Stay at Home

Ok, since yesterday’s article focused on a married couple living a normal American dream life and how they are continually falling deeper in debt, I left off with a question. Could the family be better off if only one adult worked? Like I said, I haven’t done the math, but I am very skeptical and I would have to say my logical answer would be no. But, let’s go through some steps to see for sure.

I’m not going to go through all the basic fundamentals of the previous article so we’ll just jump right in. Let’s assume that the mother is chosen to stay at home with the two children. The father continues his job as normal. Immediately we realize that revenue is cut in half and the family now is living on $24k per year. After taxes, we are at roughly $400 per week or about $1,750 per month. We are going to make a few changes in spending now that the family only has one commuter. All other charges will stay the same. First, there are less driving costs and gasoline costs. Let’s just cut things in half to be simple. We now have monthly commute charges of about $100 per month. Also, we are going to throw out one of the new cars. We’ll throw the new van out and replace it with a paid for, used van since her average usage is low for running to town and emergencies. We are also going to cut the extra tank of gas in half.

Where does this leave us? Let’s go through some simple math again. Since all other charges are the same, we have monthly costs about $2,400. As you can see, this isn’t going to work either. The family is still in debt even by dropping out a car payment and cutting driving charges in half. An even larger savings of no daycare wasn’t even mentioned. It still doesn’t work. So what can we do? As I thought, skeptical was very right. It can’t be done in this situation. Let’s just say that a single person income for this family requires a job that pays over $20 per hour. That might not sound like a lot to some, but there isn’t a lot of $20 per hour jobs out there considering the average HOUSEHOLD income of an American family is below that.

This basically leaves us with a few choices. One, the father can assume a part time job to augment the family income. Two, the mother can go to work and try and find a cheaper day care alternative if at all possible. Three, cut all spending to the absolute bare minimum and see if that can make up the difference (unlikely). Four, move in with relatives willing to open their house to a couple in need (a family move may need to take place). There are ways to conserve and cut corners, but it’s hard with a family and children at home. Necessity costs are very high.

Let’s look at option one, the father assuming a part time job. This is an article about “stay at home.” The part time job will pay $12 an hour also, 20 hours per week. The father works a few hours in the evenings a few days during the week and an 8 hour shift on Saturday. Sunday is free. Doesn’t sound great because family time is at a minimum here and the father could become over stressed and worn out continually working 60 hour weeks to support the family. But, will this work? An additional $850 per month is added to their income. Add that to the previous amount and we are now at $2,600 per month in usable income. At this level, the family can survive. With the removal of an additional car and associated expenses and the major removal of daycare costs, the family has enough income to live without going into debt. As noted in the previous article though, insurance, taxes, student loans, and a myriad of other costs are not included in this example. In reality, this family will likely be living week to week, with no money available for savings or emergency fund.

Ok, so we have been able to construct a workable example of an American family dream existing without falling into debt by working, but at what cost? We have removed the father from the family and this is costly in more ways than one. Children need their father in their lives for companionship, direction, love, and teaching. Yes, by having the mother at home with the children, it helps alleviate a major portion of social costs, but children need BOTH parents. It seems we are at the mercy of how much money we need to make to live. Your family dream may not be a dream that can be affordable. Children are expensive, no doubt about it. However, should money be the determining factor on whether you have children or not? I would think it should not. But often, it IS the most important factor. It limits our ability to realize a dream of having a family, even a small family. You are more financially secure and stable if you are single or married with no kids. I would guess that’s always been true to an extent.

So here we are, limiting our dreams of an American family because our necessity expense deters us from having children. This dream, maybe it’s been replaced by a new dream, I don’t know. Some people dream about making the most money, or being in management, or being retired by 40. What does that get you? More stuff. That’s all well and good, but does the stuff have the ability to love you? Do accomplishments have the ability to smile and give you the feeling that only creating life can? Does pride outweigh the satisfaction of seeing a child graduate? This can go on forever. It’s an ideology that seems to be moving to one of the older generations. Family has been replaced by focus on self. The costs of living have only added to this migration. It’s EASIER to live alone, to not have children. It SAVES money and we’ll be able to buy that new car!

I think the dream of family is not too much to ask for. If we make having families a financial choice, things are so far upside down, it’s incomprehensible to even think about. Families are the glue that holds us together. Without them, we are individuals in an individualistic society. Come to think of it, isn’t that where we are heading? Don’t we see more of that every day? We need to figure out how to promote family again. Make it affordable! Family creates stability and brings love to our society. We are failing in both.