www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Question for all of you Elders!

I never studied economics, but I'm becoming more and more interested. My question for you is the following:

A person used to be able to graduate from high school and find a job, marry his wife, and be able to support his family on his wages alone, while the wife cared for the children. Today we find most college graduates (like me) cannot support their family on one income alone (and I make an average wage for a recent college grad).

When did this transition occur? Why do you think they occurred?

I know the answer isn't simple, I know there may not be any economists among us, but I also know this is msg board consists of some pretty bright people. I just wanted to hear the opinions of people who have lived through this transitions and saw the change occur before their own eyes.

Thanks for any input!

Nathan

I am not an elder. But there has been a change in the perceptions of 'needs' since my grandparent's generation. We are far more steeped in luxury than before (branded shoes, clothing, cars). This change in the expectations of living standards in a way demands that both the husband and wife garnish a healthy income to support that demand.

Personally I would like to support my wife and future kids on one income. There's no doubt we would be benefited by two incomes, but living on at least one income would give us a lot of freedom in how we raise our children. If the added income were to be close to childcare costs, there would be no question about it.

It seems possible to manage a family on one income. With that I won't have a new car every two years and would have to be very careful with day-to-day spending.

If extra money is needed, the best compromise may be a home-based business.

Terry

I think there's definitely truth to this. However, I also think this needs to be balanced by the fact that for much of our population, increases in wages have not kept up with increases in the cost of living. My expectations of living standards is very similar to what my parents had when I was a young child. My father was able to support our family on his income alone, and we lived very comfortable (one might say luxuriously compared to the way my grandparents lived when they were very young). With the same job my father had, I certainly could get by on one income alone and support a wife and two children (my parents stopped after having me and then my sister two years later); however, I suspect at a significantly reduced standard of living from what my sister and I were blessed to have enjoyed as children.

Ryan

Well, in Minnesota you calculate $600 for family health insurance per month (my employer is paying 1/2). A 2 bedroom rental at $800 (that's about as low as you can go for something in a place that won't get you killed), that's already $16,800 for health and housing alone 1/2 of the average salary (I think the median salary is around $30k anyways). Figure in social security and taxes $5000 roughly you're already spending $21k not figuring in food, savings for retirement (because we all know Social Security isn't going to be around for my generation) clothing, auto insurance & gas (you could argue that this is a luxery and you could live close to your job and church) and any student loans you may have.

It may be realistic for someone with no student loans to raise a family off of one income, but here in Minnesota, I've worked the numbers millions of ways and it can't be done in the metro area.

Anyways, my point wasn't to complain, just to understand how this came about in our "booming economy".

Good idea about the home business. My family's plan is to continue to grow my auction company (which has been growing nicely lately, thank the Lord) to generate more income to pay off student loans.

In my case, my perception as a child of my parent's standard of living never quite reflects what I now know much or how little they had then. I was happy in a "less than wealthy" situtation, and I developed quite a bit from the time my parents spent with me.

Where would the costs lay in the difference of those two situations, where both work and one stays home to raise the child?

What would be gained with the extra income? That's a personal question, but for many goods there are alternates.

The alternate to eating out is eating at home, an alternate to always having a "new" car would be to have a reliable older one which is replaced when it must be replaced and not when "I get sick of this car". If it comes to it, an alternate to cable TV (50-100 a month or so) would be the local library, you can borrow movies too in many of them. Wal-Mart sells nice clothing, other stores do too (there was a summer clearance sale at Academy the other day and they were practically giving away "cute" blouses at $2.00-$4.00 each.)

It would take determination, but finding alternates for all day-to-day spending and looking for deals on fixed bills can make the difference between living on one income and needing two.

Terry

Student loans, oh don't get me started on that!

I guess locality factors into this question, because there is no way you can raise a family off of the average income in Minnesota. Absolutely no way. You can eat Raman noodles everynight and play chess to pass the time, but it's not going to work!

While I don't doubt part of this is because of the inflated expectations of the American public in regard to material goods and luxury, it would seem to me that something more systemic and powerful is at work worldwide.

From my vantage point, I look at this from the perspective that at the end of World War II, the US was really the only industrial nation that was left fundamentally standing intact with no damage to speak of, apart, of course, from the horrible loss of life of our military personnel.

Since about the 1970s, I would gestimate, the world have been catching up to us and making things more competitive then we were accustomed to in the 1950s and 1960s. Compounded further by oil/energy issues, and the eroding of the US manufacturing base of jobs to overseas, I'm guessing that all of this for the past 35 years or so has had a cumulative effect in undermining a brief economic 'golden age' we had in 1945-1970.

Regards,
Robster

If the fundamental economic values of a culture changes, the relative price of particular goods will change as well. I don't know about regional situations. I would question the "necessity" of a two family income if what is perceived as needed to sustain the economy of the home is truly a luxurious rather than a staple good.

Standards of living do not always correspond with happiness or with what makes a "successful life".

Terry

Neither are they totally irrelevant. We do not live in a vacuum, in which we are free from the pressures and influences of those around us. These pressures can be especially real to young families when their children do not understand why they are continually deprived of things all the other kids in the neighborhood have, and parents have a difficult time explaining to them why those things don't ultimately matter. These pressures can become even more acute when young children are subjected to excessive teasing because of their lower economic status.

Ryan

This is very true, Ryan.

Sincerely,
Alice

Nathan,

See the teaching of the Church on social justice:

Article 7: The Seventh Commandemnt [usccb.org]

My understanding is that wages have remained relatively flat in buying power since the 1970's.

See what the Church teaches:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

I think even when granting our excessive materialism and want of luxury in our culture, we have to recognize that housing, education and health care have way outstripped our wages.

We do need to learn from ancient Christian fathers and traditions, and learn to live more simply. But we also need something in our system to change radically. I do not have the answer.

I know you all probably do not agree with this, but I do think we need to have universal health care, that would help a lot. We also need to do something for higher education. We can't have people graduating with $80,000 loan debt. Sometimes people work their way through school, but, it is hard, and not everyone can do it in a timely manner. I think it is silly frankly to import some highly skilled labor when we are not training people here.

I also think we need to shield our workers from globalization. We can't expect our people to compete against those who only earn a few dollars a day. I know we morally cannot ignore the developing world, but it does not seem that the answer is to let every one sink to the lowest common denominator.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that everyone has a right to a livable wage; I know we will not agree on how that is done. But the Church teaches this, and so we are obligated to try and find out how to do so.

Lance

Thanks for the response Robster.

When did the rest of the world gravitate towards two income households? I know in Russia it was pretty much forced, but I haven't read when it happened in the rest of Europe.

Lance,

We definitely agree the system is broken!

I guess upon further reflection the expenses that hurt the most (and seem vastly inflated) are housing costs, health care, and paying into social security (since I do not believe that it will be around when I retire, so I invest towards my retirement separately).

As long as the politicians are telling me the economy is booming, I guess I can't complain (lol).

Nathan

Nathan

I think you are right about these big ticket items. As far as Social Security goes, one has to make sure that they have a private investment in place, a 401K or IRA, if and when one can afford to contribute them; I am worried that social security is not going to be around for me, let alone a young guy like you!

Lance