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?

No two people, no two couples, no two sets of financial circumstances are the same. You cannot make it all as simple as that. Each case needs to be decided on its merits.

@christmasathomeagain

My in laws relied on one person to provide all the money with my fil working 3 jobs at times. At 75 he is done, can't walked between rooms without a stick (compared to mil who hasn't worked since she was 29 and is fit as a fiddle.

No thanks, we will share the burden of financing our family and lifestyle.

I think you’ve missed the point. OP isn’t suggesting that only one person works.

I wish we had any other choice. We rent, and we got a good deal on our rent considering the area. We could get somewhere cheaper but then DH would have to use the car everyday for work and I would either have to learn to drive or fork out a fortune in public transport, so we're better off where we are.

If either of us lost our jobs, we have enough savings to cover the shortfall in rent for one month only. I wish we had more savings and weren't living so precariously but I honestly don't think we could do anything different (except roll back the clock and not have DD)
DH is pretty high up in his chosen career, but it's one that doesn't pay well at all. I don't earn a lot but recently stayed a new job that had a huge payrise so now on 21k, which will make things easier.

So yes, you're right that people in our position are living precariously. But a lot of us know that and don't have a choice unfortunately.

Most of us do live precariously. Is this news?

I think most people have enough money to last about 7 weeks if they lost their jobs - which is also probably better than at any time in history and we've survived this far!

We could live fairly comfortably on my salary, but things would be very tight on DHs, however we have very good life insurance with critical illness cover and we make sure we save well. We're both public sector as well in an area that isn't affected negatively by economic downturns (other than usual government cuts, but staff wise we're already cut to the bone) so there will always be some kind of work. However we don't both work full time to live on a shoestring, so no we don't live on one income for laughs.

Jeeze, you must live in the cheapest place for housing in the country if you can think like this. You'd have to be earning massively to be able to afford a 3 bedroomed home on one salary here. And I'm not in the most expensive part of the country by any means.

There's barely a hope that my daughters and their partners (think teachers/nurse etc) can even afford a three-bed semi/terraced on their two salaries, never mind one.

If you need two salaries to live, the secret is having good insurance for ill health/redundancy. Not renting a one-bed place and sharing the bedroom wth your kid, because that's all your salary can manage.

How is that any different to a similar situation with one salary?

I agree in some situations.
I think for most people who do this , both incomes are needed to get a mortgage and have a decent standard of living.
However I know people who have a large income (around 150k combined) and they mortgage themselves to the hilt with massive luxurious houses. Of course it’s their choice, but they’re only one redundancy and a few months away from having to sell up. On an income that size, I’d much rather live in a smaller house and have a nice comfortable buffer.

Isn’t that what insurance is for? Income protection, terminal/chronic illness, death of a partner... these insurances cover such events.

You are getting some unfairly harsh comments, OP. I'm not sure if I agree it's necessarily the 2 income that's the issue. It's that loads of people with a comfortable income(s) live build their entire lifestyle around spending all their money - mortgaged to the hilt as want the fanciest house,best cars (often on finance), constantly buying top of the range stuff. A very precarious way to live if you don't need to.

@burblish

The problem with saying you should contain family spending to the earning level of just one of the couple is that that only works if it’s the level of what the lower earner of the couple brings in. How many couples earn enough EACH that the lower earner of the pair could singlehandedly cover the family’s financial needs? Very few indeed, I should imagine, outside of couples who are both high earners. So, your idea just doesn’t work, because most people couldn’t survive on just one income because of the cost of living generally rather than because they’ve been over optimistic in their spending decisions.

We could have. Both dh and I earn around £30-35k each, I used to earn a bit less than him, now I earn more than him. So we always budgeted that we could live on £30-35k if need be.

I don’t think the OP is saying that two people shouldn’t work, she’s saying that creating a lifestyle where you depend entirely on those incomes can give a false sense of security.

What about single people who depend on one income? Are they irresponsible too? Asking for a friend.

You'd need to be earning about 80k to get a mortgage for the average house price where I live.

Even taking two incomes into account it prices a lot of people out. Very little affordable housing. Rent costs more than mortgage repayments.

So people have no choice, house prices have gone up so much.

Are you saying that families should aim to only spend half their income? It's not really about constraining spending to one salary, as that would only work if both salaries were similar. Most of the time, they aren't.

@AliceMcK

Isn’t that what insurance is for? Income protection, terminal/chronic illness, death of a partner... these insurances cover such events.

My dh has every insurance going (been paying for many years) and it doesn't cover him now that he's out of work due to the pandemic. Insurance doesn't always work out for you, sadly.

Whereas most of our friends are high earners and they all have diverse savings portfolios (I know because due to DH and I occupations most have asked us for advice at various stages).

That's sensible though, as is having enough savings for a year's earnings. The people op is meaning, I believe, are the ones on high incomes, but technically over spend when they could live a bit more frugally, like a smaller house than a massive one they don't really need, cheaper cars, less holidays etc. But they don't, they constantly over spend, saving nothing and then wonder why they end up in trouble.

Their life of course, but don't complain if something goes wrong quite frankly. They easily had the choice to not spend that much, they didn't need to buy cars they couldn't afford etc. They put themselves in that situation of a high life.

That's the difference. There are those with two incomes, living month to month, but have no choice. They don't earn enough to manage any other way and live frugally anyway, because they have no choice. The high earners have a choice, they choose the high life.

Can't people spend their own money on what they want?

Less complacent? With my spending?

I have Fuck all left at the end of the month. I shop frugally and think about every journey so as to minimise travel costs.

You’re having a bloody laugh.

I don’t think the OP is saying that two people shouldn’t work, she’s saying that creating a lifestyle where you depend entirely on those incomes can give a false sense of security

I don't disagree but the reality is living costs are very high these days particularly for younger people.

We thought we were going to have to claim on dh’s income protection (we still may in the future, he recovered enough to go back to work but he has a chronic illness and recently had a flare up).

It still only covers 60% of income and only after 6 months off sick.

How would insurance have stopped my ex dipping his wick?

I'm not sure there are millions of people living lavishly & spending everything though.

op are you against being overly materialistic, is that your point? being too aspirational, living on a hampster wheel, etc? a lot is due to luck I think.

What Luzina said & jeez you’re an eejit !