The Myth of Dual Income!

[norbie]

:scratch: I just read this:

"Many families today are struggling to get by, and most arrived at the same solution? both parents work, and thus they become dual income families. But that is the myth? does the second parent working really bring in income? Think of all the extra expense that are incurred because of the second parent working? child care, lunches out, parking ,extra gas (Petrol for Australia), dry cleaning, bigger wardrobe, and ,of course, taxes. Does not leave much left, does it? And top that off with the fact that working parents have little time to cook nutritious foods at home for dinner, so the family eats out regularly. And because this has become a dual income household, they get hit with a much bigger tax bill at the end of the year. So? the income really is not there, the whole family suffers, you dont have as much quality family time

Quite interesting I thought, and perfect fits in with the Patriachial Family. I only talk about low to midle class Income. And think it through - there is a point in this Article: Is it wert for the 'left over Dollar' for both Parents to go out working?
I would realy support a 'Home Industrie" for our Woman. I know a Lady she cooks fantastic Curries and she is always on "The Sunday Markets" one's a Month. And DH and Children are on her Stand (Table) and the Children have great Fun too.
Norbie

[gratefulgrace]

I think you have a valid point but where I live it costs so much to live even cutting corners a one income family has a hard time paying the rent. gg

[Naomi4Christ]

As a 'lady who lunches' when I'm not working, I can honestly say that I spend far less when I'm at work. :)

[gratefulgrace]

That was always a dilemma for me. Not working lots of time to shop but no money. Working have money but no time to shop. Oh well. Here we can host foreign students in our home to help with expenses also it is interesting and fun. A bit of extra work but mostly I have to say worth it. gg

[AveMaria]

When you work, lunch doesn't have to be eaten out. I do it more often than I should, but I can brown-bag or bring leftovers to work just as cheaply as I could eat them at home.

Of course, there's just too many variables out there to say that dual income households suffer.

I should also add that I've known too many women who stayed at home and gave up their careers who later wound up living in poverty after divorce of widowhood. They had a heck of a time getting back into the work force, their skills were no longer current, and few employers were interested in hiring someone who had been out of the work force for so long.

[ContraMundum]

While we're fairly lucky in Australia, I think in any country there are struggles with the system that says "buy, buy, buy or you can't be happy" and the result is that people often live beyond their true means.

In our societies, where huge portions of population are in the "aspirational" class, there is tremendous pressure on the family unit. Things also change so rapidly it's like a full-time job just running a small household. Traditional roles are done away with because of the simple need to survive in an faith-unfriendly system.

But, the question we need to ask is why we have let society get to this point in the first place, in the light of our faith. By becoming consumer capitalists ourselves, we have allowed the values of the system become our own, and not all of the values marketed as capitalist or "free" are good spiritually. Christians have a lot of ground to make up in reclaiming society back from rampant secularism.

Note for norbie: I think Bob SantaMaria had a clue on this.

[karen freeinchristman]

:scratch: I just read this:

"Many families today are struggling to get by, and most arrived at the same solution? both parents work, and thus they become dual income families. But that is the myth? does the second parent working really bring in income? Think of all the extra expense that are incurred because of the second parent working? child care, lunches out, parking ,extra gas (Petrol for Australia), dry cleaning, bigger wardrobe, and ,of course, taxes. Does not leave much left, does it? And top that off with the fact that working parents have little time to cook nutritious foods at home for dinner, so the family eats out regularly. And because this has become a dual income household, they get hit with a much bigger tax bill at the end of the year. So? the income really is not there, the whole family suffers, you dont have as much quality family time

Quite interesting I thought, and perfect fits in with the Patriachial Family. I only talk about low to midle class Income. And think it through - there is a point in this Article: Is it wert for the 'left over Dollar' for both Parents to go out working?
I would realy support a 'Home Industrie" for our Woman. I know a Lady she cooks fantastic Curries and she is always on "The Sunday Markets" one's a Month. And DH and Children are on her Stand (Table) and the Children have great Fun too.
Norbie
The vision of the dual-income family that you have given is not a reality in my life. We don't have the extra expense of childcare due to my generous in-laws; I don't have lunches out when I'm at work; I don't have to pay to park at my workplace; I have no dry cleaning; OK, I do use some petrol to get to work (20 min. drive). Our family only eat out probably 4 times per year (!). My salary pays for ALL the food, ALL the children's clothes and their needs. My husband pays for everything else - mortgage, utility bills and car maintenance. For us, it is very much worth the 'extra dollar' that we get. I know my situation is probably easier than some people have it - for instance, I know not everyone has in-laws or parents that are willing to do childcare for free. But it isn't all the grim scenario that you seem to think it is.

[SirTimothy]

Our family only eat out probably 4 times per year (!).

Sounds similar to us... we only go out for birthdays and when guests take us out.

[longhair75]

While I realize that much of the discussion of this topic will be anecdotal, I agree that the article quoted in the OP may not always be the case. In our case, the dual income provided a much better standard of living for our family. It allowed us to move out of the neighborhood where our children would have been exposed to many negative elements. We moved from poverty to the middle class due to the diligence of both my beloved Sunflower and I working together to raise our girls in a much better environment.

[Finella]

Most families I know consider the cost-benefit of both parents working, just as you outlined it, norbie. Many times they don't do it because it isn't worth it financially. When the costs come out dead even, sometimes the mother still wants to work. Why? Because many of these moms have advanced degrees in their field and want to maintain their skills so that they can continue to work later in life. As has been pointed out before, if a mother stays at home for a number of years caring for her children, she often misses out on advances and changes in her field of expertise and is often then passed over for a job in favor of another person who is more current in the field (due to recent graduation or work experience).

I've seen compromises, though, where the mom works part-time to stay in touch with her field, and to reduce the cost of daycare (if they have to use it). And, as Karen points out, family often help with childcare -- our next door neighbors are dual income, with the mom returning to work for the first day yesterday (after her measly 12-week leave for the birth of their first child). the Dad's mom is taking care of the baby three days a week, the Dad is home one weekday a week (he often works weekends) and the mom will work out of the home one day a week. Families make it work, they are creative people!

Also, note that many jobs simply don't pay enough for families to afford clean, decent housing. The housing market in the Philadelphia area is quite expensive, and it's hard for working families to afford a decent place to live even with a dual income. And I'm not talking about living in the suburbs, I'm talking about a simple apartment in the city that's not surrounded by crime and blight. It's simply not a choice for these people, both parents must work in order to afford to feed and house and clothe their families.

[JasonV]

Ditto to Longhair's remarks.

And to add one element to my own, my wife was severly depressed being a stay-at-home mother. She now works 30hrs a week and has never been a better mother for our girls.

Some women aren't meant to be at home.

[gratefulgrace]

I have done both and both worked for me. Initially it was a matter of necessity that I returned to nursing parttime. It was a sacrifice and there were challenges with daycare but hubby and I together to make it work. I chose evening shifts which allowed my husband to handle the childcare for most of the time I was gone. I hired afterschool babysitters so the children were cared for at home etc. I also tried to work only two shifts a week. I eventually quit when job expectation became working 5 days a week. So I took took a hiatus thinking I would return after a year as a casual nurse. I then has another child (up to 4 now) so waited to return to the workforce when my children were all in school. Also after careful consideration I chose a different job that meshed with a school schedule (I worked in a school asn a special ed assistant). it meant no shift work I had weekends off and holidays with the family. What I gave up was higher salary as a nurse and full time hours. ( I do not get paid for the summer) I do not regret it though it was a good decision to go back but I think back into nursing would not have been good. gg

[erin74]

I have done both and both worked for me. Initially it was a matter of necessity that I returned to nursing parttime. It was a sacrifice and there were challenges with daycare but hubby and I together to make it work. I chose evening shifts which allowed my husband to handle the childcare for most of the time I was gone. I hired afterschool babysitters so the children were cared for at home etc. I also tried to work only two shifts a week. I eventually quit when job expectation became working 5 days a week. So I took took a hiatus thinking I would return after a year as a casual nurse. I then has another child (up to 4 now) so waited to return to the workforce when my children were all in school. Also after careful consideration I chose a different job that meshed with a school schedule (I worked in a school asn a special ed assistant). it meant no shift work I had weekends off and holidays with the family. What I gave up was higher salary as a nurse and full time hours. ( I do not get paid for the summer) I do not regret it though it was a good decision to go back but I think back into nursing would not have been good. gg
I think I would like to consider taking the path of a job in a school for similar reasons.

Two years ago I was considering whether in the future I might look for work helping in the local library or school library. My Dad challenged me to think about making more use of my brains and studying to do the job of a librarian.

I took the challenge and enrolled at uni. It was a mistake though. Fortunately circumstances made it so that it wouldn't work for me. But I realise now, in hindsight, that I was too busy listening to him to really, to think about what my true goals were.

The reason I want a simple job is so that it doesn't tax me so much that I can't do what I am really passionate about. I would much prefer to be free to run bible studies, meet with women, help out at school, etc, than have a bit more money and a higher profile job.

I don't want a job that burns me out so much I won't have the energy to do what I am really interested and passionate about.

But that's still to come - for now I'm gonna hang out with my 3 year old, and be home for when my 5 year old finishes school for the week. He's as cross as two sticks this week, so that ought to be fun - nothing a little more sleep won't fix though.

[ebia]

:scratch: I just read this:

"Many families today are struggling to get by, and most arrived at the same solution? both parents work, and thus they become dual income families. But that is the myth? does the second parent working really bring in income? Think of all the extra expense that are incurred because of the second parent working? child care, lunches out, parking ,extra gas (Petrol for Australia), dry cleaning, bigger wardrobe, and ,of course, taxes. Does not leave much left, does it? And top that off with the fact that working parents have little time to cook nutritious foods at home for dinner, so the family eats out regularly. And because this has become a dual income household, they get hit with a much bigger tax bill at the end of the year. So? the income really is not there, the whole family suffers, you dont have as much quality family time

Quite interesting I thought, and perfect fits in with the Patriachial Family. I only talk about low to midle class Income. And think it through - there is a point in this Article: Is it wert for the 'left over Dollar' for both Parents to go out working?
I would realy support a 'Home Industrie" for our Woman. I know a Lady she cooks fantastic Curries and she is always on "The Sunday Markets" one's a Month. And DH and Children are on her Stand (Table) and the Children have great Fun too.
Norbie
I'm not sure how typical your 'figures' are.

Cetainly we have much less money with only me working than if we both worked. There are an awful lot of assumptions in the above about how money is spent.

On the other hand, my wife actively wants to concentrate on raising our little one until she is old enough to go to school, she can pick up enough shifts casually to keep her hand in, and go back to work once the little one starts school (I'm a teacher, so the hours will fit reasonably well).

We are in a sufficiently comfortable situation to be able to do that, and want to do that, but not everybody can or would be suited to it.

[norbie]

I'm not sure how typical your 'figures' are.

Cetainly we have much less money with only me working than if we both worked. There are an awful lot of assumptions in the above about how money is spent.

On the other hand, my wife actively wants to concentrate on raising our little one until she is old enough to go to school, she can pick up enough shifts casually to keep her hand in, and go back to work once the little one starts school (I'm a teacher, so the hours will fit reasonably well).

We are in a sufficiently comfortable situation to be able to do that, and want to do that, but not everybody can or would be suited to it.
Of course, it is from an American Paper, so our own Figures are maybe a little different.
But in both above Posts we see it can work out that the Child can grow up with Mum at Home. It will make a difference in his/her Life later on. I strongly believe so.
We must lobby the Government more, Example would be a 100% increase in Child Allowance under the condition: married (not defacto), and one income Family. In this way the Government can guide the Country in the right Direction: the Family is the Basic of every Nation.
Norbie

[ebia]

Of course, it is from an American Paper, so our own Figures are maybe a little different.
Without seeing the actual paper (and who produced it) I'm still suspicious that the assumptions were made to get the desired answer.


the Family is the Basic of every Nation.
But the concept of a nuclear family with a non-working mum is modern, western, peculiarity.

Through most of history and most of the world families are extended units and both parents (and, indeed, the children) have had to work.

[gratefulgrace]

Unfortunately in our society in Canada it is harder and harder for one parent to do the entire job of fundraising. I agree with Norbie that the governments have to recognize the value of stay at home parents and give tax benefits to the ones that do. Very often traditional couples are penalized in the areas of child care credits and income tax benefits. Before the nuclear family there was the extended family with many hands making lighter work and sharing the load of child care and family support. We are not even in a nuclear family stage much anymore with many single parent households now but I still say that if there were monatary incentives to do so many more parents would spend time at home raising the children themselves at least until school age. I did not say moms as my nephew for many years was the stay at home dad (with a home based computer web design business)while his wife completed schooling and worked as a psychologist. Jan

[gratefulgrace]

I think we are getting off topic. GG

[norbie]

Looking trough all the Posts again, it still comes out in any Country that Government are not realy 'Family friendly'. Good for young People to have an extended Family were Grand Parents with the Children.
Here in Australia there are some jobs which can accumulate a 9.30 to 1500 time share, especially in Food Business and some Retail.
The Ball is in the Government Court: with increased Child Allowance and Tax concession for Employer to get Woman during School hours to work - it can work.
Norbie

[ebia]

Looking trough all the Posts again, it still comes out in any Country that Government are not realy 'Family friendly'. Good for young People to have an extended Family were Grand Parents with the Children.
Here in Australia there are some jobs which can accumulate a 9.30 to 1500 time share, especially in Food Business and some Retail.
The Ball is in the Government Court: with increased Child Allowance and Tax concession for Employer to get Woman during School hours to work - it can work.
Norbie
Well, for a start you can't make it for women only.
So, what are you proposing - tax breaks for people who work 9-3 only, that are lost if you work an extra hour or two? I can see that going down like a lead balloon in a wide variety of quarters?

And just who do you see picking up the other shifts - (before and) after school hours, weekends and school holidays? Schools are only in session for about 40 weeks a year.

[norbie]

Well, for a start you can't make it for women only.
So, what are you proposing - tax breaks for people who work 9-3 only, that are lost if you work an extra hour or two? I can see that going down like a lead balloon in a wide variety of quarters?

And just who do you see picking up the other shifts - (before and) after school hours, weekends and school holidays? Schools are only in session for about 40 weeks a year.
What I meant was Tax concession to EMPLOYERS who find jobs for Mums with School Children.
I know it want be easy - but a Government can and should guide the Country in the interest of a quality Family Life.
And no one is promising anything: not Howard not Rud.
And the Family First Party - I haven't heard anything at all of them.
Norbie

[norbie]

You are a Teacher, Dear Ebia you should know about Families. I don't know about Victoria, but in my Place Teachers know exactly from which kind of Family a Child comes. It does reflect the Ability to study, don't you agree?
Norbie

[ebia]

You are a Teacher, Dear Ebia you should know about Families. I don't know about Victoria, but in my Place Teachers know exactly from which kind of Family a Child comes. It does reflect the Ability to study, don't you agree?
Norbie
I can take a pretty good guess at which kids have stable two parent families and which don't, but I very much doubt I would be very accurate if asked to suggest which have a stay at home parent and which have both working. (In fairness that's not at all clear cut here- a lot of my students live on 'blocks' (vineyards and orange orchards) and so lots of parents work on their own properties.

If one took two parent families, and compared the results of those where one parent stayed at home, verses one where both parents work, I'm not so sure you would get the result you seem to imply.

What does correlate is the amount of high quality time parents spend with their children, but that can be achieved by a two career family.


What I meant was Tax concession to EMPLOYERS who find jobs for Mums with School Children.

That would be illegal discrimination, but leaving that aside you (presumably) don't mean any jobs, but jobs with specific hours etc - those details raise a whole heap of questions. As a society, are we interested in going back to a world where schools, banks, and business keep similar hours - so long as there is a demand for business to operate 24/7 then there is overwhelming demand for employees to work outside school hours.

Of course the current government isn't remotely interested in promoting working hours or anything else to suit employees, only in enabling the interests of employers.

[gratefulgrace]

I am not sure that would be considered discrimination if it applied to all in the assigned category.(parent with school age children) Isn't it only discrimination if some parent with children is arbitrarily left out? It would certainly Help people get off welfare quicker. Jan

[erin74]

Ebia your post reminded me of some studies that showed a link between behaviour of children and spending a meal together as a family. It was found that when children were able to regularly have one meal a day together as a family their behaviour was improved in the long run. Or something to that effect.

I wish I could remember the source - because the implications might be a bit off.

But basically the author was advocating for families to prioritise a family meal each day, especially as children got older, as it encouraged communication, etc. TV off of course.

This of course is getting more difficult with parents working different and longer hours.

And our governments employer friendly laws don't help.

[higgs2]

Ebia your post reminded me of some studies that showed a link between behaviour of children and spending a meal together as a family. It was found that when children were able to regularly have one meal a day together as a family their behaviour was improved in the long run. Or something to that effect.

I wish I could remember the source - because the implications might be a bit off.

But basically the author was advocating for families to prioritise a family meal each day, especially as children got older, as it encouraged communication, etc. TV off of course.

This of course is getting more difficult with parents working different and longer hours.

And our governments employer friendly laws don't help.

That one meal a day -- I think it's so important! We all sit down together, say a blessing and eat together. And it's so hard right now because of baseball, tball , dance classes, and music lesson!!!! But we do our best to have that mean, even if it's heating up aready made dish from costco. :D

[ebia]

Ebia your post reminded me of some studies that showed a link between behaviour of children and spending a meal together as a family. It was found that when children were able to regularly have one meal a day together as a family their behaviour was improved in the long run. Or something to that effect.

I wish I could remember the source - because the implications might be a bit off.

But basically the author was advocating for families to prioritise a family meal each day, especially as children got older, as it encouraged communication, etc. TV off of course.

This of course is getting more difficult with parents working different and longer hours.

And our governments employer friendly laws don't help.
Links seem to be emerging between the lack of significant conversations in many households and language disorders, limited vocabulary and other literacy problems at school. If children aren't taking part in meaningful conversations with adults at home they don't have the opportunities to acquire those skills.

[norbie]

"That would be illegal discrimination...."

Why would it be discrimination? I agree with Dear Jan that applied to all Woman with School Children is a way the Government can and should guide the Country.
In fact our Treasurer would like to have a job for all single Mothers during Schooltime and Centrelink is working on this.
But I mean with big Companies who would employ say more as 10 Woman with School age Children, there could be a Tax Encouragement to have a Governess or some other trained Lady employed and a little Building with Playroom and Bathroom Facilities. This is an other way for a Government to guide Families in the right Direction. By the end of the day, the Ball is mostly in the Government court - and Churches should lobby for this.
Norbie

[higgs2]

"That would be illegal discrimination...."

Why would it be discrimination? I agree with Dear Jan that applied to all Woman with School Children is a way the Government can and should guide the Country.
In fact our Treasurer would like to have a job for all single Mothers during Schooltime and Centrelink is working on this.
But I mean with big Companies who would employ say more as 10 Woman with School age Children, there could be a Tax Encouragement to have a Governess or some other trained Lady employed and a little Building with Playroom and Bathroom Facilities. This is an other way for a Government to guide Families in the right Direction. By the end of the day, the Ball is mostly in the Government court - and Churches should lobby for this.
Norbie

Well, I am in the US so it's quite different. But a bill such as you discribe specifying "women" would be a scandal.

[pmcleanj]

Well, I am in the US so it's quite different. But a bill such as you discribe specifying "women" would be a scandal.


As it would be to limit the role of care-giver to a governess, as if a male tutor could not equally provide care to children.

But, other than that, what Norbie seems to be proposing is tax benefits for on-site daycare facilities -- something that's been a characteristic rallying cry of the "feminissmus". I suspect it would be opposed by both ends of the political spectrum: as one more way that government is undermining traditional family values by diverting tax resources to support women's working; and as one more way government is trying to restrict women's choices by limiting support to school-hours only.

I heartily concur with the importance of that family meal -- and even more with the importance that Erin touches on, of the TV being turned off. My daughters' teachers have said that they can't necessarily tell whether their pupils come from two-family homes or working-mother homes, but they can always tell the ones that come from a no-TV home by the higher level of self-direction, play-skills, and the more varied content of their imaginative play.

We now have two formal sit-down family meals every day -- breakfast and dinner -- and that's despite a full ballet-school schedule and having two working parents.

And along with or as an alternative to shared family meals, a similar improvement can be had by other shared daily family times: reading aloud, family prayers, bedtime rituals. With all the time that many modern families spend in the parental taxi-cab between sports and classes, reading aloud together in the car, from carefully-chosen materials with allowance for discussing the themes of the literature, can transform those commutes to valuable family time. Of course, at least one of the **passengers** has to be a relatively fluent reader -- or you have to use books on tape.

But the real point is that, we can be creative about doing the best we can for our children within the realities of modern life, without being constrained by the vanishing realities of the mid-twentieth century.

[higgs2]

As it would be to limit the role of care-giver to a governess, as if a male tutor could not equally provide care to children.

But, other than that, what Norbie seems to be proposing is tax benefits for on-site daycare facilities -- something that's been a characteristic rallying cry of the "feminissmus". I suspect it would be opposed by both ends of the political spectrum: as one more way that government is undermining traditional family values by diverting tax resources to support women's working; and as one more way government is trying to restrict women's choices by limiting support to school-hours only.

I heartily concur with the importance of that family meal -- and even more with the importance that Erin touches on, of the TV being turned off. My daughters' teachers have said that they can't necessarily tell whether their pupils come from two-family homes or working-mother homes, but they can always tell the ones that come from a no-TV home by the higher level of self-direction, play-skills, and the more varied content of their imaginative play.

We now have two formal sit-down family meals every day -- breakfast and dinner -- and that's despite a full ballet-school schedule and having two working parents.

And along with or as an alternative to shared family meals, a similar improvement can be had by other shared daily family times: reading aloud, family prayers, bedtime rituals. With all the time that many modern families spend in the parental taxi-cab between sports and classes, reading aloud together in the car, from carefully-chosen materials with allowance for discussing the themes of the literature, can transform those commutes to valuable family time. Of course, at least one of the **passengers** has to be a relatively fluent reader -- or you have to use books on tape.

But the real point is that, we can be creative about doing the best we can for our children within the realities of modern life, without being constrained by the vanishing realities of the mid-twentieth century.


I can't believe I missed the "governess" bit!

I have some really good conversations with my kids in the car. It's a matter of using the time well.

[gratefulgrace]

In my above quote I did not specify mothers or fathers as in certain circumstances it could be one or the other. That certainly would keep the PCers happy

[karen freeinchristman]

I have some really good conversations with my kids in the car. It's a matter of using the time well.I agree with this! :thumbsup:

[karen freeinchristman]

In my above quote I did not specify mothers or fathers as in certain circumstances it could be one or the other. That certainly would keep the PCers happy
It's not just a matter of being 'PC'. It's a matter of justice. And God cares about justice. :)

[erin74]

"That would be illegal discrimination...."

Why would it be discrimination? I agree with Dear Jan that applied to all Woman with School Children is a way the Government can and should guide the Country.
In fact our Treasurer would like to have a job for all single Mothers during Schooltime and Centrelink is working on this.
But I mean with big Companies who would employ say more as 10 Woman with School age Children, there could be a Tax Encouragement to have a Governess or some other trained Lady employed and a little Building with Playroom and Bathroom Facilities. This is an other way for a Government to guide Families in the right Direction. By the end of the day, the Ball is mostly in the Government court - and Churches should lobby for this.
Norbie
Just a small point - school age children don't need work place care - well not in school hours.
That is why jobs with restricted working hours would be great. However, I think that putting all the parents back into the workplace while their kids are at school also takes away from all children, as it takes the parents out of the classrooms as aides to the teachers.

unless.... perhaps the govt can kill two birds with one stone and permit school help as a suitable alternative to work, and continue assistance to those willing to do this. It is cheaper than employing teachers aides, and allows parents to fill the role rather than someone unrelated to the students, which is always a bonus. It is good for our kids to have parents in their classrooms.