4 ms·

Not only do we have less time: 1. Both couple partners have to work in the past only one. 2. We work more. 3. We take loans (obligate to future work).

jdthedisciple 4y ago
> 1. Both couple partners have to work in the past only one. Why is it so? I always hear that. I am not married yet but I keep it a little challenge to myself to one day disprove that. I believe with a clever lifestyle of not spending on useless stuff and moving into a cheap region one can easily make that work. So I say, brazenly and naively ...
- blep_ 4y ago
  A large part of this is that many people feel that a two-person household must inevitably grow to more than two people. If children aren't a life goal for you, it gets a lot easier.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    Well I do want to have children, that's part of what makes it a hard challenge. Basically ... the Original American Dream I guess?
- jl2718 4y ago
  > clever lifestyle … not spending … cheap region This is easy to do alone. Bring a partner into your life and slowly but surely you will be seen as a resource to be maxed out and consumed. I know billionaires that share your dream. Do it. Save yourself. Go now.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    I see your point, and form what I observe that often happens. I guess you gotta be able to accurately gauge whether she shares those same underlying values of not wanting to live lavishly with you or not, before you can even think about living together like that.
  - compiler-guy 4y ago
    There is nothing “surely” about eventually being seen as a resource to be consumed. Statistically, people in long-term committed relationships have more stable incomes, longer lives, and better outcomes than those who don’t [1]. The direction of causality is somewhat unclear, but that such a relationship exists at all is a fairly strong refutation of your claim. Which isn’t to say that all of them work out or that it is always sunshine and rainbows. But there is nothing inevitable about the outcome you claim. It’s actually lower probability. 1. https://docs.iza.org/dp998.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp998.pdf
- bombcar 4y ago
  You can do a single-income family and successfully, but you have to make some choices to do so. I know many who do it, and not all with no kids (some with many). Things like older cars, smaller houses, location differences, etc. But there are major cost savings that offset, especially with the kids. Single car may work out, less gas, less tax, even less food expenses (many people faced with two incomes eat out more, and prepare food less). Seeing people do is on $40k salaries means it should be entirely possible on larger ones. Note that if you want to try, it is almost always best for the lower earner to be the one who "stays home" so as to maximize income and minimize tax. Also "not working a 9-5" is not synonymous with "no income" - there are actual non-scammy work that can be done at home in spare time if desired, and things like teaching exercise class, coaching, also exist.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    Exactly those are the choices I'm willing to make. And I just see most even low-income people waste so, so, SO much money on the most stupid of things that I always think to myself man, with my spending habits it must be so easy to pull of. Your last point is very good as well. I wouldn't want my wife to do nothing, just not slave off at some stupid corporate 9-5 job lessening her, mine and our children's quality of life. There are so many options for quality remote work these days.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    If you were the lower earner would you want to stay home? This is an incredibly disadvantageous position to be in.
    - StayTrue 4y ago
      Seems like some assumptions baked in there. Each working half-time would be more equitable and probably a more resilient arrangement.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Yes but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about households where one parent works and the other stays home.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Why is it so? New houses have more than doubled in size since the 1950s while holding one less occupant on average. Houses have a lot more amenities than they used to have, like AC and a clothes dryer instead of a clothes line. We have torn down about a million SROs* since the 1950s and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle housing. We are more car oriented than in the past and cars are typically the second largest expense in a household budget and they've gotten crazy expensive as well. Having said that, I will recommend the (possibly out of print) book How to survive without a salary by Charles Long in support of your crazy plan. ;) * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    I guess those are US statistics but housing has gotten more and more expensive basically everywhere. Can't do much about that. Thanks for the recommendation!
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      Yes, US stats. My bad for not stating that.
- kqr 4y ago
  A reason not mentioned yet: people get divorced more often now than in the past. If you have relied on your partner's income for a decade, it can be really hard to get into the workforce on your own, with a ten-year sized hole in your resume and the professional experience of a 20-year old. Heck, it can be difficult enough after a couple of extended parental leaves, much less half a marriage.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
RE: point 1, it should read "both partners have to work *for wages*; in the past, only one (at most)"
- bombcar 4y ago
  One of the big benefits for single-income households is the "homework" is not counted as wages even if it's definitely work - you have to earn more than the cost of daycare or the gardener to pay for them, for example.

jdthedisciple 4y ago

> 1. Both couple partners have to work in the past only one. Why is it so? I always hear that. I am not married yet but I keep it a little challenge to myself to one day disprove that. I believe with a clever lifestyle of not spending on useless stuff and moving into a cheap region one can easily make that work. So I say, brazenly and naively ...

blep_ 4y ago
A large part of this is that many people feel that a two-person household must inevitably grow to more than two people. If children aren't a life goal for you, it gets a lot easier.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  Well I do want to have children, that's part of what makes it a hard challenge. Basically ... the Original American Dream I guess?
jl2718 4y ago
> clever lifestyle … not spending … cheap region This is easy to do alone. Bring a partner into your life and slowly but surely you will be seen as a resource to be maxed out and consumed. I know billionaires that share your dream. Do it. Save yourself. Go now.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  I see your point, and form what I observe that often happens. I guess you gotta be able to accurately gauge whether she shares those same underlying values of not wanting to live lavishly with you or not, before you can even think about living together like that.
- compiler-guy 4y ago
  There is nothing “surely” about eventually being seen as a resource to be consumed. Statistically, people in long-term committed relationships have more stable incomes, longer lives, and better outcomes than those who don’t [1]. The direction of causality is somewhat unclear, but that such a relationship exists at all is a fairly strong refutation of your claim. Which isn’t to say that all of them work out or that it is always sunshine and rainbows. But there is nothing inevitable about the outcome you claim. It’s actually lower probability. 1. https://docs.iza.org/dp998.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp998.pdf
bombcar 4y ago
You can do a single-income family and successfully, but you have to make some choices to do so. I know many who do it, and not all with no kids (some with many). Things like older cars, smaller houses, location differences, etc. But there are major cost savings that offset, especially with the kids. Single car may work out, less gas, less tax, even less food expenses (many people faced with two incomes eat out more, and prepare food less). Seeing people do is on $40k salaries means it should be entirely possible on larger ones. Note that if you want to try, it is almost always best for the lower earner to be the one who "stays home" so as to maximize income and minimize tax. Also "not working a 9-5" is not synonymous with "no income" - there are actual non-scammy work that can be done at home in spare time if desired, and things like teaching exercise class, coaching, also exist.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  Exactly those are the choices I'm willing to make. And I just see most even low-income people waste so, so, SO much money on the most stupid of things that I always think to myself man, with my spending habits it must be so easy to pull of. Your last point is very good as well. I wouldn't want my wife to do nothing, just not slave off at some stupid corporate 9-5 job lessening her, mine and our children's quality of life. There are so many options for quality remote work these days.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  If you were the lower earner would you want to stay home? This is an incredibly disadvantageous position to be in.
  - StayTrue 4y ago
    Seems like some assumptions baked in there. Each working half-time would be more equitable and probably a more resilient arrangement.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Yes but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about households where one parent works and the other stays home.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
Why is it so? New houses have more than doubled in size since the 1950s while holding one less occupant on average. Houses have a lot more amenities than they used to have, like AC and a clothes dryer instead of a clothes line. We have torn down about a million SROs* since the 1950s and largely zoned out of existence the ability to build new Missing Middle housing. We are more car oriented than in the past and cars are typically the second largest expense in a household budget and they've gotten crazy expensive as well. Having said that, I will recommend the (possibly out of print) book How to survive without a salary by Charles Long in support of your crazy plan. ;) * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  I guess those are US statistics but housing has gotten more and more expensive basically everywhere. Can't do much about that. Thanks for the recommendation!
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    Yes, US stats. My bad for not stating that.
kqr 4y ago
A reason not mentioned yet: people get divorced more often now than in the past. If you have relied on your partner's income for a decade, it can be really hard to get into the workforce on your own, with a ten-year sized hole in your resume and the professional experience of a 20-year old. Heck, it can be difficult enough after a couple of extended parental leaves, much less half a marriage.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

RE: point 1, it should read "both partners have to work *for wages*; in the past, only one (at most)"

bombcar 4y ago
One of the big benefits for single-income households is the "homework" is not counted as wages even if it's definitely work - you have to earn more than the cost of daycare or the gardener to pay for them, for example.