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.
And how are these 20-somethings going to pay for their family today? They're working 32 hour a week jobs for the most part because any more and they would have health insurance. (So that leaves taxpayers on the hook for deliveries and any premature births. And it also leaves taxpayers on the hook for all the medical expenses associated with early life. While, most aren't expensive, small percentage will chew up a great deal of resources.)
I agree with the OP's premise. Don't have children. Reproduction has become something that only the comfortably middle class and above can afford.
It hasn't *become* like that, it always has been. The difference is, one-income households used to be common. If you include the "imputed income" of caring for kids rather than spending money on daycare, many of them were in fact middle class after all. Of course this imputed income never shows up in official statistics for household income, so it is easy to forget it.
Pretty much! If ya want kiddos, borrow them. Volunteer at the Boys & Girls Club. There are so many kids right now that have crappy parents. Those kids need someone else to play their stable parent figure, I think. Good advice you have there. Don't have them, you will be broke. I like kids, but I'm NOT having any unless this multi-millionaire I have a crush on, ever floats into my life. :-P I wish. He's like adorable hotness. He's a serious equestrian. That's his life. I love this. Woops, too much information. I didn't know he was that rich when I got the crazy butterflies. If he is, or isn't? I really don't care. In fact, don't tell me. My attraction is bec he's made me all gaga. Never mind all of this, lol!
It hasn't *become* like that, it always has been. The difference is, one-income households used to be common. If you include the "imputed income" of caring for kids rather than spending money on daycare, many of them were in fact middle class after all. Of course this imputed income never shows up in official statistics for household income, so it is easy to forget it.
I was quite specific that it is today the comfortably middle class (or higher). Lower middle class couples are usually already treading water -- having children will knock them right out of "middle class."
This continues my long-standing assertion that what was once financially realistic in the past (the single breadwinner household) is either completely impossible today, or significantly less realistic.
Of course, now that I've said that, someone is going to break out charts from a Libertarian think tank that claims people today just aren't bootstrapping hard enough. No matter what the problem, bootstrapping is apparently the only answer.
I was quite specific that it is today the comfortably middle class (or higher). Lower middle class couples are usually already treading water -- having children will knock them right out of "middle class."
This continues my long-standing assertion that what was once financially realistic in the past (the single breadwinner household) is either completely impossible today, or significantly less realistic.
Of course, now that I've said that, someone is going to break out charts from a Libertarian think tank that claims people today just aren't bootstrapping hard enough. No matter what the problem, bootstrapping is apparently the only answer.
This is due to lifestyle inflation. In lower-cost areas of the country, it is entirely possible to support a family on not much above the median salary of a single full-time worker, with no second income. But they have to be willing to be frugal. First, no daycare or babysitter, the stay-at-home parent must actually...well....parent. Also, they must cook - limited eating out. Finally, they must have one car for the household. With only one job this should be manageable, if inconvenient.
It should go without saying that living space should be small and kids can share a bedroom when small. Ideally also the parents won't buy a house with less than 20% down, since the added debt and PMI can be quite significant unnecessary costs.
And how are these 20-somethings going to pay for their family today? They're working 32 hour a week jobs for the most part because any more and they would have health insurance. (So that leaves taxpayers on the hook for deliveries and any premature births. And it also leaves taxpayers on the hook for all the medical expenses associated with early life. While, most aren't expensive, small percentage will chew up a great deal of resources.)
I agree with the OP's premise. Don't have children. Reproduction has become something that only the comfortably middle class and above can afford.
Interesting. My two millennial daughters and their husbands have been able to afford to have three children each, and my oldest daughter and husband (age 32) also managed to afford an international adoption and now have four children.
Both my daughters are also stay at home moms and their homes are one income homes. Oh - and their husband's jobs provide full medical insurance coverage for their families.
Not only that - they know many others in the same circumstances, since they both home school and are parts of coops of similar families. These families are overwhelmingly middle class, and one income families.
This is due to lifestyle inflation. In lower-cost areas of the country, it is entirely possible to support a family on not much above the median salary of a single full-time worker, with no second income. But they have to be willing to be frugal. First, no daycare or babysitter, the stay-at-home parent must actually...well....parent. Also, they must cook - limited eating out. Finally, they must have one car for the household. With only one job this should be manageable, if inconvenient.
It should go without saying that living space should be small and kids can share a bedroom when small. Ideally also the parents won't buy a house with less than 20% down, since the added debt and PMI can be quite significant unnecessary costs.
You are right on the money. This is basically how the families I know who are one income with small kids do it - with the exception that most of them have two vehicles (but one is usually a "beater").
I was quite specific that it is today the comfortably middle class (or higher). Lower middle class couples are usually already treading water -- having children will knock them right out of "middle class."
This continues my long-standing assertion that what was once financially realistic in the past (the single breadwinner household) is either completely impossible today, or significantly less realistic.
Of course, now that I've said that, someone is going to break out charts from a Libertarian think tank that claims people today just aren't bootstrapping hard enough. No matter what the problem, bootstrapping is apparently the only answer.
It's not a matter of bootstrapping or making excuses that things are just harder. Go back to the 50s or 60s and the single income families and look at what they had. 1200-1500 sqft 2-3 bedrooms 1-2 baths, one car, one TV, a home phone and most meals at home. Things are vastly different today
Pretty much! If ya want kiddos, borrow them. Volunteer at the Boys & Girls Club. There are so many kids right now that have crappy parents. Those kids need someone else to play their stable parent figure, I think. Good advice you have there. Don't have them, you will be broke. I like kids, but I'm NOT having any unless this multi-millionaire I have a crush on, ever floats into my life. :-P I wish. He's like adorable hotness. He's a serious equestrian. That's his life. I love this. Woops, too much information. I didn't know he was that rich when I got the crazy butterflies. If he is, or isn't? I really don't care. In fact, don't tell me. My attraction is bec he's made me all gaga. Never mind all of this, lol!
maybe women can do this, but any guy who tries will get the 'creepy' vibe by society and likely start to get local gossip thrown his way.
It's not a matter of bootstrapping or making excuses that things are just harder. Go back to the 50s or 60s and the single income families and look at what they had. 1200-1500 sqft 2-3 bedrooms 1-2 baths, one car, one TV, a home phone and most meals at home. Things are vastly different today
Two cars are a requirement for two breadwinners, unless they work the same shift at the same location. Or unless they have access to realistic public transportation (not bloody likely in the US).
TVs cost less today than they did decades ago. A dumb phone costs less than a monthly Bell account did decades ago.
I just bought a 1,500 sqft rental house in a decent but not great part of Las Vegas. $150K -- and it needed a LOT of work. I paid cash because nobody would finance such a damaged property. How is anyone working multiple part-time jobs going to be able to save up enough for enough down payment to swing a mortgage on a reasonable place to live?
You're right -- things are VASTLY different today. We have a wage problem.
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.
