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?

In my part of the SE, the rent on a family home would take care of an average wage every month, so for many families it's a choice between 2 incomes or benefits. Or move to a different part of the country.

Surely it’s more precarious for one parent to not earn and be totally dependent on the other. Plus, you know, not everyone wants to be a SAHP. Why shouldn’t they see some rewards for their work outside the home? They might also find it mentally stimulating and rewarding? I am a lone parent now and it is definitely more precarious. If something happens to me what happens to the kids? They certainly couldn’t rely on their erstwhile father.

If they buy a bigger house, you’re saying they could “lose it” and have to sell up and move to a smaller home... so why is the solution to move directly into said smaller home on the off chance that something might happen? That makes no sense.

You think it's smarter to buy a bigger house than you or can afford, than to buy a more suitable sized home that you can easily afford? Guess we see why people struggle now then.

It's not as if they can just sell up and buy a smaller one, sometimes they lose everything and end up renting. That's happened to a few people I know this year. Bought or even built a big fancy home, couldn't afford the payments and had to sell up. Now renting as they can't even afford what would have been an adequate home from the start. Yeah that was sensible...

It might just be a minority of people doing this but they are still doing it, and if mumsnet is to be believed, most people on here earn over 100k a year. Its their choice to do this, but don't complain if it goes wrong. Spending is fine if you can afford it and it's good for the economy, but pay your bills, save some money and spend the rest. If you have the ability to do that, and you dont, I have no sympathy if you lose it all. I have sympathy for those who can't even save and just make ends meet month by month. They are the ones actually struggling, not the ones buying range rovers they can't afford.

Of course it depends on the size of the income. DH and I are high earners and we’re very careful not to overstretch ourselves and purposefully bought a property just this month that we can afford fairly well on one salary. We have friends stuck in jobs they hate in the city because they took the biggest mortgage they could and now are unable to change careers, go part time, or spend time with their kids. But if you’re talking about a couple on fairly low salaries I think it’s a bit different as the lifestyle that comes from both salaries is so so much better than relying on one, so I can understand stretching yourself a bit more in that situation especially if you’re young and likely to earn more over the years.

OP if you and your DH split you are both only part time and would then need to finance two separate households, I would argue that's more precarious than my full time (well I can't be sure because I don't know your income of course) you are making less pension repayments than if you are full time? There are risks to your situation as there are with others I'm sure, you may have mitigations like saying you'd go full time if you had to, and I'm sure others do too like with insurance or selling assets if required. You can't generalise, everyone's situation is unique.

The concept behind this whole thread doesn't have much reflection on the reality. It's only applicable and relevant in very limited circumstances. It suits OP, great. It's clear that it doesn't fit in with how the majority of people manage their finances, through choice or necessity.

On a separate note, while to some having a 15 year old car is a badge of honour, to others it's an asset decreasing in value which shortly will cost more to mantain than it's worth it. So some might sell at 10 years and put equity deposit down for a new car. The point I'm making, each to their own - people manage their own money best they can individually and financial decisions are multi-dimensional, they aren't black or white. It's important to recognise that money makes money and debt can also make money, if managed wisely.

what if there is a chronic illness in the family, one person can no longer work

The same could be said for a single person who has a mortgage.

@CakeRequired ah gotcha - so you’re taking extreme decisions made by a tiny minority of people and using that to make sweeping generalisations and judgements.

In my world, factoring in 2 incomes was the difference between buying a £350K semi detached in a nice area rather than a £250K terraced in a shitty area. If that makes me financially irresponsible then so be it.

(Ironically, our salaries have both increased to the point where I actually could now cover the mortgage and basic bills on my salary alone if needed; but I appreciate we’re lucky in that respect, and it will no doubt change once DC come into the picture).

I think a lot of posters would agree that it’s sensible to try and have a bit of a safety net, and to not piss away money on a new car every year - but the OP’s proposal is taking “being sensible” way too far in my opinion.

How do you think single parents manage?

I understand your point OP. People very much living for today.

I think there are two factors influencing it.

1. times are crap generally - the economy is poor, so the zeitgeist has become a bit of a "fuck it, might as well enjoy what I have" mentality.

2. risk can often bring reward. Many of the people I know who've overstretched themselves on mortgages, kept a first property as a buy to let etc, have ended up better off than the friends who haven't. People tend to notice the risk takers/entrepenurs who win, not those who don't.

also in the last few recessions etc the government has done a lot to protect people, for example from repossession etc.

This means people don't have experience of seeing swathes of friends/neighbours losing their homes etc. They feel like it won't ever happen to them.

I’d say you’re being unreasonable in judging what others do with their money.

I think there is so much debt leveraged against property these days that mass repossessions like in the 90s won't happen. The banks will extend mortgages, switch to interest only etc.

Yes of course you are right. Also having more than 2 children and then when it all goes wrong they are in trouble.

People are just not sensible enough to think about what could happen such as losing a job or a marriage breaking down.

That's why there are so many posts on here from women who cannot cope.

@jillypill also having so much savings (which is inevitable if you live on only 1 income) would preclude you from getting government help. I have never claimed benefits but i have read that if you have more than 16k in savings, you can't claim UC. So in a sense, I understand why people would rather invest all their spare cash in property as this isn't counted, (and you can get an offset mortgage for buffer in case of unemployment).

Super post @MillieEpple I feel exactly the same. Everything is so stretched and people understand that and feel the pressure personally - I know I do.

People are just not sensible enough to think about what could happen such as losing a job or a marriage breaking down.

You'll find that most people actually are sensible IRL. However, it's entirely unreasonable to live your life as if armageddon was about to happen.

Most people don't lose jobs for the rest of their lives and work very hard to rebuilt themselves after the divorce, if something like this happens.

Most people address the difficulties as and when they arise in their lives, some will have a very decent buffer, some not so much, depending on what they could afford.

You can't live your life expecting the worst, what a miserable existence. I'd rather not live at all.

@lynsey91

Yes of course you are right. Also having more than 2 children and then when it all goes wrong they are in trouble.

People are just not sensible enough to think about what could happen such as losing a job or a marriage breaking down.

That's why there are so many posts on here from women who cannot cope.

Silly women! Know your place

@Circumlocutious i live in a MC area of London, no child yet. My flat is below the average london price but is still expensive. If I had a penny for every single person who asked me why I didn't buy a house in a cheaper area for £400k, I would probably have enough cash to upgrade to the 3 bed flat I dream of (currently have a 2 bed).

But yet despite the scary looking mortgage (which is based on 2 incomes), I am saving money by living in my area as :

1. We work in the City so need to live within commuting distance of London. 2 season tickets of £4k each is far more expensive than the mortgage and is much larger than the increased mortgage even if I live in a non fancy commuter town. WFH may change this but I am not prepared to bet the next 40 years of my working life would be WFH.
2. By living near family, i live near MIL so if i had a kid and there were school closures now, I would have backup as my MIL has always worked from home.
3. Living in London zone 3 means no car.

Everyone has different lifestyles and factors that make one lifestyle more financially prudent than the other. If i lived in a cheaper property based on only my DH's income, I would also have to pay for full childcare, 2 season tickets and a car. That actually leaves me with less buffer while in my present situation, i am able to pay £1k every month in mortgage overpayments as I don't have rail season ticket costs or car related expenses.

Also the thing about the benefit system as a safety net is it effectively penalises people who live cautiously in case the worst happens.

Yes of course you are right. Also having more than 2 children and then when it all goes wrong they are in trouble.

I'm not sure more children increase the chances of things going wrong.

Even for those that are frugal & save if it all goes wrong most people will struggle because savings etc can only sustain you for so long.

@Dyrne

Did i say everyone in the whole world lives like this? No. Did I say a minority live like this? Yes, yes I did. No generalisation or sweeping statements.

You've also just admitted you could afford your mortgage etc on one income. The people op and myself are referring to are the ones who can't. They could have, had they been a bit more sensible and not bought something massive they didn't need, but they did so its on their heads. It doesn't affect me, I don't give a damn that they overspend, that's their choice. Just don't complain if it goes wrong is all I'm saying. A 350k house isn't the type I'm meaning either, that's tiny in comparison to the houses that people have bought it built that I know. We're talking at least half a million upwards, and that's in relatively low cost areas in comparison to other areas of the UK, so you can imagine the size of house/mansion that buys you.

And there is a balance to be had definitely. Pay your bills, save some money, spend some money. Doing just 2 when you could afford 3 is reckless to me, but some like living like that so go ahead. Again it doesn't affect me, but I have zero sympathy for those who live like that and then it goes wrong. They should have planned a bit better and saved some of their money, not drained it all away in a massive house, cars tech, holidays etc. They had the ability that others can only dream of.

You realise that there are many, many families on low income who need 2 salaries just to survive?

I'm amazed that you can't see that plenty of people have little choice @Circumlocutious

We need both our incomes for our bills. We are not living some extravagant lifestyle:

• we don't have a car
• modest holidays
• no private school fees
• only one child (pregnant with Dc2 now, we waited 5 years to ttc).

The reason we need both incomes is because of house prices in my home town (London). We live in an absolutely tiny house in a very cheap bit of London. We've already moved far away from the part of London where I grew up. Yes we could have moved to a cheap northern town and had little mortgage, but it would have a massive effect on our lives. Moving somewhere totally new, starting over completely, being outsiders. There would be less job opportunities too.

We were just about able to scrap together a mortgage to stay in London but moving to a cheap area and having a tiny house. I'm aware needing both salaries is precarious. But we felt it was worth the risk, rather than relocate.

Our back up plan would be go relocate to DH's home town if our financial situation became impossible. Neither of us want to do that. DH knows no one that except his parents.

@AntiHop in UK, i find that taking a risk with property does unfortunately pay dividends in the long run sad to say. I look at my MIL, absolutely tiny terraced house in London that she bought in 1997, very low income, single mum of 4 kids. Certainly, it would have made financial sense in earlier years to relocate to the north as she works from home but she never did. Today, her tiny house is worth 700k.She would have her pick of houses in the north today if she wanted to relocate and have plenty of ££ extra. a house in the north would never have gone up so much and she would have far less equity,.

Of course this may change as some areas in the north are going up and parts of London are going down. However, based on this article ,london is still going up relative to other areas in the UK ( 9 of the top 20 places). So by moving out,depending on where you move to, you are actually losing out on equity gains which could actually be in hundreds of thousands of pounds over 30 years. It sounds crazy now because everyone expects the london property market to crash and I suppose it will at some stage, but London is still the capital. It is still the main jobs centre. Even if many people wfh, people still want to be near the jobs. The north south divide has been exacerbated by the pandemic, and post brexit, the Tories want UK to be a tax haven which will overall mean more money in London, not the north.

www.theguardian.com/money/2020/dec/29/islington-london-records-uk-highest-house-price-growth-2020