What do you think of the idea of a two-income trap? - Page 4

[Ellien C]

Originally Posted by A&A

:


When you make half the family income, it's hard to just decide a little extra frugality would make up for that. And, no offense chirp, but you HAVE a SAHM board. This is where we get to discuss our WOHM things. Thanks.

But all perspectives are welcome everywhere!

[DariusMom]

Originally Posted by That Is Nice

Like you pointed out in your own family, I see many families who struggle on one income. Maybe they can pull it off for a little while, that is short term, but they can not pull it off long term.

In our case, the only reason we can pull it off short term is because we saved up ahead of time. And we're a college educated couple, who both had decent paying careers, and live pretty frugally.

I really do not think it's swim lessons and cups of Starbucks coffee that prevents families from having a SAHP and living on one income. It's less about frugality and self-discipline than it is about housing costs, cost of groceries, gas, and health care, and of course job stability.

The example I used earlier for my own life I think plays with a lot of other families. We can't make it on one income, even if we live frugally (which we do). But, we don't need 100% of a second income to get by. We need about 1/3 of a second income plus 100% of the first income to pay basic expenses.

That leaves about 2/3 of the second income as discretionary income. With that we can choose to buy swim lessons and Starbucks, or whatever else. So, if someone were to glance at our spending, they might think, oh, just cut back on x, y, and z frivolous expenses.

But that wouldn't allow us to live on one income. Because we can live well on two incomes (or save, as we have done more often than not) does not mean we can get by on just a single income.

It's kind of deceiving, but it's not a two income trap.

This is such an important point. I think a lot of families fall into the "need that 1/3 to 1/2 of the second partner's income to get by."

That's one reason I feel so passionately about PT WOH options for *all* parents! I think so many families could get by on one person working FT and one PT, or various combinations, and still get to have more of a vibrant family life.

I just think the model of one parent, usually the dad, working 60 hr. weeks and not involved with his kids or family at all, and one SAHM is so difficult. Of course, I support whatever works each individual family, but I would personally have a hard time with this model. If hypothetical SAHM could work PT, if she chose to, then maybe hypothetical dad could work less and be more involved in his family. Otherwise, many families feel trapped by having both parents WOH FT. Also completely ok if they want to, but very hard to balance.

[lisac77]

Well in my case we do live on one income - mine - but we don't have a SAHP. My husband owns a business and doesn't make any money. That's been the case for 4 years now. We survived the last 3.5 years by basically drowning in debt. We can't afford to have more children (daycare costs alone EEEEEEEKKKK!). Even if DH were working, we probably would have dedicated our "extra" resources to having more children. Very few two income families are out there living the high life. That's not a "trap" unless you discount reality!

[YesandNo]

i know not everyone is DOWN with doing this...but you COULD do it if you wanted to. which makes me think it's not a trap, but a choice.

I've read so many posts at the SAHM forum about living on welfare and WIC. No one has to work. To each her own, but that is not something I would accept for my family if I didn't absolutely have to.

Plus there is the whole "I am a better mother having a life outside of motherhood" factor for me.

That's one reason I feel so passionately about PT WOH options for *all* parents! I think so many families could get by on one person working FT and one PT, or various combinations, and still get to have more of a vibrant family life.

ITA. There's another book, "The 67% Solution", based on this exact idea. Each parent works 2.5 days, so each is 1/2 SAH, 1/2 WOH. I know so many families would not hesitate to give up income in exchange for time. This would be ideal for my family, but it's not happening at his workplace.

[Herausgeber]

I don't think most of you are disagreeing with Elizabeth Warren's argument, actually. Her focus in the book is not at all on individual choices. It's on the lack of choice for most people. It's not something you can just opt out of. If it was, it wouldn't be a trap.

Most families aren't going broke eating out and buying Prada. If you read Warren's book, you'll see that she actually points out that we're spending a far lower percentage of our income on food and clothing than we ever have before. It's housing and health care that are sending people into bankruptcy. And it's not as simple as deriding people for buying McMansions. For most American families, your housing choice is also your school choice, and "cheaper" housing is generally in poorer school districts. The differences can be significant, even in the same town.

And in terms of those evil WOH moms who spend their earnings on swim lessons and Starbucks: Warren would actually say they are more financially secure than someone whose paycheck is needed to pay the mortgage. (Swim lessons and lattes can be quickly dropped if someone loses their job, unlike a house.) But the family with people people working to pay the mortgage is perceived as being more "responsible." But maybe they aren't. Mostly, I don't think middle-class parents feel they have choice. It is a fact of most people's wiring that they will sacrifice and stretch however necessary to keep their kids safe and healthy and provide the best education for them they can, even if it means putting their own financial stability at risk.

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by choli

Yes, I've never found that it cost me money to work, either. Not to mention the assumption that working outside the home means that I can't cook from scratch, that we eat out all the time, and of course that I spend that little bit of money I DO have left after paying for daycare, fast food and a maid to clean my house on large screen TVs and a big SUV.

If you take into account heating/airconditioning the house during the day, and electricity etc that is not being used when both parents are out of the house all day, I think it must come out costing money to stay at home.

We track our expenses pretty closely (gasp! and I work! ) and I can ditto this.

Our single biggest expense is daycare - that includes mortgage, for sure. No argument that this costs crazy money. However, we would have looked for a preschool experience this year so it's not all money we wouldn't have spent.

And that cost will go down over time.

The other costs that went up for me were commuting costs ($109/mo for a transit pass + some extra parking now and then) and my cost for a few beauty/wardrobe things has gone up (that is, I wear makeup to work many days, get my hair done a bit more frequently, and pantyhose. I still buy my clothes mostly second-hand.)

What went down:
- food costs (my son gets lunch at daycare, and I do less fancy baking/cooking and rely more on the crockpot; I get free coffee at work and my lunch paid for in meetings a few times a month)
- energy costs at home
- gas came out about even because although I drive to the subway I go on fewer "field trips" during the week)
- entertainment costs and playgroup-related costs (indoor playground, we cut back on memberships, etc.)

I honestly do not find that for me sewing or home canning comes out much cheaper... we buy clothes used a lot, and shop on sale for staples. I do make my own jam for the taste and fun of it (as well as gifts) but sugar, pectin, fresh fruit, and lids still cost money. I don't have the space for a garden and in my area that would cost $500 more in mortgage anyway.

And the big one for me:
- SAHM costs - went down quite a bit. Without the time to "look for great bargains that I can find as a SAHM!" my shopping costs went down. I don't feel like I have to provide the latest and greatest toy at home because my son has beautiful materials at school.

[kalirush]

Originally Posted by YesandNo

I've read so many posts at the SAHM forum about living on welfare and WIC. No one has to work. To each her own, but that is not something I would accept for my family if I didn't absolutely have to.

To be fair, I'm in a two income household, and I'm on welfare (Medicaid and WIC).

ITA. There's another book, "The 67% Solution", based on this exact idea. Each parent works 2.5 days, so each is 1/2 SAH, 1/2 WOH. I know so many families would not hesitate to give up income in exchange for time. This would be ideal for my family, but it's not happening at his workplace.

This is actually more or less the situation in our household. I WOH pt, and then WAH evenings and weekends (I'm a grad student). My husband WOH 3 days a week, and one night shift.

In our case, it means we're poor as hell. And my husband *can't* take a ft job, because he can't get a job that pays well enough to mean that we would actually come out ahead after childcare. But, it's very nice for our family, in some ways- except split shifting means that we don't see each other as much as we might.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by DariusMom

This is such an important point. I think a lot of families fall into the "need that 1/3 to 1/2 of the second partner's income to get by."

That's one reason I feel so passionately about PT WOH options for *all* parents! I think so many families could get by on one person working FT and one PT, or various combinations, and still get to have more of a vibrant family life.

I just think the model of one parent, usually the dad, working 60 hr. weeks and not involved with his kids or family at all, and one SAHM is so difficult. Of course, I support whatever works each individual family, but I would personally have a hard time with this model. If hypothetical SAHM could work PT, if she chose to, then maybe hypothetical dad could work less and be more involved in his family. Otherwise, many families feel trapped by having both parents WOH FT. Also completely ok if they want to, but very hard to balance.

:



ITA.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by kalirush

To be fair, I'm in a two income household, and I'm on welfare (Medicaid and WIC).

Well, in this economy and with rising health care costs, I see a need for supplemental programs like Medicaid and WIC, etc.

I think these programs are necessary, and a public good. Also, I think that since we lack any type of universal health insurance (different than universal health care, both of which I would support), many families either have to do without insurance, or sign up for Medicaid. I wish the U.S. had universal health insurance, or programs similar to most other industrialized countries (as in Canada, most of Europe).

Anyway, I agree with both sides of this. I think the poster who mentioned staying at home on public assistance was talking more about drawing 100% or close to 100% of the family's total income and sustenance from public aid.

I think public aid programs are a necessary public good, one which I fully support and don't mind putting my own tax dollars towards. But I think in terms of coming up with a plan to have one or more SAHPs, public aid programs were not intended for that. So, I do think if one wishes to be a SAHP, a different plan is needed.



Because if everyone did this, there would be no tax payers to support the system. I know that is unlikely, but I'm just saying.

I do feel like there is a huge difference between using Medicaid or WIC as a supplemental and using public aid as your only source of income for more than just an emergency situation (illness, lay off, hurricane, etc).

But, like I said, it's nearly impossible to get by on one income, and that doesn't leave a lot of choices for more people. I'd really like to see more public investment in education programs, flexible employment options, family leave, and universal health insurance to name a few. That would create a more family friendly environment.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

We track our expenses pretty closely (gasp! and I work! ) and I can ditto this.

Our single biggest expense is daycare - that includes mortgage, for sure. No argument that this costs crazy money. However, we would have looked for a preschool experience this year so it's not all money we wouldn't have spent.

And that cost will go down over time.

The other costs that went up for me were commuting costs ($109/mo for a transit pass + some extra parking now and then) and my cost for a few beauty/wardrobe things has gone up (that is, I wear makeup to work many days, get my hair done a bit more frequently, and pantyhose. I still buy my clothes mostly second-hand.)

What went down:
- food costs (my son gets lunch at daycare, and I do less fancy baking/cooking and rely more on the crockpot; I get free coffee at work and my lunch paid for in meetings a few times a month)
- energy costs at home
- gas came out about even because although I drive to the subway I go on fewer "field trips" during the week)
- entertainment costs and playgroup-related costs (indoor playground, we cut back on memberships, etc.)

I honestly do not find that for me sewing or home canning comes out much cheaper... we buy clothes used a lot, and shop on sale for staples. I do make my own jam for the taste and fun of it (as well as gifts) but sugar, pectin, fresh fruit, and lids still cost money. I don't have the space for a garden and in my area that would cost $500 more in mortgage anyway.

And the big one for me:
- SAHM costs - went down quite a bit. Without the time to "look for great bargains that I can find as a SAHM!" my shopping costs went down. I don't feel like I have to provide the latest and greatest toy at home because my son has beautiful materials at school.

:

Same here.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by Herausgeber

I don't think most of you are disagreeing with Elizabeth Warren's argument, actually. Her focus in the book is not at all on individual choices. It's on the lack of choice for most people. It's not something you can just opt out of. If it was, it wouldn't be a trap.

Most families aren't going broke eating out and buying Prada. If you read Warren's book, you'll see that she actually points out that we're spending a far lower percentage of our income on food and clothing than we ever have before. It's housing and health care that are sending people into bankruptcy. And it's not as simple as deriding people for buying McMansions. For most American families, your housing choice is also your school choice, and "cheaper" housing is generally in poorer school districts. The differences can be significant, even in the same town.

And in terms of those evil WOH moms who spend their earnings on swim lessons and Starbucks: Warren would actually say they are more financially secure than someone whose paycheck is needed to pay the mortgage. (Swim lessons and lattes can be quickly dropped if someone loses their job, unlike a house.) But the family with people people working to pay the mortgage is perceived as being more "responsible." But maybe they aren't. Mostly, I don't think middle-class parents feel they have choice. It is a fact of most people's wiring that they will sacrifice and stretch however necessary to keep their kids safe and healthy and provide the best education for them they can, even if it means putting their own financial stability at risk.

Good points. And the book does make good points. (I'm reading the book now).

However, it does talk about how couples "learn" or grow accustomed to living on two salaries, now whether that is by choice or by habit or by necessity is kind of the distinguishing point.

But the main point is that it's less about learning to live on two incomes, or adjusting to live on one, it's whether that adjustment to one income is even possible.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by YesandNo

I've read so many posts at the SAHM forum about living on welfare and WIC. No one has to work. To each her own, but that is not something I would accept for my family if I didn't absolutely have to.

Plus there is the whole "I am a better mother having a life outside of motherhood" factor for me.



ITA. There's another book, "The 67% Solution", based on this exact idea. Each parent works 2.5 days, so each is 1/2 SAH, 1/2 WOH. I know so many families would not hesitate to give up income in exchange for time. This would be ideal for my family, but it's not happening at his workplace.

On your second point, yes, I absolutely agree. I was just going to post how there are a ton of books similar to the Two Income Trap that talk about that exact point you made.

About your first point, I don't think a life where 100%, or close to 100%, of a household's income or sustenance comes from public aid is a very fullfilling or well provided for life. It might enable a parent to be a SAHP, but it would only be temporary, given the reform time limits. That is, unless a person deliberately spaces children to maximize the time and benefits that can be drawn from public aid. And then that's not using the system as intended.

I fully support public aid programs. I think they are a necessary public good (a safety net). I gladly use my tax dollars for such programs. However, I do think that if we had better access to education, flexible employment, and health insurance, we would have a more family friendly country, similar to the policies in Canada and much of Europe. I'd like to see some sort of universal health insurance or universal health care, and more opportunities for anyone to go to college and learn a trade or get a degree. Oh, yeah, and while I'm wishing, better family leave policies (more than the current 12 weeks).

[_betsy_]

DH and I work opposite shifts and don't pay for childcare. DD is with him or I or both for 90% the time, and at my ILs for a few hours twice a week.

We rarely see each other, we feel like one or both of us is ALWAYS working, and it's hard. But even without paying for childcare, my income is necessary to pay the bills (and we live moderately, but not extravagently) and eat. Sure, we could cut back on cable and cook at home more, but that wouldn't save us enough for me to stay home. We live in one of the priciest counties in the country, and it just doesn't work for me to stay home, unless we went into serious debt to do so, which we just don't feel is prudent.

[Girlprof]

Originally Posted by That Is Nice

Actually, due to having deadbeat parents, I think I am less apt to want to live on one income long term, remove myself for too long from the work force, etc. It has made me more aware of the need to be self-reliant.

This is what I was going to say. I think actually there is a one income trap. This is not MDC dogma for sure, but if you make the choice for whatever reasons to have your family live on one income and then, God forbid, something happens to the breadwinner, that family is likely to end up poor indeed. Or divorce - no one wants to or plans to get divorced, it's a horrible thing. But it's clear that when couples do divorce, the men end up richer and the women end up poorer (on average, of course, but this is true for most). To me, both of us having jobs is the best insurance in the world. Insurance that we could make it on one income because we can both bring home the bacon, so to speak.

[chirp]

i posted my answer to the OPost and then started a second one to all of the replies...but then MDC was closed...i like to post to the original question first, then read everything...it helps keep my mind clear.

sorry =0)

anyway the gist of what i had written was that it's a common phrase to hear it takes a village to raise a child...but i think a lot of people are going the two income route these days because it actually takes a village, well, to have a village. if everyone is at work 40 hours a week, no one is there to watch the kids, cook the food and keep the fire burning. we are so far removed from that it's hard to imagine that it ever even existed. our mindset costs us more $$ in the long run.

i hear what you all are saying about not having enough off of one income, but not needing the whole of the second income...i wasn't attacking or didn't mean to offend anyone with my statement.

i know there is a sahp board...i just figured this was a welcoming community of people having an important discussion about the state of family in the capitalist system. i didn't realize it would offend people to hear my take on it since i sah.

not every sahp spends crazy money on activities and fancy dinners and art supplies and whatever else

not every woh parent has nothing to do with their children.

if you want to work because it's part of your identity...then that is you.

i'm not trying to tell everyone to up and quit their jobs. i'm not saying sahm'ing is superior. i was answering a post about whether i think 2 income is a trap. and for the majority of people i think it is. whoever hit on the point about american society just naturally progressing to this point was right on. as more and more women became wage slaves, 2 income households became the norm and the markets adjusted. i imagine that the allure of having "bigger, better, newer" contributed to this.

i think this topic and a sah board topic from a few days ago about how we get everything done are interrelated.

back in the day 1 income was ok and the house chores got done because there was a greater support system for all parties and way lless STUFF. i'm not saying it was ALL GOOD but there WAS a village. daycare was free. the food got cooked, the mortgage got paid.

but then people wanted telephones. then cell phones. we wanted a car. then 2 or 3 cars. we wanted easy, fast food. then cheap food during war times. we wanted a bigger house, with a pool. and the finished basement. we wanted our kids to have toys. their own toys. their own basketball hoop.

i saw a street once where say 7 out of ten driveways had a moveable basketball hoop. why not just have 1. or even just go out to the park.

this may not be your family...but this exists.

[YesandNo]

know there is a sahp board...i just figured this was a welcoming community of people having an important discussion about the state of family in the capitalist system. i didn't realize it would offend people to hear my take on it since i sah.

It didn't offend me, but I did feel a little sad that even in the working mom's forum we have to hear the "anyone could afford to SAH if they really cut back" argument. It is hard to enough to get support as a working mom.

but then people wanted telephones. then cell phones. we wanted a car. then 2 or 3 cars. we wanted easy, fast food. then cheap food during war times. we wanted a bigger house, with a pool. and the finished basement. we wanted our kids to have toys. their own toys. their own basketball hoop.

I think that saying "we Amercians are just too materialistic" is a bit too easy. It's not about stuff for me as it is about education. I live in a very high COL area (Boston) and I pay a big mortgage for a small house. Sure, we could sell the house and move to West Virginia and live much much more cheaply, but aside from issues like being near family, I want my daughter to live in this more cosmopolitan, liberal community and have a great public school experience. (No offense to the people of WV intended -- I grew up there myself).

[chirp]

Originally Posted by YesandNo

It didn't offend me, but I did feel a little sad that even in the working mom's forum we have to hear the "anyone could afford to SAH if they really cut back" argument. It is hard to enough to get support as a working mom.



I think that saying "we Amercians are just too materialistic" is a bit too easy. It's not about stuff for me as it is about education. I live in a very high COL area (Boston) and I pay a big mortgage for a small house. Sure, we could sell the house and move to West Virginia and live much much more cheaply, but aside from issues like being near family, I want my daughter to live in this more cosmopolitan, liberal community and have a great public school experience. (No offense to the people of WV intended -- I grew up there myself).

i hear what you're saying re: living in a more "cosmopolitan" area. we want that for our child too. but instead of living in philadelphia or it's immediate suburbs, which would have been ideal but VERY expensive...we live 45 minutes from philly in a small city surrounded by farms and farming communities.

there are always people and things to do in the bland old rural communities and the small cities that pop up around them. different things, that have to be sought after, but they are there. education (dh is a teacher) is in a sad state of affairs...but education doesn't end outside the classroom (as i'm sure you all know). it doesn't even begin in the classroom.

although i have to say the nearest mommy and me yoga class is 35 minutes away. that sucks. but it also motivates me to find an instructor who might be willing to offer her services down here...since i know there is a market for it!!

[Dena]

Originally Posted by chirp

if you want to work because it's part of your identity...then that is you.

i'm not trying to tell everyone to up and quit their jobs. i'm not saying sahm'ing is superior. i was answering a post about whether i think 2 income is a trap. and for the majority of people i think it is. whoever hit on the point about american society just naturally progressing to this point was right on. as more and more women became wage slaves, 2 income households became the norm and the markets adjusted. i imagine that the allure of having "bigger, better, newer" contributed to this.


but then people wanted telephones. then cell phones. we wanted a car. then 2 or 3 cars. we wanted easy, fast food. then cheap food during war times. we wanted a bigger house, with a pool. and the finished basement. we wanted our kids to have toys. their own toys. their own basketball hoop.

i saw a street once where say 7 out of ten driveways had a moveable basketball hoop. why not just have 1. or even just go out to the park.

this may not be your family...but this exists.

Just want to acknowledge up front that yes I cut down your message - I still haven't figured out how to multi quote a single message. I am a little technology-deficient.

Anyway, a few points, respectfully, in response:

1) I don't work because it is part of my identity. Well, it is part of my identity, but that is because I work. I would rather SAH right now. I don't because we simply can't. Which leads me to

2) The allure of having bigger better is not part of our identity as a family. It may be for some, and it may be the reason some have to have two incomes, but I don't think it is for the majority, at least not the majority of us here. It certainly does not contribute to us having to have two incomes. Our tv is small, and 14 years old (and was a gift in the first place). We get free cell phones with our service and have no desire for the fancy ones (probably couldn't figure them out anyway ) Yes, we have two cars, but that is because we both work and need them. One is ten years old and the other six. They are not new or luxury. We have no desire for new or luxury right now. I cook most of our meals. The ones I don't cook are because either dh cooks or we are eating leftovers. A meal out is a once a month or so treat, not a regular part of our existence. Yeah, our kids have toys - many of them gifts or garage sale finds. I buy our clothes at goodwill for cheaper than I could make them, assuming I could operate a sewing machine, which I would not be able to do even if I sah. We don't have a pool, or a big house, or a finished basement, or a basketball hoop, or a Wii, or any of the other gadgets that many Americans seem to find necessary. And we are not in debt up to our eyebrows. But...

3) We do have student loans and a mortgage. Yes, we could default on the loans and move to a cheaper, crime-ridden neighborhood, sell a car and many possessions and likely could live on one income. It is not even about moving to the suburbs or the country for us. We already live in the suburbs, in an area with far lower COL than many around us - including, ironically, rural areas around here. Basically, to have a cheaper home we would be in the ghetto. But that is not what we want for our lives. So...

4) Yeah, I guess in some ways having both of us work is a choice, but I don't really see it as one because raising my kids in the ghetto is simply not a choice for me. What is a choice is whether to work full or part time and we do choose to cut corners so I can work part time, and I feel lucky to be able to do so.

Also, as That Is Nice said, I want to be able to work so that I am not trapped if something happens to my marriage. I didn't have deadbeat parents, but I did have a father who died young, leaving my mom, a sahm, with few options. She had a BA in commercial art, which had little application in our little town, so to get a job that could support us, she ended up going back to school for another degree. I didn't want that for my life. Personally, I sleep better at night knowing that if I wake up to a changed landscape in my life my kids and I will be financially ok.

But that is just me.

[Masel]

Maybe I would have bought into bigger better newer but my DH has been laid off twice in 8 years. I saw how my father fought to keep his retirement away from my mother when they divorced after she was the SAHP for most of my childhood. We have the same starter house and the same TV we had when we got married 12 years ago. The cars are paid for. Our vacations tend to be cheap.
We managed during the two layoffs on my administrative assistant salary but there is no way we could do that long term. I fully expect him to get laid off again with the economy the way it is. His work as a chemical engineer is completely dependant on companies wanting to build or add onto their plants. That's not going to happen if they can't get loans. (DH is not cut out to be the SAHP.)

Similarly, I expected that my DD would pay for college with student loans the way I did. My parents couldn't help me much and since I already paid for college once I didn't relish paying for it again. Now our idiot gv'ner is dismantling the high education loan program that did so much for me. Along with other lending fears will there still be student loans in 15 years? Who knows. I should probably start saving.

Hell, freaking yes, I'm trapped. While this place uses some of the skills I went to school for it is not what I wanted and sitting at this computer is killing me. With the additional income from my husband's current job we are doing crazy things like replacing windows in the 80 year old part of our house.

Not having a good day.


There's a long review of this book here:
http://www.four-pillars.ca/2008/01/2...p-book-review/
much longer review here
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...7/sullivan.php

[jennlindsey]

Oh, thank God. Finally a thread where I feel like someone gets me.

I've been unable to find work for a year now, and have kept telling myself, "Just be more frugal. You guys can make it on one income if you just get more crafty, or disciplined, or better at budgeting -- you know, like all those wise SAHM mamas on MDC who save for college and own houses and never, ever use a credit card they can't pay off in a month."

But you know what? We can't. We absolutely, freaking, cannot. And I am getting so tired of the common assumption that if we just started being more responsible and less materialistic, we would be doing Just Fine With What We Have. I don't want "Well, at least we can keep the electricity on" to be my benchmark for how well things are going, ya know? I don't want my 45-year-old diabetic husband to have to work 55 hours a week indefinitely with no retirement contributions going into his account, just so we can pay our rapidly-inflating rent. I don't want to cross my daughter's college education and home-ownership off my list of what's attainable in my lifetime.

It makes me so, so pissed to hear the constant cultural refrain of "it's all lifestyle choice" when it comes to two-income families. Do I think *some* families live outside their means, or spend unwisely? Absolutely. Do I think that's smart? Nope. But I also think there is a serious danger in romanticizing or upholding a one-income family as the answer. My one-income family is in a living hell at the moment -- making too much to qualify for assistance, but not enough to pay for more than the basics -- and let me tell you, I wouldn't wish our situation on anyone. I don't feel like it's satisfyingly frugal, or wise, or fulfilling at all -- in fact, it has forced some heartbreaking choices upon us.