What do you think of the idea of a two-income trap? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm curious about what you think of the idea, or theory, that there is a two-income trap?

In another forum on MDC, this theory came up, and the more I think about it, the more I think there is no "trap" that we can avoid falling into by simply learning to live on one income instead of two.

Basically, two income trap is an idea, put out in a book of the same title, "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi. The book talks about how, as an article in Mother Jones magazine wrote,

"many families have sent both parents into the workforce to try to make ends meet. After all, surely if both parents work full-time it shouldn't be hard to ensure financial security, right? Wrong, say authors Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi, in their book, The Two Income Trap. Two-income families are almost always worse off than their single-income counterparts were a generation ago, even though they pull in 75 percent more in income. The problem is that so many fixed costs are rising -- health care, child care, finding a good home -- that two-income families today actually have less discretionary money left over than those single-earner families did."

I think it is a valid point that a generation ago (actually, I think it was more like two generations ago), it was much easier for a family to make it on one income. And, yes, that most certainly was the norm.

The book points out, accurately I think, that the reasons for this change is because of the changing economics.

Inflation has far outpaced the rise in personal income, so families' money stretches less and less. In recent years, I think it's gotten worse due to the housing baloon, the rising cost of health care, and job instability (downsizing, outsourcing, lay offs in what historically had been pretty safe fields to work in).

Anyway, my point is I don't think it's a "trap" that we fall into by having two incomes instead of one. It's not so much that people get used to having more money, and buying expensive things, with two incomes and set up their lives as such (although there will be some anecdotes about this).

I don't think for the majority of us it's a matter of just living more frugally and "learning" to live on one income instead of two.

There really is no way to get back to the previous generations' ability to live on one income until we address national and global concerns such as housing baloon, the rising cost of health care, and job instability (downsizing, outsourcing, lay offs).

I know for my own family, we can not live on one salary. We need one spouse's full salary and about 1/3 of the other spouse's salary to pay basic expenses. With one income, we don't make it. On two incomes, we have 2/3 of the second income as discretionary funds. It gives us a lot of cushion and freedom. Health insurance and retirement are whole other issues.

I feel, for us, in the current economic times, it's not just an issue of income. If one of us lost a job due to downsizing, outsourcing, or lay-offs, our family would have a back up job to get us through the leaner times.

Is there a two-income trap, or is it just the forces of our economic reality? I feel like there are more options, and safe guards, with two incomes instead of one.
That Is Nice is offline  
#2 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 10:45 AM
 
PassionateWriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
for us, there is a trap. its much more comfortable for us to live on 2 incomes. however, we can live on one income and still contribute to retirement and manage to save a little. w/ 2 incomes, we can afford to take alot more vacations, purchase a lot more consumer goods (not a big objective of mine but its one of the traps i found w/ being a WOHM).

i think every family is different and of course it depends on the one income that is being depended upon...but i do think the theory holds water today. Its much more difficult, at least it was for ME, to be frugile when working. I am sure there are some more disciplined ppl out there than me, but when I was working, i would consume more (tired and didnt get a lunch packed, or stressed and went shopping at lunch time, etc. etc. etc.).

plus, there are just so many expenses i had when working that i dont have when not (gas, clothing, wear and tear on vehicle, child care, food, etc.etc. etc.).

as with any theory, there are exceptions. If my DP made 50% of his salary, tehn we most certainly wouldn't be able to live off of it alone and I wouldnt have a choice put to re enter the marketplace.
PassionateWriter is offline  
#3 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 10:48 AM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post

I feel, for us, in the current economic times, it's not just an issue of income. If one of us lost a job due to downsizing, outsourcing, or lay-offs, our family would have a back up job to get us through the leaner times.
Exactly.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#4 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionateWriter View Post
for us, there is a trap. its much more comfortable for us to live on 2 incomes. however, we can live on one income and still contribute to retirement and manage to save a little. w/ 2 incomes, we can afford to take alot more vacations, purchase a lot more consumer goods (not a big objective of mine but its one of the traps i found w/ being a WOHM).

i think every family is different and of course it depends on the one income that is being depended upon...but i do think the theory holds water today. Its much more difficult, at least it was for ME, to be frugile when working. I am sure there are some more disciplined ppl out there than me, but when I was working, i would consume more (tired and didnt get a lunch packed, or stressed and went shopping at lunch time, etc. etc. etc.).

plus, there are just so many expenses i had when working that i dont have when not (gas, clothing, wear and tear on vehicle, child care, food, etc.etc. etc.).

as with any theory, there are exceptions. If my DP made 50% of his salary, tehn we most certainly wouldn't be able to live off of it alone and I wouldnt have a choice put to re enter the marketplace.
Yeah, I agree. Some of the variables are, obviously, how much income your household makes, and also what the income split is per spouse.

But I think even bigger than income is cost of living, and when and if you bought into the housing market.

Housing has gone up so much in the last 10 to 15 years. As the authors pointed out, you can not buy a home on one income, generally, in 75% of American cities.

That wasn't the case before the housing baloon. So, if a couple bought a house initially pre-1990s, or even early 1990s they can probably more easily make it on one income. Or, if a couple had a substantial downpayment for whatever reason, that would offset some of the market impacts.

Maybe I am the exception. I don't know. I came from a pretty poor family growing up. I put myself through college using student loans. So, I graduated with debt right off the bat. I never was a big spender. I worked in my career for about a decade to get my financial ducks in a row before having kids, paying down debt, living frugally, saving.

I deliberately saved up to have the option of being a SAHM for a few years. I knew going into parenthood that it would be a bit of a challenge since I have no family to help and my husband has a very inflexible job, and travels, etc.

I don't know...I never had the option of just being a SAHM. We can't make it on one salary. And benefits and retirement play a big part too...it's not just income.

And we're college educated, make good money, live frugally, and save. We were never spending money on vacation or fancy funiture or expensive cars. That is why I could be a stay at home mom for a few years, but it won't last. We need two incomes. It's not a trap for us.
That Is Nice is offline  
#5 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 10:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A View Post
Exactly.
:

Yeah, I really feel that way. I feel I have less options to deal with economic curve balls as a SAHP than the options I have as a working parent.



My DH and I have careers in pretty good fields, although I am currently a SAHP living on DH's income and savings. But outsourcing, downsizing, and lay offs have impacted so many blue collar and white collar jobs. This market is fickle.

I feel we had more options when I worked, and it's one of the most compelling reasons for me to go back to work. I don't like the gaps on my resume.
That Is Nice is offline  
#6 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 11:03 AM
 
nina_yyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 2,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I read the book and I seem to remember they never meant to suggest we should all live on one income - I think they were just trying to illustrate how the modern family is much more vulnerable. The trap is when your basic expenses require *all* of both incomes - add a bit of debt and you're one emergency away from bankruptcy. That would make you more vulnerable...if there are two breadwinners, a job loss/medical emergency is twice as likely to impact the family's income and there is no back-up, i.e. a SAH spouse who can go to work.

What you're describing, living on 1 1/3 incomes, doesn't seem like it would fall into the danger zone, as long as you have an emergency fund in the banks should one of you be unable to work temporarily. The same authors wrote a financial management book about what to do about the two-income trap - it's called "All Your Worth" and I thought it was amazing.
nina_yyc is offline  
#7 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 11:04 AM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionateWriter View Post

plus, there are just so many expenses i had when working that i dont have when not (gas, clothing, wear and tear on vehicle, child care, food, etc.etc. etc.).
I am currently a SAHP. But I worked for nearly a decade before being a SAHP. Anyway, I always hear from other people that it costs money to work.

But, I honestly haven't noticed this myself. Yes, there is the obvious expense of child care. That is a big one. But my full time salary minus child care still leaves enough to make it financially lucrative to work.

Gas, clothing, wear and tear on a vehicle, and even food, have all been about the same costs when I was a stay at home mother and when I was working. Those costs didn't change. I'm not saving or spending more just because I'm at home or working.

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.
That Is Nice is offline  
#8 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nina_yyc View Post
I read the book and I seem to remember they never meant to suggest we should all live on one income - I think they were just trying to illustrate how the modern family is much more vulnerable. The trap is when your basic expenses require *all* of both incomes - add a bit of debt and you're one emergency away from bankruptcy. That would make you more vulnerable...if there are two breadwinners, a job loss/medical emergency is twice as likely to impact the family's income and there is no back-up, i.e. a SAH spouse who can go to work.

What you're describing, living on 1 1/3 incomes, doesn't seem like it would fall into the danger zone, as long as you have an emergency fund in the banks should one of you be unable to work temporarily. The same authors wrote a financial management book about what to do about the two-income trap - it's called "All Your Worth" and I thought it was amazing.
:

Yeah, that is what the authors were saying. And I agree with them on those points. Absolutely.

My point was that it's not so much a "trap" we fall into by choosing two incomes as much as it is the reality of the current economic climate necessitating two incomes.

I think it's less about consumer choices we make (although, to be sure, those certainly play a role) and more about teh economic forces of the housing market, health care costs, and job market that makes the most important choices for us.



On a personal level, no, DH and I are not in the danger zone. We are not maxing out our spending on two salaries. Never have. Never will. We're quite frugal and savers by nature. We like to be prepared and plan things out so that there are always options.

However, even with our good jobs, good careers, good degrees, good savings, good credit rating, good fiscal management, etc, etc, we can not choose to live on one income.

We need more than one income for basics. Like I said we need 1 and 1/3 salaries to pay the basics. The other 2/3 of salary is discretionary. Maybe we are atypical, though. I'm not sure. DH and I make close to the same amount. He makes a little more. Basically, he makes 55% to 60% of the family income, and I used to make about 45% to 40% of the family income.
That Is Nice is offline  
#9 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 12:34 PM
 
PassionateWriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
I am currently a SAHP. But I worked for nearly a decade before being a SAHP. Anyway, I always hear from other people that it costs money to work.

But, I honestly haven't noticed this myself. Yes, there is the obvious expense of child care. That is a big one. But my full time salary minus child care still leaves enough to make it financially lucrative to work.

Gas, clothing, wear and tear on a vehicle, and even food, have all been about the same costs when I was a stay at home mother and when I was working. Those costs didn't change. I'm not saving or spending more just because I'm at home or working.

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.
as i said, i think it depends on teh family. i had a pretty good salary...but one day i sat down and calculated how much my nanny made (we provided her w/ an apt. and a salary), and after substracting her salary, teh income we were foregoing due to her living arrangements, my costs in clothing, food, transportation, my taxes, and a few other things that were eliminated since i became a SAHM (only in teh last few years), she actually brought "home" as much as I did. I also added value to the fact that I was working 80 plus hours a week and unable to spend alot of time w/ my children (i had 2 at the time) and a few other intangible things.

As frugal as i thought i was being when working, i am definitely much much more frugal since becoming a sahm...we eat out much much less and things like that.

Having said that, if DP were to be laid off or lose his job, we would have a lot of issues in only a few months w/ the mouths we have to feed. And if he loses his job, the gaps in my resume would defintitely cause me some issues. I'm not too happy about the gap but the only way i can fix that is to return to work...and thats not something i want to do at this time.

Everyone has to chose carefully...b/c in this economy, i don't think anyone can just take a job, or salary, for granted. Planning in case of emergencies is one of the most important things i think families can do..and that gets harder and harder for many ppl to do w/ so many layoffs already happening.

i do think the theory has a lot of good points though.
PassionateWriter is offline  
#10 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 12:37 PM
 
_betsy_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sure, I'd love to stay home and not have to worry about finances. But I don't live a generation or two ago, I live now.

For us, I work for benefits, stability, and having enough money to cover all our expenses. We work opposite shifts to avoid paying childcare. We don't see each other very much that way, though, so, yep, we vacation at least once a year - it's our only way to see each other 2 whole days in a row!

DH is self employed. We don't like the instability of income that provides, and we have little control over when he gets paid by the insurance companies. He could be super crazy busy all month long, but not see a dime in payment for 2-3 months. In addition to needing the mental security of my stable, predictible income, I work for the benefits. Health insurance out of pocket is INSANE in this country.

My mom stayed home when my sister and I were little, and it worked well. But that was a generation ago, when we (collective we) weren't paying 35% or more of our (2-salary) income toward a mortgage, and we weren't paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas, and the cost of everything was a lot cheaper.

I don't work so that we can have a Hummer and a yacht and Starbucks everyday. I work so we can have a roof over our heads.
_betsy_ is offline  
#11 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 12:51 PM
 
GooeyRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For me, working does not cost me anything. I am not currently working, but when I did, it was free. I live 1/4 mile from the hospital. There was no wear and tear on a vehicle, no gas, etc. I wear the same uniforms I purchased in the year 2000. I rarely got a lunch break, and when I did get to eat, I had a lunch brought from home. I have to eat if I am at home, anyway. I did not need child care expenses, as I worked opposite my dh.

Right now, we are making it on one income. But not for long. We need me to go back to work soon so we can contribute to retirement more and savings. We are screwed if we have another major expense. (we just had our sewer line bust, insurance did not cover it, there goes $3,000!) So, I will be going back, not so much to pay the day to day stuff, but more so we have retirement, and a little safety net. One income just does not provide enough of a safety net or enough for retirement. And my dh makes very good money as an Engineer.

I really don't think it is a 2 income trap. I think it normally takes both parents working (at least one part-time) to have a safety net and be able to retire someday. Sure, we can survive on one income, but what happens when the house needs a new roof, the kids need school clothes, the old beater car breaks down AGAIN, AND there is a medical issue with someone all in the same month? We would be in major debt. I would like to prevent that by having a little safety net.
GooeyRN is offline  
#12 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassionateWriter View Post
Having said that, if DP were to be laid off or lose his job, we would have a lot of issues in only a few months w/ the mouths we have to feed. And if he loses his job, the gaps in my resume would defintitely cause me some issues. I'm not too happy about the gap but the only way i can fix that is to return to work...and thats not something i want to do at this time.

Everyone has to chose carefully...b/c in this economy, i don't think anyone can just take a job, or salary, for granted. Planning in case of emergencies is one of the most important things i think families can do..and that gets harder and harder for many ppl to do w/ so many layoffs already happening. .
:

ITA.
That Is Nice is offline  
#13 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GooeyRN View Post
For me, working does not cost me anything. I am not currently working, but when I did, it was free. I live 1/4 mile from the hospital. There was no wear and tear on a vehicle, no gas, etc. I wear the same uniforms I purchased in the year 2000. I rarely got a lunch break, and when I did get to eat, I had a lunch brought from home. I have to eat if I am at home, anyway. I did not need child care expenses, as I worked opposite my dh.

Right now, we are making it on one income. But not for long. We need me to go back to work soon so we can contribute to retirement more and savings. We are screwed if we have another major expense. (we just had our sewer line bust, insurance did not cover it, there goes $3,000!) So, I will be going back, not so much to pay the day to day stuff, but more so we have retirement, and a little safety net. One income just does not provide enough of a safety net or enough for retirement. And my dh makes very good money as an Engineer.

I really don't think it is a 2 income trap. I think it normally takes both parents working (at least one part-time) to have a safety net and be able to retire someday. Sure, we can survive on one income, but what happens when the house needs a new roof, the kids need school clothes, the old beater car breaks down AGAIN, AND there is a medical issue with someone all in the same month? We would be in major debt. I would like to prevent that by having a little safety net.
:

I agree with everything you said. Everything. It never cost me any money to work either. Never. It wouldn't cost me money to work even with child care.

I think it really only costs money to work if you make less than $12 per hour or so, and have more high day care costs.

But, even then, there's still the retirement, health care, and emergency questions. There is a high cost to staying at home, aside from the money.

But then, like we know, there are compelling reasons to stay at home. For me, those reasons were more compelling during the breastfeeding years. Now that we've weaned, I'm definitely ready to return to my career.

(I'm glad you posted. Your posts always resonate with me.)
That Is Nice is offline  
#14 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by _betsy_ View Post
Sure, I'd love to stay home and not have to worry about finances. But I don't live a generation or two ago, I live now.
Exactly.
That Is Nice is offline  
#15 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by _betsy_ View Post

My mom stayed home when my sister and I were little, and it worked well. But that was a generation ago, when we (collective we) weren't paying 35% or more of our (2-salary) income toward a mortgage, and we weren't paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas, and the cost of everything was a lot cheaper.

I don't work so that we can have a Hummer and a yacht and Starbucks everyday. I work so we can have a roof over our heads.
:

Exactly! This is us, too.

I think the two-income trap idea is relevant only when cross-comparing different generations and the opportunities they had/have. It's not relevant to us today. Not in real terms.

I can't just "learn to live" on one salary by living more frugally...cutting coupons, cooking from scratch, not buying unnecessary things is great, and I do that anyway, but it won't fund my retirement, pay my health care costs, or pay the bills if DH ever lost his job or became disabled, etc.
That Is Nice is offline  
#16 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:47 PM
 
Dena's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a state of confusion
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
I can't just "learn to live" on one salary by living more frugally...cutting coupons, cooking from scratch, not buying unnecessary things is great, and I do that anyway, but it won't fund my retirement, pay my health care costs, or pay the bills if DH ever lost his job or became disabled, etc.
:

I do this too, but we still need both incomes to put a roof over our heads.

Well, I guess I should say that we could actually live on one income. We could sell everything, rent a tiny apartment, go to one car, and I could be a sahm. Of course, we would all be miserable. Or, I could go back to work full time and dh be a SAHD. Again, we would all be miserable. As it is, my girls have a nanny two days a week, and really seem to like the variety this gives them, esp. my older dd, so I don't feel bad about this in the least.

Also, like pps have said, I like having my income. I worked hard after dd1 was born to build my business, because we really had no other options for income (dh was working only sporadically at the time), and that business has seen us through one bout of unemployment for dh and is about to see us through a second, as he just got laid off last week. I am fortunate to have the option of increasing work hours to fill in gaps, and, because I work, we have been able to set aside savings specifically earmarked for emergencies, which will now go a lot further because we still have one income. If we were where we are now with dh being the sole breadwinner, I would not be sleeping much at night for worry.

Wife to Thomas, WAH mama to Sofia Rose 8/04, Ellen Marie 10/07, her twin sister Amalie Joy lost 7/07 , and Maya Grace and Hannah Miriam 4/10
Dena is offline  
#17 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dena View Post
:

I do this too, but we still need both incomes to put a roof over our heads.

Well, I guess I should say that we could actually live on one income. We could sell everything, rent a tiny apartment, go to one car, and I could be a sahm. Of course, we would all be miserable. Or, I could go back to work full time and dh be a SAHD. Again, we would all be miserable. As it is, my girls have a nanny two days a week, and really seem to like the variety this gives them, esp. my older dd, so I don't feel bad about this in the least.

Also, like pps have said, I like having my income. I worked hard after dd1 was born to build my business, because we really had no other options for income (dh was working only sporadically at the time), and that business has seen us through one bout of unemployment for dh and is about to see us through a second, as he just got laid off last week. I am fortunate to have the option of increasing work hours to fill in gaps, and, because I work, we have been able to set aside savings specifically earmarked for emergencies, which will now go a lot further because we still have one income. If we were where we are now with dh being the sole breadwinner, I would not be sleeping much at night for worry.
Line after line, I agree with your post! I nodded my head the whole way through as I was reading it.

Good luck as you navigate the lay off. It sounds like you bounced back once, and you're prepared for it. This is one reason I think it's more than just a money issue...it's also a security issue and a stability issue.

I want to be able to respond, without a lot of down time, if my DH ever has a layoff, becomes disabled, whatever life throws at us. And in this economy...well, I think it's more important than ever.

I don't want to have to be in a position where I suddenly have to get a job after not having one for years and years, dust off a very dusty resume and hope for the best. Most likely in that situation, I wouldn't be landing a job that would pay all the bills.

So, yeah, ITA with you.
That Is Nice is offline  
#18 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 02:15 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#19 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 04:29 PM
 
riaketty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Millersport, OH
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just my two cents, but I've noticed that if I'm working or going to school, I buy more.
Even if it's just a latte or fast food in the morning on the way to school... I'm very much an impulse buyer and being at home (especially with no car access when DH is working) limits that drastically, which is really a good thing.

For me to go back to work, we would be in a negative-income situation. Period. We've worked it out on paper. Right now we are in the positives... barely, but we're there. If I went back to work, even making top dollar for my field, we'd dip into negatives. Daycare, extra gas, perhaps another car... uniforms, more health insurance, all that jazz... well, we'd be floundering.

So, yes, I feel it can be a trap. Especially for lower-income-earning jobs. However, I am taking the government's great Pell Grant to go to school, earn a higher degree, etc, because SAHM'ing is not my thing and I, personally, would flounder without some sort of 'self-worth' type thing. That way, when the kids are old enough to not need me as much, I can present pretty shiny new degree paperwork and say "hire me!".
riaketty is offline  
#20 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 04:58 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by riaketty View Post
Just my two cents, but I've noticed that if I'm working or going to school, I buy more.
Even if it's just a latte or fast food in the morning on the way to school... I'm very much an impulse buyer and being at home (especially with no car access when DH is working) limits that drastically, which is really a good thing.

For me to go back to work, we would be in a negative-income situation. Period. We've worked it out on paper. Right now we are in the positives... barely, but we're there. If I went back to work, even making top dollar for my field, we'd dip into negatives. Daycare, extra gas, perhaps another car... uniforms, more health insurance, all that jazz... well, we'd be floundering.

So, yes, I feel it can be a trap. Especially for lower-income-earning jobs. However, I am taking the government's great Pell Grant to go to school, earn a higher degree, etc, because SAHM'ing is not my thing and I, personally, would flounder without some sort of 'self-worth' type thing. That way, when the kids are old enough to not need me as much, I can present pretty shiny new degree paperwork and say "hire me!".
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.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#21 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 05:16 PM
 
shayinme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of lobster and lighthouses
Posts: 5,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post
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

Mothering since 1992...its one of the many hats I wear.
shayinme is offline  
#22 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 05:56 PM
 
Ellien C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the middle ages
Posts: 5,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

Third generation WOHM. I work by choice.
Ellien C is offline  
#23 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 07:35 PM
 
tangent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
tangent is offline  
#24 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangent View Post
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 is offline  
#25 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellien C View Post
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 is offline  
#26 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellien C View Post
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.
That Is Nice is offline  
#27 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:08 PM
 
_betsy_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
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.
_betsy_ is offline  
#28 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:20 PM
 
smellyann82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: almost heaven
Posts: 512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
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.

mountain loving, nursing, homebirthing mama to beany (12.05), zoomy (4.09), and one more in january.
smellyann82 is offline  
#29 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by _betsy_ View Post
:

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.
That Is Nice is offline  
#30 of 234 Old 09-27-2008, 09:25 PM
 
griffin2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On permanent holiday
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

wild.gif  kickin' it old school
griffin2004 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off