Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets not focus on 100k. Hence the "(enough to support household on one income)". I live in a suburb of DC, I am well aware 100k is not enough money to support a family.
It's hard to imagine $100K not being enough. Our household income is about a third of that and we have a house big enough for all of us and our pets, two vehicles, a closet full of clothes and a bedroom full of toys for each kid, a computer for everyone in the house, and money in our savings. I do live in a city known for low cost of living, but there can't be that big of a gap...there have to be people making less in the more expensive cities, otherwise who works at daycares and fast food restaurants?
It might be better to say that 100K not enough to live the lifestyle you want to live...if you need things like vacations and a new car every few years, plus lots of dinners out and after-school activities for the kids, then $100K might not go that far, I don't know.
Sometimes though, I have friends who live in my city who are depressed because they have to leave their infants and go back to work because they "can't afford to live" otherwise...and I know first-hand that it depends on what you're willing to give up to be with your kids...and again, not everyone should feel like they have to stay home with their kids, it's lovely that we live in a time when we're not expected and obligated to all be housewives if we don't want to.
I make a little over 100K a year. My wife went back to work after maternity leave (2nd child born in May 2011). She works PT, 20 hours a week. There are 2 reasons:
1. She gets our medical benefits through her job which is about $700 a month cheaper than if I were to get them through my job.
2. It provides a break to get her out of the house and be around adults.
Sometimes though, I have friends who live in my city who are depressed because they have to leave their infants and go back to work because they "can't afford to live" otherwise...and I know first-hand that it depends on what you're willing to give up to be with your kids...and again, not everyone should feel like they have to stay home with their kids, it's lovely that we live in a time when we're not expected and obligated to all be housewives if we don't want to.
Please. Do we really have to have this argument again? Are we going to beat to death what it means to not be able to afford and what people "can" and "can't" do?
Please. Do we really have to have this argument again? Are we going to beat to death what it means to not be able to afford and what people "can" and "can't" do?
I don't recall having an argument with you in the past about it.
To me, being able to afford it means paying for basic living needs...food, housing, shelter, medical care, transportation, etc. Not wanting to lower one's living standard (give up those $100 dinners twice a weekend, the mani pedi, taking the dogs to be groomed for $55 a month, Hawaii once a year, your iphone with the unlimited everything so you can Facebook everywhere you go) is totally different. If you cannot afford to put a roof over your child's head if you don't work, you cannot afford to stay home and you have my true sympathies, if staying home is what you really want to do. If you don't want to give up your luxuries to stay home with your kids, that's completely different and I'm not going to give you any false sympathy.
I don't recall having an argument with you in the past about it.
To me, being able to afford it means paying for basic living needs...food, housing, shelter, medical care, transportation, etc. Not wanting to lower one's living standard (give up those $100 dinners twice a weekend, the mani pedi, taking the dogs to be groomed for $55 a month, Hawaii once a year, your iphone with the unlimited everything so you can Facebook everywhere you go) is totally different. If you cannot afford to put a roof over your child's head if you don't work, you cannot afford to stay home and you have my true sympathies, if staying home is what you really want to do. If you don't want to give up your luxuries to stay home with your kids, that's completely different and I'm not going to give you any false sympathy.
I've always worked, couldn't afford not to. With the girls, I stopped working on a Friday, had them on a Monday or Tuesday of the following week, and went back to work after four to six weeks, something like that. In California, pregnant moms automatically qualified for short-term disability in the weeks surrounding their due date, so we were able to make do with half my paycheck for a while. My son was born in Colorado, which did not have that benefit. I was laid off about a month before he was due. I did not go back to work immediately because we moved back to California soon thereafter, and I found a job within a few months.
It would be nice if I didn't have to work, but we chose a place where we both could find good jobs, afford a house, and live near good schools for the kids. We do not live in a McMansion, my van is 10 years old and pushing 110K miles (neither my husband nor I have ever owned a new car), we almost never go out to eat, I don't do a lot of shopping, and we almost never go on vacation. Our combined incomes are much more than $100K, but that's what it takes to live here. I have no idea how the people with huge houses and new cars do it.
I don't recall having an argument with you in the past about it.
To me, being able to afford it means paying for basic living needs...food, housing, shelter, medical care, transportation, etc. Not wanting to lower one's living standard (give up those $100 dinners twice a weekend, the mani pedi, taking the dogs to be groomed for $55 a month, Hawaii once a year, your iphone with the unlimited everything so you can Facebook everywhere you go) is totally different. If you cannot afford to put a roof over your child's head if you don't work, you cannot afford to stay home and you have my true sympathies, if staying home is what you really want to do. If you don't want to give up your luxuries to stay home with your kids, that's completely different and I'm not going to give you any false sympathy.
Please. I don't know anyone who can do that on $100K.
The thing is (and this is what many people don't seem to get) - it's not a clear cut as all of that (and frankly, it's no one's business in any event). Medical insurance: with my job (large company good benefits) - I pay around $700 per month for medical. My sister's company (large company good benefits) - she pays $35 per month for medical. Similar coverage, both family options. Retirement? Company's match at different rates and some people are more concerned with saving. A few people I know have husbands who have been working long enough to be covered by an actual pension - with benefits. Just because someone earns a certain amount, doesn't mean their take-home is what you might think it is. I'd recommend worrying about your own finances instead of someone elses.
2 incomes (one part time)
very modest home
vacation? I think we've taken one or two that didn't involve visiting relatives. Total. Over 25 years.
Cars: modest, bought used, owned for 5 years now, both have over 100K miles.
My cell phone is "dumb" and is 5 years old.
Shopping? not much
Pedicure - 3-4X per year (summer only)
It's hard to imagine $100K not being enough. Our household income is about a third of that and we have a house big enough for all of us and our pets, two vehicles, a closet full of clothes and a bedroom full of toys for each kid, a computer for everyone in the house, and money in our savings. I do live in a city known for low cost of living, but there can't be that big of a gap...there have to be people making less in the more expensive cities, otherwise who works at daycares and fast food restaurants?
It might be better to say that 100K not enough to live the lifestyle you want to live...if you need things like vacations and a new car every few years, plus lots of dinners out and after-school activities for the kids, then $100K might not go that far, I don't know.
Sometimes though, I have friends who live in my city who are depressed because they have to leave their infants and go back to work because they "can't afford to live" otherwise...and I know first-hand that it depends on what you're willing to give up to be with your kids...and again, not everyone should feel like they have to stay home with their kids, it's lovely that we live in a time when we're not expected and obligated to all be housewives if we don't want to.
Meh. Cost of living varies wildly. I grew up in a very high COL area as a kid and 100K, whether via one income or two, isn't buying anyone vacations, cars, and luxury items there right now. We chose not to move back when we returned to the east coast because of the COL. I think it is hard to paint with a broad brush on this topic.
As for moms going back to work out of desire rather than financial need (which is how I am reading the OP), I'm all for it if that is what works for that family. I am also all for one parent staying home part-time or full-time if that is what works for that family. Or a combination of these things over the course of the kids' lives, which I suspect is the case for a lot of families.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 08-29-2012 at 04:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
