4 ms·

I agree that lifestyle choices often require both spouses to work. However, it's not simply due to suburban American 'largesse'. I know plenty of people who liv

I agree that lifestyle choices often require both spouses to work. However, it's not simply due to suburban American 'largesse'. I know plenty of people who live in France in comparatively tiny apartments or homes, who still feel the need for both spouses to work to make ends meet. The frugal living needed to be a stay-at-home mom or dad tends to be rare regardless of location, but it's not impossible.

magduf 7y ago
>I know plenty of people who live in France in comparatively tiny apartments or homes, who still feel the need for both spouses to work to make ends meet. What kinds of careers do these people have? If they both have low-paying jobs, then that's unfortunately understandable. But the McMansion-and-2-SUV-owning Americans I derided earlier aren't people with low-paying jobs, those are people with high-paying jobs who frequently refuse to live below their means; if they lived in a small condo or townhouse and got efficient cars their living costs would be a fraction of what they pay now, and wouldn't need to work so much. Even in Europe, lots of people have luxuries they don't really need, especially cars. Sure, people in towns, or who have jobs away from the train lines might feel the need to have a car, but there's plenty of people there who live in the city, where public transit is excellent, and they still have (frequently expensive) cars. It isn't just Americans who make lifestyle choices that require dual earners, but we epitomize it.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Gas guzzling SUVs are bad for the environment, but do not support your point. Gas is cheap in the US so 20,000 annual miles of driving at 20mpg is only ~$2500 for the year. Swapping them out for 40mpg hybrids only saves $1250 annually, which is negligible in the scheme of deciding on dual incomes.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >Gas guzzling SUVs are bad for the environment, but do not support your point. For one, they're a sign that people are probably living beyond their means, buying things they don't need. >Gas is cheap in the US so 20,000 annual miles of driving at 20mpg is only ~$2500 for the year. That's a conservative mileage estimate. There's lots of commuters who drive quite a bit more than that. And gas is only cheap right now; earlier this decade it shot up to about $4/gallon for a while. I've seen this many times with Americans: gas hits a local minimum, so they all run out and buy enormous SUVs. Then gas prices go up, and they all whine about how much they're paying for gas, so they trade in their SUVs for smaller vehicles. Then gas prices go down again and they all run out and buy big SUVs again. It's idiotic.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      >For one, they're a sign that people are probably living beyond their means, buying things they don't need. Nope, buying an SUV indicates nothing about living beyond means. It’s better to have one SUV than two priuses. And again, 1-2k a year in gas is hardly a dent in car ownership costs. $4 is super rare to never for most of the US and so is the super commuter stupid enough to drive an SUV for their super commute. >Then gas prices go up, and they all whine about how much they're paying for gas, so they trade in their SUVs for smaller vehicles. Then gas prices go down again and they all run out and buy big SUVs again. It's idiotic. That does sound stupid, good thing it’s now how anyone actually functions. Most popular SUVs today are the smaller ones that get twice what a Tahoe or whatever of 15 years ago would have gotten. I suspect the issue is that your model is based on observed people in places with lower costs of gas and living and applying the costs of some big west coast metro to that lifestyle. That’s about the only idiotic thing going on here. Here’s a tip: if you find yourself in a scenario where you think people are wasting buckets of money for no particular reason on a massive scale, you’re probably wrong.

magduf 7y ago

>I know plenty of people who live in France in comparatively tiny apartments or homes, who still feel the need for both spouses to work to make ends meet. What kinds of careers do these people have? If they both have low-paying jobs, then that's unfortunately understandable. But the McMansion-and-2-SUV-owning Americans I derided earlier aren't people with low-paying jobs, those are people with high-paying jobs who frequently refuse to live below their means; if they lived in a small condo or townhouse and got efficient cars their living costs would be a fraction of what they pay now, and wouldn't need to work so much. Even in Europe, lots of people have luxuries they don't really need, especially cars. Sure, people in towns, or who have jobs away from the train lines might feel the need to have a car, but there's plenty of people there who live in the city, where public transit is excellent, and they still have (frequently expensive) cars. It isn't just Americans who make lifestyle choices that require dual earners, but we epitomize it.

kortilla 7y ago
Gas guzzling SUVs are bad for the environment, but do not support your point. Gas is cheap in the US so 20,000 annual miles of driving at 20mpg is only ~$2500 for the year. Swapping them out for 40mpg hybrids only saves $1250 annually, which is negligible in the scheme of deciding on dual incomes.
- magduf 7y ago
  >Gas guzzling SUVs are bad for the environment, but do not support your point. For one, they're a sign that people are probably living beyond their means, buying things they don't need. >Gas is cheap in the US so 20,000 annual miles of driving at 20mpg is only ~$2500 for the year. That's a conservative mileage estimate. There's lots of commuters who drive quite a bit more than that. And gas is only cheap right now; earlier this decade it shot up to about $4/gallon for a while. I've seen this many times with Americans: gas hits a local minimum, so they all run out and buy enormous SUVs. Then gas prices go up, and they all whine about how much they're paying for gas, so they trade in their SUVs for smaller vehicles. Then gas prices go down again and they all run out and buy big SUVs again. It's idiotic.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    >For one, they're a sign that people are probably living beyond their means, buying things they don't need. Nope, buying an SUV indicates nothing about living beyond means. It’s better to have one SUV than two priuses. And again, 1-2k a year in gas is hardly a dent in car ownership costs. $4 is super rare to never for most of the US and so is the super commuter stupid enough to drive an SUV for their super commute. >Then gas prices go up, and they all whine about how much they're paying for gas, so they trade in their SUVs for smaller vehicles. Then gas prices go down again and they all run out and buy big SUVs again. It's idiotic. That does sound stupid, good thing it’s now how anyone actually functions. Most popular SUVs today are the smaller ones that get twice what a Tahoe or whatever of 15 years ago would have gotten. I suspect the issue is that your model is based on observed people in places with lower costs of gas and living and applying the costs of some big west coast metro to that lifestyle. That’s about the only idiotic thing going on here. Here’s a tip: if you find yourself in a scenario where you think people are wasting buckets of money for no particular reason on a massive scale, you’re probably wrong.