older generations because the cost of tech has come down. It doesn't really impact the affordability of staples like homes and healthcare.
The other thing that kills me is the thought that having the internet and a computer/smart phone at home is an extra. I am expected to be able to respond to emails or issues at work from home. I don't know many Millennials (or anyone else, really) who work in professional roles who don't have similar expectations. I must have the internet and a means to do my job from home, and my employer will not pay for that any more than they'll pay my electric bill or for my commute from home - it's just an expectation for employees.
I remember a few years ago when I went hiking and didn't have cell service. The head of my department called me 15 times while I was gone for 4 hours. It was a weekend and there was no real expectation of being "on call" and yet I was expected to be available and responsive. While my job was fine, it's still a sign of the changing employment landscape. I end up responding to work issues at least once most weekends, even when I'm on vacation.
Exactly my experience. Internet is not an option in many professions now.
No matter where I am, I'm expected to answer e-mails within 24 hours. Even on vacation. If I'm going somewhere where this is impossible, I'd better have a backup lined up and state it abundantly clearly on my out of office reply.
It isn't a written rule, but the reaction from upper management when you don't follow this unwritten rule..it might as well be written.
My dad didn't have to deal with anything work related the second he left the place. The effect that has on your stress level is not to be ignored.
But I digress. Internet service is no longer a "luxury".
College funds and retirement are kind of important things nearly on par with rent food and utilities. At least, in a first world country. American exceptionalism, and all that. When you are talking bout declining standard of living, education and retirement are part of that standard. Those things did not suffer in the "good old days" because many jobs had pensions, and public higher education was very inexpensive if even necessary to earn a good living.
If you're saying those things have to go living on one salary, you're already conceding things are harder now.
Are we talking about living on one salary vs two income households or is the standard of living better according to todays standards.
My parents and those of most of my friends did not pay for college tuition. Actually very few people I knew had parents that did. There seems to be a lot of student loan debt so for many having a college fund apparently is not on par with food and shelter. Today we are seeing graduates that can not find those good living jobs even with their degrees.
Many folks lived off social security and had little in the way of retirement funds. Even pensions were not that great for your average middle class worker.
Back in the 1950s, people 'survived' on one or zero cars. They had one TV, one vacuum cleaner, sometimes a phone. They didn't eat out much. There wasn't any fast food. They often rented. Their homes were small.
Today's poorest person would consider the 1950s' standard of living as third-world.
Another one to the list who doesn't get what standard of living is.
Are we talking about living on one salary vs two income households or is the standard of living better according to todays standards.
My parents and those of most of my friends did not pay for college tuition. Actually very few people I knew had parents that did. There seems to be a lot of student loan debt so for many having a college fund apparently is not on par with food and shelter. Today we are seeing graduates that can not find those good living jobs even with their degrees.
Many folks lived off social security and had little in the way of retirement funds. Even pensions were not that great for your average middle class worker.
We're talking about living on one salary in a manner that in some way reflects how people lived in "the good old days".
Replacing health care with TV's is not an increase in standard of living, it's a decrease. Something the perpetually thick headed here just can't grasp.
Cost of living is a major factor. I actually live in the same town I grew up in so I can see the difference in income levels it takes to sustain v years ago. My mother stayed home while we were younger (went back to work later on). When they bought the house we lived in they paid 70K and the taxes were 2K on that house. Today that house is worth 950K with taxes of 23K. That is not normal inflation. Using savings value by year 72K in 1978 equals 291,284 in 2019. THAT IS WHY families need 2 incomes to survive where I live. That's just the initial cost. Forget the property taxes that rose 21K per year in that time lol...
We're talking about living on one salary in a manner that in some way reflects how people lived in "the good old days".
Replacing health care with TV's is not an increase in standard of living, it's a decrease. Something the perpetually thick headed here just can't grasp.
Why is it some families can survive on one salary?
Why is it some families choose to be duel income?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,823 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
Let us not forget that many families desire for their children to attend college. Back in 1981, while attending Texas Tech Law School, my tuition was $5.00 per hour. So, for 90 hours over three years, I paid $450.00.
If you have a child today, you best be advised to start a dedicated savings plan for your toddler, and even then said toddler will be facing big school loans.
The tuition/living expenses for my son in 2003. $40K per year. Same institution today some 16 years later.....68K. Needless we've started an educational fund for our granddaughter a week after her birth. Will it be enough...nope...not even close....... but hopefully academic scholarship's will be an option....
Why is it some families can survive on one salary?
Why is it some families choose to be duel income?
The question posed by the OP is: why can't most families live on a single income anymore?
It's not about choice. Of course, the zombie tribes of "TV and cell phone and I'm smarter than you"ers THINK it is a choice, but any sensible adult who actually looks at data knows it is not a choice for most people.
My family COULD survive on one salary..we'd save nothing... but we choose not to because I like going on vacation and I want to retire someday. However, in my area there are many families who don't have that choice..they couldn't afford to live here without 2 incomes and any examination of their non-extravagant expenses proves that out.
granted this article is over 4 years old, but the above bolded is not the usual.
Which is why a 2nd job may be needed initially...
People cant expect to start at the top.
And those articles make a 15.00 hr min wage even more ridiculous...a person flipping burgers at MCDONALD'S getting as much or more than a pilot for an airline, is a joke.
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.
The tuition/living expenses for my son in 2003. $40K per year. Same institution today some 16 years later.....68K. Needless we've started an educational fund for our granddaughter a week after her birth. Will it be enough...nope...not even close....... but hopefully academic scholarship's will be an option....
