Two income trap - Is two better than one?

Two income trap-CNN

I have long been a proponant of working smarter and not harder. I definately think there is more to life than the rat race called working and that any couple should devote basically as few hours as they can working for others and instead work on their own family and their own investments.

I have long claimed that two incomes really isn't doubling your money. The increase in taxes, day care, expenses related to two professional wardrobes, extra eating out, more expensive family time since there is less of it, etc. dramatically reduce the true impact of that second income to the point of not really being worth it.

Well seems families are earning more than they ever did before in the past. In fact they earn about 75% more, but instead of living better, quite a few are worse off.

The main culprits, taxes, more income a bigger cut for the government. Day care which went from 0% to 14% of the budget. Housing by being bid up and also because the acceptable definition of what is a decent house has changed. (I've screamed about this dozens of times here)

Aside from gender issues, do you think a second income is worth it in this day and age? I've contended that if more people stayed home, those that are left working could demand a better wage because the labor market would be tighter, etc.

What do you think?

Nick

I'm fine with that. We could say one 40 hour week per family if you like. You are the one trying to make it a gender issue. I see it as a quality of life issue where people have been fooled into thinking they are getting more when they aren't in most cases. Since there is more competition for jobs, you get paid less. People take that extra "earnings" and suddenly decide to buy a bigger home, or bid up the price on the same home. No one has said that women have to stay home cooking and cleaning.


Some costs do stay the same. However some rise due to the extra money. Say that landlord give you a rental increase. If you have one income and cannot afford it, you tell him you must move. If you have two incomes you might stay and just pay the increase. However then what happens when another one income family tries to afford that building? They can't.

So now the lost income is gone from having two incomes. The wealth from it is still concentrated at the top. (Landlord) You now "need" two incomes to get the same apartment.

Do you think the landlord could have had an empty building if all the single income families could not have afforded the more expensive rent? The thing that allowed that wealth transfer was the second income. If no one had been willing or able to pay it, it wouldn't have happened.

Then there is just the need for more housing space. The average size of a house has gone up dramatically in the United States. People are now using two incomes to buy what I call "McMansions" which are mass produced, huge, tract housing. This housing makes the older housing, still really fantastic housing that is typically a three bedroom of around 1000-1250 sq.ft. look like poverty housing.

As a result the couples will spend even more of their income, especially that second income to get "good" housing. However the definition of "good" housing has changed.


Wrong, try a quality of life issue. Likewise it might even be a U.S. specific issue since we consent to the longest number of working hours in the modern world. Is an employer getting the benefit of getting two people to work for him for not much more than the cost of one employee oppression of women by men or oppression of the poor by the rich?

In France they passed a 32-35 hour work week. Was this seem as a measure to "keep women at home in the kitchen?"


I haven't said it should be based on sex/gender. Likewise I contend it really isn't a luxury if people kept their expectations after seeing the money from that second income the same. But they don't. Soon the cars are bought more frequently. A 1250 sq ft house is declared small and dingy. The two folks who are working all the time suddenly need a home landline phone and two cell phone plans to be able to communicate, etc.

I'm just saying that a little thinking differently can lead to a better quality of life. It doesn't have to be a sexism issue either. If half of all couples quit working, the labor shortage would likely make it impossible to pay women unequal wages as well.

Nick

If it is because of children, I assure you she won't be. If anything she be crouched at the door ready to pounce and leave for some relief the second you walk in.

My wife's day is often a little to interesting for our tastes. our children are so physically and mentally active that we have thought of investing in some lead paint chips (joke) to slow them down.

For example yesterday we spent about 20 minutes locating our almost two year old who had escaped yet again. (There seems to be no combination of locks and fences that can keep him in the yard and out of traffic that we worry about.

We located him in our boat. He had find a way to scale about 5 feet worth of trailer/boat to get inside, but he did.

Multiple this by about 100 times a week, and the last word you will ever use is boring.

Nick

I think what they are showing is that it is the same percent of the 75% larger income. You would expect that with two people working, the percentage of income that would go to pay for their house would have gone down. Instead it has remained the same and they have opted for a larger house or bid up the same house they would have had. Thus they now "need" two incomes to afford that house.

I think the issue is the same with the cars as well. They are spending the same percentage, but of a larger income. Obviously both of those yearly numbers, 1973 and today, are inflation adjusted. I think you are right about the more expensive cars/longer payments issue. I know when I was in high school, any car that had gone 100k miles had really had it. My wife's Honda has had 140k miles put on it and the only repair it has ever had is we had the timing belt replace because a Honda affectionado told us they stretch and cause serious damage. We did that at 100k miles and that has been it.

The saddest thing of all about that chart is that you take the mortgage and the cars and add them together and it doesn't equal the taxes paid... and we still have deficit spending and plenty of people are still calling for more taxes and spending... amazing.

It's also amazing to me that there are people out there spending as much on daycare as on a home. I wonder how they got that number.

Nick

1. I know it is a choice to need big houses. I am glad you point that out because I say this to people who tell me they NEED to have both people work to get by. When I ask them about housing I often discover they NEED a 2300 sq ft track home to get by. However that is a want, not a need.

And yes they do fill them with crap .....

2. From the reports I have read, if you look at annual hours worked, the U.S. leads. I'm not saying it is a good thing. As for the 70 hour work weeks. I'm sure a few people here will volunteer that it is entirely possible to do in the U.S. However I have to ask... why work so hard? Was there some big goal associated with all this work?

3. Your comment is racist, ignorant and wrong. In the U.S. the Mexican/Hispanic women stay home much more often than any other group of women. They do so in such large numbers that for the first time in recent memory the number of stay at home mom's has gone up.

There are plenty of Hispanics that have the view that the U.S. was born "running" and that you should work for what you need and not just to generate wealth for excess consumption.

Nick

I'm not playing the race card. My information is based on actual data generated in part by the last census.

Her claim wasn't that a Mexican would take the job but that Mexican COUPLES would take the job. You and she can try to spin it in any manner you like, but the point is that she was just making an assumption, based on race that was absolutely dead wrong.

Now does that mean that the children of these Mexican couples might not desire the same number of children, might be more inclined to have two people within the family work, etc. I don't doubt that they will likely adopt some of these attitudes. However in the meantime her conclusion is 100% wrong.

As for your name calling, it's all you have left. You know if anyone you disagreed with made a 100% false claim about a specific ethnic group based off the fact that they are immigrants you would call it racism. All you show is that your political agenda is above all everything which means you will convince on pretty much nothing.

Nick

SDW, there are plenty of folks who live on half of what your family makes. As usual your presumptions lead to your own conclusions. You speak of an "area" as if you had a right to live there or that living outside that area would = death or something of that nature. That just isn't true. I have no doubt that the "needs" expressed in your homebuying go well above a true "need" and into the "want" category.

My wife and I had to move from the beach in order to avoid bad neighborhoods every couple miles and housing prices that would have us running to stand still. As a teacher you have much more flexibility than most because there happen to be schools and kids just about everywhere.

What is even funnier is you are one of the chief preachers around here of how people have to work for taxes, not themselves. How much lower do you think your tax burden will be at $40k vs. $80k? You would likely fall from the 28% to the 15% bracket. With the right deductions I doubt you would even owe taxes on that $40k.

We all basically live in comfort zones and make adjustments to those zones when we have to do so. People might have to rent instead of own. They might have to live in an apartment or condo instead of a home with a lot. They might have to own a used car instead of new. They might use the library instead of Amazon, etc.

You have 3(one of them an infant) people living in a 4 bedroom house and you call that a "need."

I'm not telling you to sell your house or even that you don't deserve it. I'm just saying don't dare call it a need when your family wouldn't have filled a two bedroom apartment a couple months ago.

My first house when we moved away from the beach is a 4 bedroom 3 bath house with a pool and spa. My current house that I live in is 4 bedroom 2.5 bath with a large lot. I'm not claiming it only meets a need though. There is about a thousand sq ft of "want" in the house, and about 4000 sq ft in the lot. We can and have gotten by with less before and could again if we needed to do so. My condo in Long Beach was 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 800 sq ft and could still have met the needs of my family today.

So we have more, but I honestly declare the more a want and not a need. I didn't "need" to move from Long Beach, I wanted a bigger house, etc.

Nick

I already did explain it, learn to read.


Here is the definition of prejudice...

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Here is the definition of racism

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

She made her judgement with no facts. She assumed they would do it because they were Mexican.

Racism to me, regardless of what you want to repeat, namecall, spin, or whatever. Prejudice does not have to start with bad intent, it starts with ignorance and that is exactly what she displayed.

So expose away. You can't because what I said is true. I CHALLENGE you to find a link that shows that the trend of stay at home mothers hasn't been growing, especially due to Hispanic influence.

And again with the names, I suppose the list has to get longer because god-forbid you have to repeat yourself instead of say, refuting what I claim with things like links, facts, evidence, etc.

Mexicans do take over certain industries and so do other ethnic groups. However if I claimed that say Jewish immigrants would go work in vegetable fields you would likely laugh out loud at that claim. However Jewish immigrants have a history of going into skilled trades.

A lot of Koreans/Indians own convenience stores. A lot of Chinese immigrants open restaurants. I don't consider those the most physically demanding jobs do you?

As usual your claims are 100% bullshit. There are some Mexican immigrants that do physical labor. This is true of all groups. The fact that certain groups get into a vocational niche, consider it a strong area and then have a whole lot of their peers follow is like saying the Earth goes around the sun. It is true of all groups, not just Mexicans nor just immigrants. Gee women go into teaching and nursing disportionately. Seems like a whole lot of white men went into computers and are now pissed their jobs are going to SKILLED workers in India.

See Shawn you bias is that you assume all immigrants poorly educated, unskilled, and likely only capable of manual labor.

However immigrants are capable of taking over all sorts of fields in mass, not just unskilled ones. There are so many Filipino nurses your head would spin, but I suppose they have to be digging a hole or working in a field to be an "immigrant" to you.

Here are some of these.... I like to call them links..perhaps you can start using them too.

Hispanic Cultural Influence-More Moms staying home

More kids have a stay at home mom

She said COUPLES claiming that if other moms decided to stay home with their children, the Mexican (her words) moms would dump the kids and go to work in their place.

However they have a different set of priorities than us.

Of course if "I" assumed my set of priorities were better than "Mexican" priorities or even that the should adopt mine because mine are better, it would be seen as racism.

That's exactly what it is in her case. Spin, spin, spin away and of course call names too because that is all you can do.

Every year they measure the gains in productivity. Eventually there is just less work to do. Farms don't as much labor today as they did 100 years ago. I can't think of any industry that does require more labor now than it did in the past once growth has been factored in.

That is why France passed the 35 hour work week. Eventually there will just be fewer jobs. It was passed by Socialists, it is considered... PROGRESSIVE to work fewer hours and still get the same amount of pay.

Even if a different ethnic group would take the job, all it means is that they are willing to be EXPLOITED and why the hell would you accept or encourage that?

Nick

Care to explain how Mexican women would be able to go to work when every other group has had to begin disportionately using day care?

My "bias" is reality for every other ethnic group. You can explain how it would be different for what she claimed.

Good luck,

Nick

Gia, I wish you would stop making assumptions about people based off their race.

I assure you I have worked 70 hour weeks. I have even worked full time while attending university full time. I've worked services sector jobs like restaurants. I've worked as direct care staff for disabled adults. (Want to clean up 5 lbs of poop and lift 180 lbs boys/men?) I've been a dishwasher, bused tables, stocked store shelves, busted out ceramic tile and installed cabinets in the winter homes of the rich in Palm Springs (During the summer), cleaned up dirt and grease at auto/truck garages, etc.

I've done whatever it takes to get by just like anyone else.

I've also worked with people who have not had their degrees recognized in the United States. When I was a gas station cashier (bad part of town, and hey I do believe those have "convenience stores" in them which I did stock as well) the mechanic was from Iran and had an engineering degree. His degree was not recognized here and so he was working as a mechanic.

The issue could be racism in some places, but I don't believe that the case here. It is language and having the degree evaluated. If I were to leave California and attempt to teach in another state, my degree and my credential would be evaluated to see if I could teach there. If it were found lacking, I wouldn't be allowed and I am a white male. Likewise when I was dating a Filipino woman she was a nurse and was working privately for a family while attempting to pass the test verifying her degree from the Philipines.

Are you honestly telling me that if I went to Italy, for example that they would recognize my degree with no processing, and I could get a job earning what I earn here, even while speaking no Italian?

Would that be racism if they didn't even while I happen to be majority Italian in my ancestry?

The Hispanics may have more a necessity for two incomes, but the point is they disproportionately find a way to stay home because of their priorities. In otherwords they find a way to meet their needs and still stay home. Meanwhile you have WASP's declaring they NEED two incomes even when they have incomes that are above the national average with one income. The point is that they have declared their WANTS to be NEEDS. They NEED that 4 bedroom, $200k+ home. They NEED two new cars in the driveway. They NEED a vacation on a cruise ship or abroad.

They don't NEED these things. Likewise the sacrifices to get them can show priorities that are out of whack when we see that out of all the adults and people their children interact with, their own parents are often last on the list.

Tell me what conditions you have lived in that you consider poverty Gia. When I was in college, I rented out a poorly enclosed porch as a room from a woman so I could afford to go to school. It didn't even have a heat source, or kitchen. I did have access to the bathroom though. Of course at least that one was rented alone. We can also go into accomodations I "shared" or when I was homeless for about 2 months and lived in my Subaru Brat with camper shell.

I think you assume entirely to much about a person based off their skin color.

Nick

You can both try your lawyer-ese as much as you want. It is just more spin and of course no links, no support, no nothing.

The men already work in these "couples." Gia claimed and has repeatedly claimed that attempts to keep someone home is attempting to keep women home.



In the context of the thread it is obviously which member of the "couple" to whom she thinks this relates.

Try again.

Nick

She has made reference to me and my supposed in ability to have experience poverty due to my racial background.

She claimed racism keeps down people with degrees from other countries and who don't speak the language of that country, even while admitting that I would encounter the same issues in Italy and I happen to be over half Italian and a "white male."

She has made numerous declarations about WASP's and Mexicans.

Try again,

Nick

Oh how could I have worked Gia? According to you that isn't possible. I just must have had things handed to me for being a white male right?


(more sarcasm)

Oh but I thought the lower earnings, lack of degree recognition, and not being able to earn with their degree were all RACISM. How could that possibly happen to me when I am a white male?

You prove my point which is that all countries have these procedures and subject everyone to them equally. It happened to affect people who immigrant from one country to another, say the United States, because the immigration is only one way. There are not millions clamoring to immigrate to Mexico (retire, yes, immigrant no) from the United States or say from the United States to India. (Exactly what caste would I be in anyway?) So the procedures tend to disproportionately affect certain groups. However you said yourself that if I went through the process to move to another country, the same issues would arise. That means it is independent from racism.


So basically you are telling me to go experience poverty to understand it, not knowing I have already experienced it to the point of being homeless, while you yourself can make judgements and understand it while not having truly experienced these issues.

Yep, it just keeps getting thicker in here from you guys.. (the bullshit)

Nick