What do you think of the idea of a two-income trap? - Page 2

[shayinme]

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

For us we've always tried to keep our basic necessity costs in line with one salary, to give us that flexibility. The major decision in that equation (being Canadian) has always been housing and we have bought less house than we needed.

But in the US I think housing prices are often so tied into school districts that it makes sense that people with kids really do need to buy into a good area and that simply takes more money. (Here in Toronto there are neighbourhoods like that too, but the 'worse' or 'medium' neighbourhoods are generally perfectly adequate.)

For us though I went back to work despite daycare and commuting costs, after which I do actually only net about $4-600/month, because in the long term I will be higher on the grid, further along in my career, and have a job once our daycare costs ease up. Also, I love my job.

I think what you said is important, in the first 5 years before kids go to school, you may only net $400-600 after costs yet over the long run you are not going to lose out compared to if you left the work world for 5 years or so. Like you said you will be higher up the grid, I think often times in these discussions its easy to only look at the short term that you are not making as much but its often hard to leave the work world and come back in where you were before. Plus the world is changing so fast it can be hard to keep up ones skills and contacts when you are not working.

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

It's funny... I am not arguing, just sharing.

When I was a SAHM I spent more money on "little treats" because I was bored, out during the day, meeting people for lunch/coffee, and looking for spots my son and I could hang out. It's interesting how different everyone is.

That said, daycare right now DOES eat up a lot of my salary, no two ways around it... and is way more than the SAHM treats + daytime classes.

I'm like you. I spend way more as a SAHM because I am bored, so we go out and its $20 here, $20 there. Right now I am a WAHM so I can't compare but last year when I was teaching, my daily expenses were minimal, brought my coffee/lunch and snacks, occasionally got a Starbucks on the way home. The only whole looking for playdates for the little one eats up money for us.

Shay

[Ellien C]

I haven't read the book so it's hard to comment but I hate to see the decision for a woman to work be reduced solely to money. I know that's the case for many and I'm sorry to hear it. I also hate arguments that deduct the expenses for childcare ONLY from the lower wage earners salary, which is usually the woman. Shouldn't it be a shared expense? It makes me think of some kind of retro argument for men - like they shouldn't ever get married because the cost of needing a bigger house won't be made up by the amount of "free meals" they get out of woman. Aren't these shared expenses? Shouldn't we look at a bigger picture?

Do we just want to paint traps for women? Wasn't having a job and the ability to support yourself the way to avoid being trapped - like in a bad marriage?

[tangent]

Sounds like the author of the book is implying that it was always possible to support a family with one income. That only happened for 20 years in the U.S., post WW2, and even then it only applied to relatively well off people. Most poor still had both mother and father working and almost all the single earner families were white in the supposed golden era of the 40's-60's. It was a fluke. It can still happen now, but it is harder to make happen than 50 years ago. I hate it when the implication is that *everyone* could live on dad's salary while mom stayed home. Even then, it was not commonplace once you looked beyond middle class white families.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by tangent

Sounds like the author of the book is implying that it was always possible to support a family with one income. That only happened for 20 years in the U.S., post WW2, and even then it only applied to relatively well off people. Most poor still had both mother and father working and almost all the single earner families were white in the supposed golden era of the 40's-60's. It was a fluke. It can still happen now, but it is harder to make happen than 50 years ago. I hate it when the implication is that *everyone* could live on dad's salary while mom stayed home. Even then, it was not commonplace once you looked beyond middle class white families.

:

Yeah. Exactly.

Anytime this subject comes up, I'm always a bit suprised by how lacking in historical perspective it is, and also how it is borderline classist.

I do think it was more attainable two generations ago, and could be had with one blue collar job, depending, of course, on luck, circumstance, location, and, sadly, race.

But more blue collar workers could do it then than now.

Now it's not even attainable for all white collar workers. I hate the implication that all it takes is some hard work and frugality. It's simply not true.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

I haven't read the book so it's hard to comment but I hate to see the decision for a woman to work be reduced solely to money. I know that's the case for many and I'm sorry to hear it. I also hate arguments that deduct the expenses for childcare ONLY from the lower wage earners salary, which is usually the woman. Shouldn't it be a shared expense? It makes me think of some kind of retro argument for men - like they shouldn't ever get married because the cost of needing a bigger house won't be made up by the amount of "free meals" they get out of woman. Aren't these shared expenses? Shouldn't we look at a bigger picture?

Do we just want to paint traps for women? Wasn't having a job and the ability to support yourself the way to avoid being trapped - like in a bad marriage?

:

Yes, yes, yes, and yes! Exactly! I totally agree.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

Do we just want to paint traps for women? Wasn't having a job and the ability to support yourself the way to avoid being trapped

:

I'm so glad you raised this point! This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the articles about the book on the Two-Income Trap.

I kept thinking of the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan that talked about the women in single earner families two generations or more ago, the ones that the Two-Income Trap was talking about.

Many of those women interviewed felt "trapped."

Women's advancement was supposed to be about opportunity and having more options/choices. So, a lot of what the Two-Income Trap posits seemed a little...I don't know...maybe somewhat counter to that.

I just don't feel that having one income, even if it supports a family comfortably, offers more options than two incomes. I understand if you are living pay check to pay check and something happens, it is tough. The goal is to have two incomes so that you're not living pay check to pay check, and so that you have a true back up and options for both spouses.

Now, I don't think you need to work 100% of the years from age 18 until retirement. But I do think it's disadvantageous to be out of the workforce for so long that it is challenging to get a job when necessary, and thus be trapped, or reliant on others, when it's about needs rather than choices.

[_betsy_]

Originally Posted by That Is Nice

I hate the implication that all it takes is some hard work and frugality. It's simply not true.

:

It may still be true for some families, it may be true in some regions, it may be true for some people's comfort levels.

I mean, yeah, we could have zero savings, zero retirement/investments, no helath care at all, and maybe be able to make it on one salary. But to us, that's not comfortable, it's not smart, it's not a risk we're willing to take.

[smellyann82]

Originally Posted by That Is Nice

I think it does depend on how much money you make though, especially in terms of child care. I remember reading the figure that if you make more than $30k per year, even with child care expenses, it makes sense to work. If you make less than $30k per year, it doesn't make sense to work, usually.

That figure was from a few years ago, so I don't know how it stands up with inflation or taxes.

i think this, exactly. or maybe more like 35-40K now. dh and i both worked in education/nonprofit when dd was born, making the same amounts of money. my just-under 30K salary at my nonprofit employment evened out to about 13 an hour. we were living in northern nj at the time, and finding a nanny or quality childcare for less than that was impossible. we did find a sitter who was almost 40 minutes from home for us, and then, with the gas, it became not worth it.

dh is making 10K more now, and i'm still in a place where working full-time doesn't make sense. QUALITY childcare is a must--the cheap daycare or preschool is not an option, in my mind. i currently work part-time for about the the same hourly rate as pre-baby, for a nonprofit, and the only way we can make it work is to use a drop-off childcare program that is quite affordable, for minimal hours. dh is also in grad school full-time now, with work, but with his pay increase when he finishes, at this point it still seems unlikely that we'll be having two incomes, particuarly with two small children at that point.

i really think that this theory stands for those of us who have gone to school, accrued loans, and then make career choices based on social values...working in urban education/nonprofit/ministry-based jobs. i have close friends who do the type of work we do and have husbands who make significantly more, but we don't make that choice. so, yes, for people like us, there is a trap.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by _betsy_

:

It may still be true for some families, it may be true in some regions, it may be true for some people's comfort levels.

I mean, yeah, we could have zero savings, zero retirement/investments, no helath care at all, and maybe be able to make it on one salary. But to us, that's not comfortable, it's not smart, it's not a risk we're willing to take.

:

My opinion is that it's not only uncomfortable, it's unwise and borderline irresponsible. Life throws curveballs. When you bring children into the world, you are responsible as the parent (I feel) for their well being.

So, I don't think it's wise to be on the brink of disaster. Now, yes, life happens, but when trouble happens, I guess you have to respond with a plan to try to rebound.

I just don't like to take the risk, and in these economic times, there certainly seems like a lot of risk and living on one income long term seems a bit risky to me.

[griffin2004]

I think one historical aspect that book ignores is that back in the day, middle and lower economic level women may not have been working outside the home, but they sure as heck were bringing in income. I'm sure many of our grandmothers, mine included:
--took in wash and ironing
--tended a flock of chickens, a few cows, a couple of goats, and a huge garden
--had boarders
--fed harvest crews
--sewed and sold quilts, clothes, etc
--and the list goes on

...all while raising families! Not to sound like Laura Ingalls, but my SAHM grammy probably brought more cash or cash equivalent to the family table than my grandfather did. But she did it from home and didn't get a "regular" paycheck, so she wouldn't have registered on the Two Income Trap radar as I understand it.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by smellyann82

i really think that this theory stands for those of us who have gone to school, accrued loans, and then make career choices based on social values...working in urban education/nonprofit/ministry-based jobs. i have close friends who do the type of work we do and have husbands who make significantly more, but we don't make that choice. so, yes, for people like us, there is a trap.

Boy, yes, you sure said it! I agree so much with this. I have a degree in a field where I can work in either lucrative private sector or less lucrative public sector (non-profits, etc). My values and interests have always guided me to the public sector/non profits. It's the same work, but it pays less.

Non-profit work, public sector, and I think many teaching positions are woefully undervalued and underpaid, compared to their free market counter parts. It is a shame.

I also had student loans (paid for schooling all on my own) and it was tempting to go after the larger salaries, but I really couldn't. I believed too much in the work I did. It's just sad that there is such a huge difference in the salaries.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by griffin2004

I think one historical aspect that book ignores is that back in the day, middle and lower economic level women may not have been working outside the home, but they sure as heck were bringing in income. I'm sure many of our grandmothers, mine included:
--took in wash and ironing
--tended a flock of chickens, a few cows, a couple of goats, and a huge garden
--had boarders
--fed harvest crews
--sewed and sold quilts, clothes, etc
--and the list goes on

...all while raising families! Not to sound like Laura Ingalls, but my SAHM grammy probably brought more cash or cash equivalent to the family table than my grandfather did. But she did it from home and didn't get a "regular" paycheck, so she wouldn't have registered on the Two Income Trap radar as I understand it.

I think that is very true. Like I said, many of these arguments about generations past lack historical context, it seems. Or, rather, they focus on a short period in history...the 1950s and the 1960s...

Those decades were very atypical from the 100 years before them, and the 40 plus years after, in terms of women's roles and economic standing.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by That Is Nice

Now, I don't think you need to work 100% of the years from age 18 until retirement.

I started working way younger than 18. I was a child actor (mostly commercials), then I started working retail at age 15 (just part time of course at that age). Then I worked all through college and ever since then. So, not working would just seem really really weird to me.

Another intangible of working is that it takes off a lot of the stress dh would feel if he had to be the sole wage-earner. He knows guys who take as much overtime as they can get to make up for the fact that their wives don't work. But then they don't get to see their families because they are always working!

[Azuralea]

Originally Posted by tangent

Sounds like the author of the book is implying that it was always possible to support a family with one income. That only happened for 20 years in the U.S., post WW2, and even then it only applied to relatively well off people. Most poor still had both mother and father working and almost all the single earner families were white in the supposed golden era of the 40's-60's. It was a fluke. It can still happen now, but it is harder to make happen than 50 years ago. I hate it when the implication is that *everyone* could live on dad's salary while mom stayed home. Even then, it was not commonplace once you looked beyond middle class white families.

:

Yep, the 1950s ideal sure didn't happen in my family.

On the plus side, I love that I can ask my grandma her stories of WOH. She's got some great ones, and we're a close family so I also see that WOH didn't make people estranged or troubled or whatever the current stereotype is.

As for a trap, I'm of two minds. I do think that the greater socioeconomic changes that have forced many families into two-income situations is a trap, but it's not a mother or woman trap. It's rather a society-wide trap: the fact that health insurance depends on employment, that many people cannot afford safe and decent housing without two incomes, that layoffs can happen without notice, and that schools are awful in many areas.

That having been said, for us personally I find having two incomes the exact opposite of a trap. We're very frugal so we save significantly, which we couldn't do when I stayed home. We can survive the loss of one job whereas when I stayed home, the loss of DH's job would have been a serious problem (and layoffs happen a lot). We can shop our benefits to see who has the best healthcare, etc. If one of us lost our jobs, thanks the the savings we've built up we'd be okay. I don't really have extra expenses associated with my job (I work very close to home, don't have parking or dry-cleaning bills), and I spent money because I was bored when I stayed home (the only time I wasn't frugal in my life, because I was so bored). We share the loads evenly (I am not working a full week then doing all the housework). We feel like we have each other's backs.

So for us, it's not a trap. But I think that's situational: we make about the same amount of money, we only have one DS (so childcare for only one), our jobs are flexible. If any of those factors changed, I think two incomes might start looking a lot more like a trap.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by Azuralea

:

Yep, the 1950s ideal sure didn't happen in my family.

On the plus side, I love that I can ask my grandma her stories of WOH. She's got some great ones, and we're a close family so I also see that WOH didn't make people estranged or troubled or whatever the current stereotype is.

As for a trap, I'm of two minds. I do think that the greater socioeconomic changes that have forced many families into two-income situations is a trap, but it's not a mother or woman trap. It's rather a society-wide trap: the fact that health insurance depends on employment, that many people cannot afford safe and decent housing without two incomes, that layoffs can happen without notice, and that schools are awful in many areas.

That having been said, for us personally I find having two incomes the exact opposite of a trap. We're very frugal so we save significantly, which we couldn't do when I stayed home. We can survive the loss of one job whereas when I stayed home, the loss of DH's job would have been a serious problem (and layoffs happen a lot). We can shop our benefits to see who has the best healthcare, etc. If one of us lost our jobs, thanks the the savings we've built up we'd be okay. I don't really have extra expenses associated with my job (I work very close to home, don't have parking or dry-cleaning bills), and I spent money because I was bored when I stayed home (the only time I wasn't frugal in my life, because I was so bored). We share the loads evenly (I am not working a full week then doing all the housework). We feel like we have each other's backs.

So for us, it's not a trap. But I think that's situational: we make about the same amount of money, we only have one DS (so childcare for only one), our jobs are flexible. If any of those factors changed, I think two incomes might start looking a lot more like a trap.

Good post. I think especially for couples who make close to the same salary, two incomes is not a trap.

[_betsy_]

Originally Posted by griffin2004

Not to sound like Laura Ingalls, but my SAHM grammy probably brought more cash or cash equivalent to the family table than my grandfather did. But she did it from home and didn't get a "regular" paycheck, so she wouldn't have registered on the Two Income Trap radar as I understand it.

This is an excellent point. My grandmothers both had large garden plots that they used every square inch of. I doubt my Gram every paid for vegetables, she grew her own, stored what could be stored for the winter, and bartered with neighbors to get things she could/didn't grow on her land, or milk and cheese from the next door neighbor dairy farmer, etc.

We live in a condo. We're not *allowed* to garden. We'e not even supposed to have plants on the balcony.

[kalirush]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

I haven't read the book so it's hard to comment but I hate to see the decision for a woman to work be reduced solely to money. I know that's the case for many and I'm sorry to hear it. I also hate arguments that deduct the expenses for childcare ONLY from the lower wage earners salary, which is usually the woman. Shouldn't it be a shared expense? It makes me think of some kind of retro argument for men - like they shouldn't ever get married because the cost of needing a bigger house won't be made up by the amount of "free meals" they get out of woman. Aren't these shared expenses? Shouldn't we look at a bigger picture?

Do we just want to paint traps for women? Wasn't having a job and the ability to support yourself the way to avoid being trapped - like in a bad marriage?

For those of us on the lower income scale, it has to be reduced to money.

When you're a family, you have to make the best financial decisions as a unit first and foremost. And in many cases, it means that the lower wage-earner doesn't get to work outside the home, because childcare is f-in' expensive. The choice is, this person stays home, and we don't have that expense, or this person works and we do, and the pay that person brings in doesn't actually cover that added expense.

It's all well and good to want the freedom to make a philosophical personal freedom choice about working or not working, but many of us don't get that choice. For some of us, it means we NEED to keep working. For others, it means some member of the household MUST stay home. It's just how it is.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by kalirush

For those of us on the lower income scale, it has to be reduced to money.

When you're a family, you have to make the best financial decisions as a unit first and foremost. And in many cases, it means that the lower wage-earner doesn't get to work outside the home, because childcare is f-in' expensive. The choice is, this person stays home, and we don't have that expense, or this person works and we do, and the pay that person brings in doesn't actually cover that added expense.

It's all well and good to want the freedom to make a philosophical personal freedom choice about working or not working, but many of us don't get that choice. For some of us, it means we NEED to keep working. For others, it means some member of the household MUST stay home. It's just how it is.

So true. I think for many it's not a "choice." It's an economic necessity. There is no choice involved, sadly.

[smellyann82]

Originally Posted by kalirush

For those of us on the lower income scale, it has to be reduced to money.

When you're a family, you have to make the best financial decisions as a unit first and foremost. And in many cases, it means that the lower wage-earner doesn't get to work outside the home, because childcare is f-in' expensive. The choice is, this person stays home, and we don't have that expense, or this person works and we do, and the pay that person brings in doesn't actually cover that added expense.

It's all well and good to want the freedom to make a philosophical personal freedom choice about working or not working, but many of us don't get that choice. For some of us, it means we NEED to keep working. For others, it means some member of the household MUST stay home. It's just how it is.

i 100% agree. this is just where we are, although, in reality, dh and i probably have about the same earning potential, if we're both willing to work in jobs with long hours/take home work, like education or rural nonprofit/ministry. as much as, at times, in theory, i'd love to work full time, because i love what i do, it would financially stupid. now, the only reason i work a bit (10 hours a week) is because i am SO fortunate to have an employer who is 100% family-friendly--and a priest! i work flex hours set by me alone, and can work at work/at home/where ever. most weeks, we don't need to use a minute of childcare...i just work after dd goes to bed. without this job, i wouldn't work.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by kalirush

For those of us on the lower income scale, it has to be reduced to money.

When you're a family, you have to make the best financial decisions as a unit first and foremost. And in many cases, it means that the lower wage-earner doesn't get to work outside the home, because childcare is f-in' expensive. The choice is, this person stays home, and we don't have that expense, or this person works and we do, and the pay that person brings in doesn't actually cover that added expense.

It's all well and good to want the freedom to make a philosophical personal freedom choice about working or not working, but many of us don't get that choice. For some of us, it means we NEED to keep working. For others, it means some member of the household MUST stay home. It's just how it is.

(see my post above)

ITA. I think for many there is no "choice." It's economic necessity, sadly.

I know what you are saying. I grew up in a family with an annual income well below the poverty line. My mother had no education, and, really, no job skills. When she had kids below the school age, she could never have afforded day care with the wages she could earn. And her hours at service type jobs would have been at night, most likely, when day cares are closed.

I learned a lot watching her. I knew right after high school graduation it was imperative to get a college degree. After college I worked for nearly a decade establishing a career and building up my resume, and savings. A lot of planning went into my life before I decided to have a baby.

And even still, I have found it hard to juggle work and family. The choice to be a SAHP or a work out of home parent was not an easy one, not economically and not emotionally.

But I definitely had more options because of the degree, experience, savings. It's a hard thing to try to balance motherhood with economic realities. I think it's harder for women than men, a lot of the time.