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

The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder. - Sirach 34.21,22 KJV

Reply from the hunch-backed, gray-haired old fogey

(I've been having a good day, you can tell.)

NATHAN:

As an economics professor told us in my university days--ended 1972--the inflation brought about by the beginning of the Great Society program of Lyndon Johnson with the concurrent escalation of the VietNam War and with no increase in taxes has made it permanently impossible for a man to provide for his family on one income alone. Either the spouse must work or the man must take a second job. The politicians paid for the war with inflation that has become permanently embedded in the country's economy. (So we should be aware of wht any war is doing. We can't have "guns and butter" without sacrifice on a large scale and that means we can't pay for new education programs at home or massive new health care initiatives without finding that we some day will have both spouses working and they not be able to make a living for a family.)

This economic situation persisted through the 1970s, 1980s, and into the late 1990s as that inflation was wrung out of the economy. When Loretta and I were married, the first five years saw inflation of 10, 12, 12, 14.4, and 13.5 percent. It was like a banana republic--every week butter went up a nickle and by September each year we stopped buying butter, coffee, peanut butter, jelly, and lots of other things. We spent our time buying food at bulk places, eating lots of cheap casseroles, and applying the principle that my grandparents used to get throught he Depression: "use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." We joined purchasing cooperatives that bought cheese, bread, and other staples in bulk so as to spread the savings among the members. We did without a lot of things and continue that frugal lifestyle. We found that if you postpone a lot of things you "absolutely need" that by the time you can afford them they re not as earth-shatteringly necessary as they first seemed. We also found that it pulled us together as we did so many things by hand that required lots of cooperative effort on both our parts.

No one has been able to accumulate savings of any great amount and it is increasingly impossible for a young person graduating from university with lots of student loans to save, buy a home, and save for his own children's education--not to mention his own retirement. I'm not talking about luxuries; I'm talking about decent housing, food on the table, health care, and clothes on your back.

On the other hand, there are lots of people who think that they need the latest styles each season, a huge home, and luxury vehicles to drive.

Health care has gotten out of hand as each hospital has thought they needed to have the very latest piece of equipment and the cost spreading over every procedure has driven the cost of even the most simple doctor visit through the roof. We have not been able to get health insurance for over 14 years and I am not eligible for Social Security or Medicare even though I am about 50% disabled. We tough it out. Loretta has put off a root canal for a year.

You've grown up during the longest "up" in the business cycle in history, begun by Reagan's tax and spending cuts. Taht cycle tanked in the early part of this decade and we've been in a sort of "mark time" mode ever since.

That's a thumbnail of my pilgrimage through the last 35 years.

BOB

Those pressures are very real. I never meant that we should not seek to maximize our income, to seek poverty. You are describing pressures a kid would face around third to sixth grade; if they are dressed nice, bathe, and eat well but don't have an iPod, they should learn to stand up for themselves.

It's just that it is very hard to quantify the value of staying at home with pre-k children. The cost of day care is exceedingly high and could be a great percentage of the income from an extra wage-earner. It would be healthy for someone in that position to look at the balance of costs and benefits for staying at home and for working away from home and sending the kids off to nannies or day care.

I would personally be willing to bear a short term burden for a long term benefit in the spiritual rearing of my children. It is not always possible to carry that burden and there are times when you have to do what you have to do. But, that's my plan.

Terry

Bob, your account is impressive and your sufferings (especially your current health care woes) are saddening. It is this kind of thing . . . especially a lack of affordable health care . . . that makes me very interested in looking hard at the political candidates, especially the Democrats. That your wife has to put off a root canal, in this rich country, is an outrage. But there's always more money for Mr. Bush's Folly in Iraq . . .

-- John

Terry:

As a teacher of high school students, and as someone who has spent a good deal of time around children of a variety of ages, I think you underestimate by quite a bit the years at which children face pressures concerning material possessions or the lack thereof. I also think your comments that "they should learn to stand up for themselves" minimize or trivialize the impact these pressures have both on parents and children. Are they in the same league with the pressures on those who lack adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter? Of course not. Nevertheless, they do become a real source of difficulty when you are surrounded by others who view you as second-class citizens because you lack many of the things they possess.

Ryan

JOHN:

I'm not trying out for the sympathy award or the martyr's crown--oh, pity me. Just a simple statement of how things have been in answer to our brother's question. My son posed the same question to me some time ago and this is the short answer I gave him.

This pilgrimage has stripped me of a lot of materialism. I've had shoes re-soled three times to save money; gotten cars repainted to make them last over 100,00 miles; skipped vacations for many years. But that's nothing. My faith is like a wall of grantie covered with a sheet of four inch think bronze.

Today I have my mortgage paid off and a new car. But that doesn't mean a lot except that I can now freely help others. Some fo what I save goes to the soup kitchen because, as St. Basil says, my surplus is the voluntary storehouse of the poor. And there are lots of people out there with no job and nothing with which to feed their children.

I use my talents to help those who are like my family: poor and in need of help. I recently managed to help a destitute elderly woman get some SSI assistance. Gotta thank Jesus for the time, talents, contacts, and expertise to get through the door and to the right people. (She'd been turned down and came to me because she said she'd been told that if anyone could help her I could.) No big deal. We're all called to use time, talent, and treasure--and any other gifts to lift up the Lord's brethren as we journey to the Kingdom.

People tell me, "Man, you seem to believe all that stuff." And I tell them, "Yes, I do. And I'm porud to march out of step with the mean, hard culture we live in."

BTW, part of the thing with Loretta's tooth is that, in our own true form, she put it off thinking we might have to save up the money to pay for this. But I'd have borrowed it because I didn't know how much pain she was in--she never complains. Like me, she soldiers on. Who wants to hear a complainer? Smile and offer it up, we both say.

John, I submit this not only to provide an answr to the question posed but to edify and show example. Suffering may not be easy, but don't let the Enemy cause you to be angry. Then the Enemy wins. Pray and ask for help. Jesus ALWAYS has answered EVERY prayer for me--every one, bar none.

BOB

RYAN:


I am amazed at the truth of what you state each time I encounter it. Yet, it is so true. It happened to my neighbor's daughter when she entered the first grade. And Loretta encounters it in her kindergarten classes--each year it seems to get worse. It's so pervasive that I don't know how a parent counters it without having one spouse home school their children.


Truer words could not be spoken.

BOB

So it is better to give children material goods (iPods, wheelies, or whatever floats their boat) when that means that two parents are working than to have a little less and have one parent at home?

High school students are going to place themselves in whatever strata is convenient. At a private high school it will more likely revolve around money, who has less or more...who got a new car to who got a clunker. It won't revolve around money at every school.

Terry

No. It's to be sensitive to what pressure they must face. They can face these pressures IF they experience great love and involvement at home. It is always a goal to have one parent at home if that is possible to nurture them, especially when they are young. And if it means a frugal experience that can not only be beneficial but a source of grace. It shows what is truly important. Communication of values is very important and it may take some absorption of children's frustration over what they perceive as lacking. Remember children don't turn out as godly people. That comes from godly parents taking time, teaching, and then praying for them each day.

My prayers are for all young families who struggle. I have walked this path and will be the first to say it comes with many silent tears.

BOB

For some families, if the father were the only one earning an income, it would mean having a lot less, not "a little less" as you say.

Students at private high schools do not necessarily come from wealthy families. I teach at a private high school, and a number of the students-maybe even a majority of the students come from families that are middle class and for whom sending them to a private school is a sacrifice. For a number of our students, if their mothers were to quit their jobs, they would be forced to send their children to the public schools-an option that many of our families absolutely dread. Students at public high schools do not necessarily come from poor or middle class families. In a society that is-for the most part-as prosperous as ours, children who lack material possession as compared to the majority (whether it be cell phones, iPods, a car, or fashionable clothing)-including when they are in high school (private or public)-face the real possibility of discrimination at the hands of children from more economically prosperous families.

Now having said all of this, I agree that it is preferable for the mother not to work outside of the home when there are children in the home-especially if they are very young, and/or especially when there is not an extended family close by to provide support. This is my big concern about this debate: sometimes those who scream the loudest in insisting that moms stay at home have an air of self-righteousness and moral superiority about themselves that is downright offensive to me-and certainly to those families who are being told or have it implied to them that they are bad parents because they have concluded that they need two incomes to get by. Maybe they are making a poor decision-and then again, maybe they are actually being responsible. I think that conclusion varies from family to family-and ultimately, it's not really for others who don't know all the particulars of why another family has reached a decision to pass judgment. Rather, let us adults all prayerfully support each other, let us adults all seek-according to our own gifts-to nurture all the children in our parish communities and neighborhoods, and leave the judging to God.

Sincerely,

Ryan

AMEN

Maybe in your parishes you could spread the word that it would be really supportive to have people like my wife and I--with children raised--offer to take an evening with the children of those who have no extended family in the area. Sometimes young parents need a break, even if it's only to go out to shop for clothes or groceries. I've offered several people this support.

BOB

"This is my big concern about this debate: sometimes those who scream the loudest in insisting that moms stay at home have an air of self-righteousness and moral superiority about themselves that is downright offensive to me-and certainly to those families who are being told or have it implied to them that they are bad parents because they have concluded that they need two incomes to get by."

That's an interesting perception. The inferences which caused you to to be offended were not implied by me, and that's something I explicitly addressed with an earlier post.

What subject do you teach? I would like to teach one day, it's an honorable profession. (If I do teach it would likely be impossible to support a family on that income alone, I'd either have to supplement it with a home business or my wife would have to work.)

I've said what I've had to say on this topic.

Terry

Parishes are supposed to be a family, fi we really believe what we say about Baptism. Has anyone taken seriously the opportunity to organize a cooperative effort among people in their parish?

It can take many forms: help for young families with children who have no extended family in the area; food purhcases; help with home upkeep--the possibilities are only limited by imagination.

BOB

And also car rides- I tell you, that is a big problem, sometimes even in smaller cities where the public transportation is not as comprehensive. I have a grandmother who goes to a baptist church and is slipping away from her faith, simply because she can get a ride to the Baptist Church and not the Catholic Church. Of course, If we lived near each other, I would, but we don't.

I have known of young couples or single parents without reliable transportation. It is hard with kids.

We probably need to add sometimes, "I will pick you up," to our "come and see!"

Terry:

I teach theology for pay that is low when compared to the public schools and without health insurance. My wife and I do not yet have any children, but there is no way that we will be able to provide for a family on my income alone-not even if I were a public school teacher. Both of us are stuck with a significant amount of student loan debt.

Ryan

lance:

Good points.

I just wanted to share another thing I found on the American Family Association website. They have a cooperative medical plan for people who have no health coverage or have difficulty getting it. They covenant to help each other with health care costs. It's not insurance, but for a covenanted amount each month, they pledge to help each other out of catastrophes. I'm getting information soon. You may google their website and the link is in the right hand column.

BOB

That's very understandable; that could still be the case with professors at non-research schools.

Terry

Theophan, I will check it out, thanks!

Theophan, this service has been around quite awhile. I had a friend with no insurance who swore by such a program, FWIW.

God bless everyone with their medical conditions and (high) medical bills.

----------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]