To think that families who construct their lifestyle around two incomes are living very precariously?

[Circumlocutious]

I’m talking situations where the two incomes are absolutely essential to paying the mortgage and bills. A situation where there is no ‘give’, no flexibility: what if there is a chronic illness in the family, one person can no longer work, school closures (well, you’re seeing it now)? Isn’t this a precarious way to live?

I get that sometimes there may be no other choice, especially when saving up for mortgage. But often it seems like people’s lifestyle - the house they choose to buy, the size of their mortgage, the area they live in, their cars, the schools they pay to send their children to - have adapted to fit around two full incomes, even when they could have made different choices. Many people live fancy lifestyles with no room for error. They can’t scale back their spending without making major changes, eg moving house, which are harder to do once you’re used to your current lifestyle.

AIBU to say that more couples should aim to contain family spending to the level of one earning partner? Is this unrealistic?

I think if you can afford to live of only one person's income then that's great for you - doesn't mean it's ok to criticise people who realistically can't do it!

We have no choice but to rely on two incomes. Sorry that we’re living ‘precariously’ by your standards

I largely agree with you. Our fixed outgoings are based on one salary. It means our house is smaller than many of our colleagues, our cars aren’t as posh etc. But if one of us loses our job we can get by. We spend our money on doing things (well normally we do) and the same people who are mortgages up to the hilt each have a new 4X4, designer handbags/clothes etc always seem to comment on the amount of holidays we have/theatre trips/weekends away etc. But I’d rather live knowing we are more secure (both work in completely different sectors) the mortgage will be gone by the time we’re 50. Debt free. And enjoy life (I’m lucky and generally derive no pleasure from material things).

But as you identify in your post this isn’t realistic for everyone the cost of housing esp with low income jobs necessitate two incomes for the basics.

But people who have a choice and base their lives in living up to the hilt financially must live very trapped and stressful lives. I can’t see how anyone could actually enjoy living like that. But that’s me and they’re them.

What about when one salary is not enough to pay the bills? Should those people give up eating in order to be ‘safe’ on one income?

I am a primary teacher. DP is self employed, as people with his trade universally are. We live in a very expensive area of the South East, because this is where both of our families are and my ILs provide part time childcare for us (their choice, before I get flamed). Paying the mortgage, bills, nursery fees, food etc takes up my entire income. DP’s income is what we ‘live off’, and save for car repairs, DD’s university etc.

We have no credit whatsoever beyond our mortgage, neither of us have had a new phone for years, our cars are old (DP’s is a 2003 reg!) and paid for in full, we rarely buy any new clothes, don’t have Sky, haven’t been on a holiday abroad since DD was born, rarely eat out and DP cooks from scratch.

Should we not have had children by your measures? If one of us becomes ill, would resulting financial issues be our own fault?

I understand your point when referring to people living on credit for flash cars and new clothes (I know many families like that) but for most people it’s a case of their mortgage/rent requiring both to work simply to survive.

I’ll never even have a mortgage.

I couldn’t pay for my children to go to private school.

Surely it depends how much people earn, someone on minimum wage is unlikely to be able to pay all the bills. I agree it's sensible to not overstretch and overcommit financially, but not everyone has that luxury

@Alternista that’s what me and my husband do.

I’d already bought a cheap house on my salary when we met, so his salary because “spare” money. So we ploughed it into overpaying the mortgage.

We’ve always had a few nice holidays, but we don’t buy designer clothes, we drive old cars, don’t have expensive contract mobiles etc.

Further, as our salaries have increased we’ve not increased our disposable income spending, we maintained the same level but just overpaid the mortgage instead.

I don’t feel morally superior, everyone else can do what they want.

They only time I get pissed off is when others tell me I’m “lucky” when it isn’t look. I just don’t desire a brand new car every 3 years, the latest iPhone, I only replace technology if it breaks, my children don’t wear Ted Baker clothes, I don’t just get the train to London and blow £3k on designer clothes.

Same when I bought my house on own. I was grafting hard working overtime at weekends for my deposit whilst others were on £100 nights out buying rounds of Yeager bombs. I was driving my grandmas metro whilst they were poking fun in their new focus STs, I was buying Dorothy Perkins jeans whilst they were buying super dry etc.

@Jimdandy but you do realise that most people live your lifestyle (or considerably less than that, with many not able to afford a car let alone nice holidays), but using most of two incomes?

Clearly you've prioritised savings and that's great, but you are still 'lucky' Vs many.

It does make sense, tbh, even though a bit smug. We can now afford to put all my salary into savings and my DH's salary is more than enough for everything, but it wasn't always like that. I think most of the people rely on two wages, precarious or not.

Yes, it’s precarious, but many of us don’t have much of a choice. We could have done it if we’d not had kids...or taken a huge risk moving to a considerably cheaper area of the country. But we’d have had to sacrifice being near family and their support too.

@Jimdandy the only thing that has your story making any kind of sense in this, is that you have spendy friends to compare yourself with.
For most people your lifestyle is a good one and would take every penny of their double income. Which OP would scorn because they should be living on half that, somehow.

They only time I get pissed off is when others tell me I’m “lucky” when it isn’t look. I just don’t desire a brand new car every 3 years, the latest iPhone, I only replace technology if it breaks, my children don’t wear Ted Baker clothes, I don’t just get the train to London and blow £3k on designer clothes.

You're still fortunate to be in a position where you can overpay the mortgage, many cannot even get onto the property ladder. That isn't to say you haven't made 'sacrifices' compared to your friends; but in the real world not everyone can't afford to live comfortably because they have the latest tech and spend thousands on clothes- many count the pennies until payday as wages haven't risen in line with the cost of actually living. So yes, you are lucky.

@readingismycardio

It does make sense, tbh, even though a bit smug. We can now afford to put all my salary into savings and my DH's salary is more than enough for everything, but it wasn't always like that. I think most of the people rely on two wages, precarious or not.

We've managed to get ourselves into the same position however we've had a rollercoaster of redundancies from 2016 onwards. But I think we are a very small minority, far too many people have to work multiple jobs just to get by.

@thevassal

I think that OPs title is a bit badly worded and then people haven't bothered to read her opening paragraph, which explains it better. She isn't saying you should keep the full extra salary as savings, but just that ideally you should try not to spend all of your maximum income. Surely that advice would be the same for one single person?

Makes sense to me - if you earn £70k as a couple after tax and your outgoings are £70k every year because you choose to send your kid to private school and drive a brand new range rover, then it doesn't leave you with much room if something goes wrong - doesn't have to be as drastic as one/both of you losing your jobs completely but even something like a boiler breaking, being put on furlough at 80%, having hours reduced, a late payment for something, having to take emergency time off, getting ill...whatever.

However if you earn 70k but make choices so you only spend £50-60k of that, without significantly damaging your quality of life, e.g. driving an older car, only having a big holiday every other year rather than twice a year, shopping at aldi rather than waitrose, then you will have a bit more of a safety net if something happens to limit your income.

I was put on 80% of my income and was actually better off because I didn't have childcare, fuel costs or lunches for work/ school.

I am not sure I'd feel comfortable with the idea of having one salary in the house, regardless of how big that salary is. While theoretically I can understand the concept, in reality if primary breadwinner losses job and doesn't manage to find a new one quickly - it is not as easy as that for the non-working person to step up and get one. There'll be a matter of qualifications, experience and just being out of market for a longer period of time.

Ideally we'd all be earning amounts that would allow us to live decently (not luxuriously) on one salary and have the other as a back up but in most cases that is not possible. In our case we could live comfortably on my salary if DH lost his job, but his salary alone wouldn't be enough for all outgoings if I lost mine... so technically, we could say that we treat his salary as a 'bonus' and we have no need to dip into it for monthly living costs. The very fact that he works and keeps himself current in the market gives us the security that if there is a need - he could relatively easily go for a better paid one and cover the expenses.

Don't most people? Tis the norm.

How are people not getting this thread?

It's not about those who have no choice in the matter, or single parents, or who have been cheated on.

It's about idiots who move into a massive, fancy house, like 5/6 bedrooms with 3 people, buy big expensive cars, buy all the latest expebsive gadgets even when they haven't broken, they just upgrade as a new one is out, buy expensive furniture, go on expensive holidays, and they literally never save any money. They are spending it all quicker than it comes in. They don't need that lifestyle, they want it. Keeping up with the joneses essentially. They have no safety net despite being rich. It's their choice obviously, but it's highly risky as op said. If they lose an income, they are screwed. Big mortgage, big payments for cars and holidays and tech, how can they cope? They can't, they lose their home etc. This happens to people, I've seen it happen. As I say it usually happens to people in the oil industry, they don't plan a future as they think they are safe despite it collapsing several times. Hopefully they've learnt by now but I'm doubtful.

It would be ideal to only live on one wage and save the other but unfortunately it's not possible - between London mortgage and sky high childcare bills!! But yeah, the best thing that could happen to this country is if housing became actually affordable again.

If there are people on sufficient incomes to pay their bills, save for a rainy day/invest AND spend then yes, they should spend. This is how economy works. If they all lived like hamsters and accumulated their money spare in their cheeks just because they're cautious, or if they all limited their necessary expenses to well below their means too (for example only bought a very cheap property, instead of a property they could afford), the economy would collapse. Of course some people do it and it makes them richer and enhances their sense of security. But if it was done on a massive scale, it would cause huge damage to many markets and jobs. It's basic economy. Look what's happened in lockdown and how many non-professional and part-time jobs have disappeared because people who can spend have stopped spending. This gap will be filled at some point, but people most affected are actually those who most likely weren't the spenders but had no choice than to use their full income to live. Lack of spending by the wealthier people has hit them most.

Of course living beyond your means with significant debt isn't the way to go no matter how much you're on, I think everyone knows this and those who find themselves in this position try to get out. But being overly cautious can be economically damaging too. Beside, I do not see the reason to live like a hermit for the sake of it. If I have the money to spend on culture or travel, I will. I have always worked hard for my life to enjoy it sometimes. Maybe one day a rainy day may come, but then this is when we will start hermiting and shrink our expenses, DH will take over (or vice versa), step up, use savings, insurance etc. It makes no sense to live an entire life like this if it isn't necessary.

I think there's a valid point in saying that the cost of living in this country overall is too high and that's why so many people are squeezed. Everything is expensive and quality often doesn't match the price.

No sure what the other option is? Yeah it would be great to be able to sail through on one salary but that's not realistic for everyone.

Agree but families do what they have to do to pay the bills. Have you seen the housing prices in this country?! It's sooo expensive.

@CakeRequired you are looking at a tiny niche group of people there. This does not apply to 99% of people.

The OP was written in a generalised way, not about a tiny group of people in a specific industry

We've mitigated risks through being well insured with income protection etc, public sector workers with good and flexible benefits. Not perfect but completely vulnerable to life's surprises. Everyone has different risk appetites, if I spent the next 2 decades living frugally in a too small home with no holidays in order to be financially safe I would see that as a waste and would regret giving up those experiences with my kids. Life is for the living, spending only half of our salary would be too limiting for our liking, there's a balance and for me your resolution isn't balanced but too risk averse.

@Circumlocutious

I’m talking situations where the two incomes are absolutely essential to paying the mortgage and bills. A situation where there is no ‘give’, no flexibility: what if there is a chronic illness in the family, one person can no longer work, school closures (well, you’re seeing it now)? Isn’t this a precarious way to live?

I get that sometimes there may be no other choice, especially when saving up for mortgage. But often it seems like people’s lifestyle - the house they choose to buy, the size of their mortgage, the area they live in, their cars, the schools they pay to send their children to - have adapted to fit around two full incomes, even when they could have made different choices. Many people live fancy lifestyles with no room for error. They can’t scale back their spending without making major changes, eg moving house, which are harder to do once you’re used to your current lifestyle.

AIBU to say that more couples should aim to contain family spending to the level of one earning partner? Is this unrealistic?

Meh most people if they want to hedge against something unexpected happening will take out insurnace.

Not restructure thier entire life on the off chance.

You only get one after all

We’d love to live on one income. But. Err. Life.