Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MEtallic

The 2 Income Trap

Recommended Posts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079221/

Worth reading in full.

Interesting article.

Confirms my suspicions that families are now far worse off than they were previously. Feminism and large numbers of women at work has had a detrimental effect on family life for little or no financial gains in real terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key point to note is that having both partners working has the effect of removing the safety net in case of family disaster.

If the breadwinner looses his income in a single income family then there is always the opportunity for the non-working partner to start work to tide the family over. In a dual income family there is no opportunity to do this, redundancy for either partner is a disaster for both.

The message must be that in dual income families the bulk of one parnter's income needs to be saved to provide the safety net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The message must be that in dual income families the bulk of one parnter's income needs to be saved to provide the safety net.

or that these families should ensure they always have either savings/save some money each month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All families being dual income = doubling of house prices.

I don't think this is quite true.. having one parent at home saves money on childcare for instance. I would guess in families with several children it's probably not a good idea for both parents to work unless they're high earners.

It would be interesting to see how affordability is affected when this is taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young Goat

Your key point misses a, er, key point.

The person that loses their job can go out and get another one - in exactly the same way you suggest a non-working partner could.

Both cases have the same safety net available.

And a dual income family that can save one wage is much better off than a single income family that can't.

Suggesting dual income families are in a better position not a worse one whichever way you look at it. Particularly if they bought their house pre-2001 as many will have.

Edited by cocacolalight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feminism and large numbers of women at work has had a detrimental effect on family life for little or no financial gains in real terms.

Odd really, when you consider that most vocal diehard feminists are either:

1. Single

2. Single & childless

3. Married & childless

4. Married, loads of kids but an above average wage from working in the Meedja, writing books, newspaper columns, etc, telling other women how to live their lives and how all problems in the known Universe are down to Men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been making this point over and over in my discussions. Two people are now required to work in order to buy what once (not that long ago) could be obtained with one wage.

This is where my in-laws just don't get it. They bought a house, a car and raised 5 kids and supported 2 adults on one average wage.

If two-income families had saved the second paycheck, they would have built a different kind of safety net — the kind that comes from having plenty of money in the bank. But families didn’t save that money. Even as millions of mothers marched into the workforce, savings declined, and not, as we will show, because families were frittering away their paychecks on toys for themselves or their children. Instead, families were swept up in a bidding war, competing furiously with one another for their most important possession: a house in a decent school district.
Edited by GCS15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is quite true.. having one parent at home saves money on childcare for instance. I would guess in families with several children it's probably not a good idea for both parents to work unless they're high earners.

It would be interesting to see how affordability is affected when this is taken into account.

This is why you are seeing so few couples having children now...they simply can't afford to, their mortgage repayments and bills already swallow up most of their dual income, so they can't even dream of one of them giving up work or being able to afford childcare.

It isn't feminism that has caused this, it is rampant, unrestrained capitalism that demands growth year in year out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is scarce resources - no matter how much we earn, how much we save, we are all competing for the same two bed terrace on a main road. Now it just costs a stupid amount of money, so we have to work all the hours of the day to afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All perfect for Brown's Britain :angry:

Dual incomes families = double income tax revenue :D £££ Kerching! = double house prices = double stamp duty revenue :D £££ Kerching = double MEW = double high street spending = double VAT revenues :D £££ Kerching = lots of ££££ for Gordon to waste on new state employees, who in their gratitude will vote NuLab, out of fear for their jobs.

Then he can apply some of his TruLabour socialist magic, to redistribute some of it back to the 'deserving' and 'hard-working families', who whilst slaving away at sometimes a p/t job as well, can at least be happy in the knowledge that their kids are looked after and 'educated' dawn-to-dusk by government approved [read passed the PC and diversity training] minders like good little pioneers!

Edited by jp1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why you are seeing so few couples having children now...they simply can't afford to, their mortgage repayments and bills already swallow up most of their dual income, so they can't even dream of one of them giving up work or being able to afford childcare.

It isn't feminism that has caused this, it is rampant, unrestrained capitalism that demands growth year in year out.

correct. we've allowed a society to develop which in effect discourages procreation among the incumbent population. Bizarre. Can't think of many cultures in history which have fostered such a policy.

In Scotland we've had a campaign to increase imigration because of a falling population. Why don't we just support those already living in the country to have children in the first place, rather than importing people to fill the gaps left by the children no one is having?

Edited by Allthatglitters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't feminism that has caused this, it is rampant, unrestrained capitalism that demands growth year in year out.

True about the Capitalism aspect but Feminism has a great deal to answer for also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young Goat

Your key point misses a, er, key point.

The person that loses their job can go out and get another one - in exactly the same way you suggest a non-working partner could.

Both cases have the same safety net available.

And a dual income family that can save one wage is much better off than a single income family that can't.

Suggesting dual income families are in a better position not a worse one whichever way you look at it. Particularly if they bought their house pre-2001 as many will have.

I think you're missing the point. The problem is that it is not always simple for the redundant spouse to find a new job at the same income level. It may be that he can find a lower income job however the other parnter can't make up the lost income. This ignores the possibility that illness of one partner or other relatives may force one partner to give up work.

The key point is that with both incomes fully committed to the day to day needs of the family, there is no spare earnings capacity or savings in case of disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can have a 3 bed dream,

Two can make that dream so real

One can talk about bein' stuck in a flat

Two can say how it really feels

One can wish upon a star

Two can make that wish come true, yeah

One can stand alone in the bank

Two can make the cash flow through

It takes two, baby

It takes two, baby

Me and you, just takes two

It takes two, baby

It takes two, baby

To make a property dream come true, just takes two

One can have a broken balance, livin' in misery

Two can really ease the pain like a perfect remedy

One can owe on a car, on a night like these all alone

Two can make just a payment seem just like being back' at home

Just takes two, just takes two

One can go out to B&Q, lookin' for a special treat

Two can make that garden furniture purchase somethin' really kinda sweet

One can take a loan out at midnight, thinkin' that it's really nice

But two owing' cash-in-hand is like addin' just a pinch of spice

(repeat chorus and fade away to dust)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't feminism that has caused this, it is rampant, unrestrained capitalism that demands growth year in year out.

No, it's government issuing fiat currency, enforcing artificially low interest rates and deliberately restricting building to a tiny fraction of the land in the UK. That has very little to do with capitalism, and an awful lot to do with having a bloated government run by idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article.

Confirms my suspicions that families are now far worse off than they were previously. Feminism and large numbers of women at work has had a detrimental effect on family life for little or no financial gains in real terms.

yes, that's right - housing hyperinflation is all the fault of women *sarcasm*. Nothing to do with government raids on pensions, BTL explosion etc. at all? Or am I missing something?

Edited by Antsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, that's right - housing hyperinflation is all the fault of women

No, as the poster you quoted said, it's partly the fault of feminism, by claiming that women would be happier slaving away in an office than raising kids at home. Feminism has been good for feminists, but actively harmful for a large fraction of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article, I got the impression they were a couple of US Sayara Begs (do we all recognise that name),

who cannot come to terms that being middle class is not a 'right' it is dependant on your income.

If your income(s) support a 'Stepford' existence, that's very nice, if your income(s) drop below the level required to sustain that existence then you are no longer labelled middle class, but working class, & hang your hat where you can reach it!

Trying to support a middle class lifestyle on working class wages is their mistake, regardless of their former circumstances.

They failed to live within their means, simple as that, just thought they were too good for that type of lowly existence.

The sad thing is the true cost of this is to be passed on to somebody somewhere through no fault of their own!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, as the poster you quoted said, it's partly the fault of feminism, by claiming that women would be happier slaving away in an office than raising kids at home. Feminism has been good for feminists, but actively harmful for a large fraction of women.

The stress of joining the boys is causing a large increase in health problems for women. No free lunches in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sad that an intelligent forum like this starts to blame feminism for the problems in soceity.

Most women I know are juggling children and jobs to help make ends meet. Most of them are not in high powered jobs earning masses - and even those I know that are - often say they'd rather be at home with the kids.

I've known women who've had to go out to work to keep the family going because the husband was taken suddenly ill, and even died. They've taken two jobs on with raising families - mostly low paid because they had years out of work to raise the kids.

I know of some women who are staying at home with the kids who have degrees and started good careers - they want to be with their kids but the family is surviving on income credits along with big handouts from both sets of in-laws. Otherwise, they too would be working - not from choice but necessity.

Also know women who got divorced because the husband beat them up - and eventually feared safety for their kids - so also did two jobs - after the divorce to get the family by. Many women also divorced because the husband went off with someone else - promised to pay his way - but never did - they went out to work.

Amongst the 20s generation and early 30s at the moment, those I know in the office environment, male and female - the woman is earning as soon as possible - because they need the money to keep up the mortgage and kids uniforms, lunch, trips away organised by the school, etc.

Equally, I come across a range of women under 25 and as young as 15 - who got pregnant, got a flat paid by the Council, and income support, and do jobs on the side "cash-in-hand" because the money they get doesn't pay for the kids shoes! One has a kid with widely different sized feet - and she has to buy two sets of shoes each time because a short while ago Clarkes withdrew their previous offer for kids like that - of getting one shoe in a completely different size for the price of a normal pair of shoes. Clarke's said they couldn't afford to keep subsidising.

Some of these girls did get pregnant early - because they had no qualifications and felt they had a need to be successful at something - having kids was the next option.

Please don't blame women for the mess we are in. That's so wrong. In all societies, rich and poor you will always and have always had women trying to earn to balance out the income short-come in the family and for a wide variety of really good reasons.

Feminism may have allowed women to speak up and say it's got to change and we'll try and do it. It hasn't really happened that way for real.

And those that are single, unmarried and in career jobs - most wish they weren't and are well aware of what they have sacrificed.

Please, this forum is full of intelligent people - don't let's come down to this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct. we've allowed a society to develop which in effect discourages procreation among the incumbent population. Bizarre. Can't think of many cultures in history which have fostered such a policy.

In Scotland we've had a campaign to increase imigration because of a falling population. Why don't we just support those already living in the country to have children in the first place, rather than importing people to fill the gaps left by the children no one is having?

"Why don't we just support those already living in the country to have children in the first place, rather than importing people to fill the gaps left by the children no one is having?"

That's far too sensible.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are sinister undertones here, as if it is women's fault for daring to want jobs like the men. Has it occured to them that demographics leading to shortage of housing supply has actually forced women into the workplace whether they like it or not? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

At the end of the day, people are prepared at the moment to stretch themselves too far. But there are plenty of one-income households - as long as you bought before the boom, you should be fine. In fact it seems to be a badge of being middle class that you can afford to take time off work to bring up kids.

The option is always there to trade down in terms of your house - you could probably downgrade in terms of size/location and still afford to survive on one income. It's a free country, let people take their pick. The problem is actually the expansion of the middle class in our "white collar" society, leading to a frenzy of demand for space on already established middle class housing estates.

Maybe it is time for us to realise that actually being middle class isn't that special any more, and so we will have to put up with a quality of life previously associated with the working class. Maybe we are the new working class, and we are just suffering from a seismic change in expectations compared to our parents.

It's too convenient to blame women, baby boomers or any other group that probably hasn't done anything except try to get by in the world. No-one has engineered this - it just is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.