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'm interested to hear what others think of DINKS--double income, no kids. They take vacations whenever/wherever they want, have plenty of extra money to spent on eating out, entertainment, and can live in the geographical locations they want (for instance in the big cities) because they don't have to worry about schools.
And? who are you to say they shouldn't live that way?
not everybody is a children person, nor necessarily wants children.
Yeah, I realize that. My initial post said that it seemed kind of pointless, actually. Two can live as cheaply as one.
Yes, if the stay-at-home spouse (and I assume you mean the wife from your other posts) doesn't go anywhere or desire anything. Many people in this thread talk about vacationing around the world, which certainly is not a buy-one-get-one-free deal. Other people talk about clothes, shoes, restaurants, and so on, all of which cost money.
Of course it's possible to live a frugal life on one income. I just don't see the point of doing so. If the floor only needs to be scrubbed once a week because children aren't running all over the place and making messes, if laundry is limited to a few loads on the weekends because there aren't a lot of towels and linens and dirty clothes, if the house stays neat because it's empty all day ... what's the point? If the spouse makes good money and there are no children to support, he or she can easily employ a maid and have money left over.
I envy their lifestyle, then I pity them for what what they are missing out on, then I envy their lifestyle, back to pity. . . .
I guess the answer is it depends on what day it is.
If we were Dinks, I would be retired by now. As a father of five, I will probably retire right into a coffin. On the other side, someone will be there to cry.
I am also glad that my brother and sister decided to have no kids. Since we have five and you are supposed to have only 1.8, our family came out about right (My other brother had one).
Ah, so it's the celebration of materialism, gotcha.
Not really. Most people who don't have kids don't think to themselves "wow, if we don't have kids we can buy more stuff!" Rather, they think, "we don't want kids for a variety of reasons." Materialism usually isn't high on the list. I am sure it is for some people, but not most.
For me, if I don't have kids, it will have nothing to do with materialism. Not to say it isn't selfish in a sense. For me, its a matter of not wanting to deal with the raising of children. School, crying, cleaning, yelling, and so on. And wanting to keep my freedom and my outside interests, and keep control over how and when I pursue them.
Not really. Most people who don't have kids don't think to themselves "wow, if we don't have kids we can buy more stuff!" Rather, they think, "we don't want kids for a variety of reasons." Materialism usually isn't high on the list. I am sure it is for some people, but not most.
For me, if I don't have kids, it will have nothing to do with materialism. Not to say it isn't selfish in a sense. For me, its a matter of not wanting to deal with the raising of children. School, crying, cleaning, yelling, and so on. And wanting to keep my freedom and my outside interests, and keep control over how and when I pursue them.
I agree here to, me not having kids had nothing to do with materialism. I just didn't want to make the sacrifices that having kids requires.
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.