Do you NEED 2 incomes?

[MonkeyMama]

I did not mind pumping one bit. I figured that would come up too - my first was solely breastfed 9 months. IT was no biggie. I have a private office and was an excuse to take a nice break 2 times a day. I went home for lunch. (I know a lot of women who had to use the bathroom and such - yeah - that would suck).

I think you can argue before the advent of the pump, that a SAHD was WAY less realistic.

I guess you can say the same about formula, but the pump kind of lets you have your cake and eat it too. Maybe one of the most liberating inventions of the last century. .

[PrincessPerky]

I didn't say others shouldn't just that I don't!

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Except formula is necessary for some children. I had a friend who desperately wanted to breastfeed but the baby was allergic to it. So it was expensive formula!

[Maismom]

I really don't know the answer to this question because we've always been 2 income family. I didn't work about three months after we moved to the US from another country, and I was going crazy. So, I found a job and started working again.

To me, staying home with my daughter would be so much harder than working in the office. I'm just not wired that way. Also, My DH is not very ambitious about his career, and I make more than him now. But I know I don't make enough to support a family of 3 in California.

I was raised by one income family, typical of my home country. We were not poor, but could not afford much, either. And I HATED it. I hated to look at my mother's sad face every time I had to ask for money. I hated it when my parents argued about the money.

Even DH and I don't make "a lot" of money individually, our combined income is decent. With that money, we could send our daughter to an educational trip (price tag $3K) last summer, and will send her to Europe trip next summer (price tag $5K). I know these trips are not "necessity" but these are the things I wanted to do when I was her age, and my parents could not afford to do for me.

Sorry, it's kind of a random answer, but to me, we need to be two income to do things we want to do, such as saving enough for retirement and invest in our daughter's education. And, it is good for my peace of mind.

[disneysteve]

I was raised by one income family, typical of my home country.

I was raised here in the US in a one-income family. In the 60s and 70s, that was very typical of the situation here. Very few of my friends or relatives had working mothers. It just wasn't the norm for women to work at that time. We all led very comfortable lifestyles, owned homes, cars, TVs, stereos, took vacations a few times each year, etc. But life was simpler then. Most meals were cooked from scratch at home. Mom had plenty of time for that since she didn't work. Vacation meant a week at the beach or a long weekend in Lancaster, PA. It didn't mean a 10-day Alaskan cruise or a canopy tour in Costa Rica. Stuff like that was for the rich people.

Hence my original question. How many 2-income couples are both working in order to afford what not all that long ago would have been considered an upper class lifestyle? If you would go back to living like we did 20 years ago, could you be comfortable on one income?

[Seeker]

Hence my original question. How many 2-income couples are both working in order to afford what not all that long ago would have been considered an upper class lifestyle? If you would go back to living like we did 20 years ago, could you be comfortable on one income?

Well some people cannot even achieve a mid-income lifestyle in today's terms.

In the 60's gasoline costs 39.9 cents per gallon. I remember my Dad paying that amount at the pumps.

Gasoline Price History

Income for comparison back then and income adjusted for inflation back in 2005 terms (interesting chart):

Avg. Income Excel Graph

Gasoline in today's dollars is much more costly than our folks paid per dollar earned. Today a minimum wage person works 1 hour to earn two gallons of gas (more or less).

Compare the costs of food then versus now. Housing whether rented or owned, was affordable with income. Taxes were not as expensive.

I'm sorry Steve, I believe that most people can, if they want to or need to deal with life as a one income family.... but in yesterday's terms it was much more doable and practical than it is today. Frankly, i'm not sure it's worth the struggle.

Even when that one person earner is ONLY purchasing the bare minimums (necessities) in order for their family to survive. Some incomes are a lot greater than others... some areas cost a whole lot more to live within than others. There's just a ton of conditionals.... and it's not an easy life either way.

[disneysteve]

Seeker, interesting charts. So it looks like average income has been pretty much flat for several decades while costs of various things have steadily risen: gas, food, college, housing, etc. That would make it harder to manage on the same income.

I think some of that data, though, is subject to interpretation. Here's why. A brand new Hybrid Toyota Prius gets WORSE gas mileage than a VW Rabbit did in 1980. The average home today is more than twice the size of homes in 1970. More people own homes. More people own cars. People eat a far higher percentage of meals in restaurants and do far less home cooking than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The number of people who travel by air has risen dramatically. Vacations have gotten more elaborate and expensive. More students go on to college and, I suspect, more probably go to private colleges than in the past (just my own sense, not from any data).

So although spending averages might be higher, I think sometimes those averages are deceiving because they are comparing apples to oranges.

I just wonder if it is still possible to live well on one income. I agree that it depends on a lot of factors and geographic variations, but makes for an interesting discussion.

[Seeker]

Seeker, interesting charts. So it looks like average income has been pretty much flat for several decades while costs of various things have steadily risen: gas, food, college, housing, etc. That would make it harder to manage on the same income.

I think some of that data, though, is subject to interpretation. Here's why. A brand new Hybrid Toyota Prius gets WORSE gas mileage than a VW Rabbit did in 1980. The average home today is more than twice the size of homes in 1970. More people own homes. More people own cars. People eat a far higher percentage of meals in restaurants and do far less home cooking than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The number of people who travel by air has risen dramatically. Vacations have gotten more elaborate and expensive. More students go on to college and, I suspect, more probably go to private colleges than in the past (just my own sense, not from any data).

So although spending averages might be higher, I think sometimes those averages are deceiving because they are comparing apples to oranges.

I just wonder if it is still possible to live well on one income. I agree that it depends on a lot of factors and geographic variations, but makes for an interesting discussion.

Absolutely true.

Do you know anyone who'd buy a car without air conditioning today? That VW used diesel gas which used to be a lot less costly than leaded gas (unleaded was not around much then either); and I beleieve the VW was a very basic car that was manual transmission, no A/C, and not any of the "necessities" that (even I admit), I'd want to drive without.

Definitely on all counts. People are not willing to live the lives our folks did then, and that's not really going to change either. The younger generation is not willing to live that way anymore.... and not all of us today are willing to live that life either.

[tripods68]

I agree on the charts.

Cars made in the 70s or 80s didn't have all the safety features we enjoy today with more powerful engines and efficiency. I remember a 1990 HONDA CRX got 55 mpg more than Prius. But nowhere near the safety and the luxury of modern cars. There are more restuarants and fast food today all around than 20 or 30 years ago caused by a growing large population.

[disneysteve]

People are not willing to live the lives our folks did then, and that's not really going to change either.

BINGO! My point exactly. A great many people "need" two incomes to support a certain lifestyle. Were we happy and comfortable in the 70s and 80s? Absolutely. We had everything we really needed and a few things we wanted. Do we live that way today? Not a chance. Could we? Sure.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I dunno, but my mom's single income made life tight. If not for help from family I doubt we might have made it in the 70s and 80s. It really depends on the income, and circumstances.

We likely qualified for assistance and for sure my grandparents did, but they never took it. Too proud.

[Seeker]

BINGO! My point exactly. A great many people "need" two incomes to support a certain lifestyle. Were we happy and comfortable in the 70s and 80s? Absolutely. We had everything we really needed and a few things we wanted. Do we live that way today? Not a chance. Could we? Sure.

I've mulled this for a few hours. I still don't know Steve.

Are my folks "happy"? I believe I'm happier with DH & our financial situation (though it's not great) than either of my folks are with theirs or then they've ever been with their financial picture. But their financial situtation has never been great to begin with and they didn't/don't really "plan."

They don't have a choice in how they live today.... and a lot of the older generation are in the same boat. Sure, some are financially happy and well off.... but I think many people in their one-income earner roles would have felt better had their SO "worked" for some part of their lives... to help prepare for the latter parts of their lives. I believe my Mom wanted to work part-time at least we we all moved out before college. I know that she would have been happier then.

Part of the problem is that when there's one earner -- everything depends on that one person. That person is driven.... if he does well (makes a lot of money and does the right thing with it), then there's no problem for the future. But not every person is so driven. Not every person succeeds with this task, and sometimes fate throws in a curve.

My point is that while we can live within the old traditions (one-family earner and Wife/Mom taking care of kids and house), many don't want to be limited to those roles. We do want more and thus we strive for it. I don't think this is wrong or bad... just different. Are we less happy or more happy?

I honestly don't think "money" defines happiness, nor need nor want -- money helps with all of that. But our priorities are based on other more important things -- enjoying life, sharing life, seeing the world, etc.

I think we each have "earned" the right to enjoy life as best we can -- there's nothing wrong with working and earning for the future or for our wants or for our needs.

If one person is driven to do so -- then fine, let that person so succeed and master whatever s/he loves to do. If two people want to do so, then let them.

Neither way is the "only" way -- we are individuals in partnership to enjoy life. Neither way is "wrong" or "right" -- the ideal is for two people whom married (or single) to do that which they want to do and be able to afford what they want to do in the future as well.

Times have changed and for most families there's no doubt that it's much more difficult to live life on one income (then it was in the 60's.... 70's... or 80's). Yes, there's a comparison between old and new and it's apples to oranges, but the costs are still higher -- we're getting more features. And we pay more of the ratio we earn toward getting the same things. The "dollar" does not stretch as far as it used to. Salaries don't even keep up with inflation anymore.

[disneysteve]

My point is that while we can live within the old traditions (one-family earner and Wife/Mom taking care of kids and house), many don't want to be limited to those roles. We do want more and thus we strive for it. I don't think this is wrong or bad... just different. Are we less happy or more happy?

there's nothing wrong with working and earning for the future or for our wants or for our needs.

If one person is driven to do so -- then fine, let that person so succeed and master whatever s/he loves to do. If two people want to do so, then let them.

Neither way is the "only" way -- we are individuals in partnership to enjoy life. Neither way is "wrong" or "right" -- the ideal is for two people whom married (or single) to do that which they want to do and be able to afford what they want to do in the future as well.

I agree with all of this. My point in this thread is not to say that all families should, or are able to, be one-income households. As I've said a couple of times in this discussion, some women need to work for their own sanity and well-being. Staying home with the kids all day would drive them nuts. I've also said that the ability to live comfortably on one income depends a lot on the size of that income and where you live.

The point that I'm trying to make, and perhaps I haven't made it all that clearly, is that I know numerous people who claim to "need" both incomes to make ends meet, but when you look at their lifestyles and spending habits, you can find plenty of things that could be trimmed or cut to allow them to live just fine on one of their incomes if having a stay-at-home parent was really a priority for them. Certainly, this doesn't apply to all couples. Some really do need both incomes even though one of them would love to stay home. Others have no desire to stay home and are far happier working. I'm focusing only on the ones who want to stay home, think they can't, but if they really worked at it, probably could. Hope that makes sense.

[PrincessPerky]

I totally agree with apples to oranges. My husband grew up with a steel mill working father..

for those who didn't grow up in the 'stel city' (PA) mills repeatedly laid off then hired back workers.

My husbands family did fine because they never changed their simple spending habits..not that they never bought expensive things, on the contrary they bought a $600 vcr...back when the brice 'came down' from $1000. the difference is they paid CASH for that VCR, so it really cost just the 600. whereas today you hardly hear of anyone buying a $60 VCR with cash much less a $600 dollar gadget.

I am not interested in one handed math right now but I bet with folks credit habits the VCR of today costs the same as it used to by the time you pay it off.

[DebbieL]

I grew up in this city. My parents were able to buy their house for $14,000 in 1971 and it was paid off by 1978 with only my dad's income (mom didn't work until she was about 40). They bought new cars with cash. They always had 2 vehicles. We had vacations. They had 5 kids, and were able to take us all out to restaurants (probably once a month or so). My dad's income was not a professional income. He was a federal government employee and earned a very average income. My parents have never had debt (except the 6 or 7 years they had the mortgage). We had a very good lifestyle. I had activities, music instruments, lessons, Disneyland trips, etc.

There is NO WAY to do this in my city (the same city my parents did it in) now on one income. The average house (which wouldn't have a lot anywhere near as large as my parents' house) is over 500K right now. Try buying that on one average income (or even 2). If you did, it wouldn't be paid off in 6 years that's for sure. With both of us working, and only 1 child, DH and I cannot possibly afford to buy a house. Buying new cars with cash is also not possible for us (I have no plans to buy new cars, but I'm just making the point that my parents have always done so and never had debt).

So, in my city (and all the areas surrounding us), the lifestyle that was easily possible on one very average income in the 1970s cannot be had even with two pretty good incomes today. This is not a matter of people wanting more now. We had more back then. We lacked for nothing in the 1970s.