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?

@Hearwego

I personally don’t under families who are on joint incomes of 60k or 70k per year but still say they struggle. They must live beyond their means. A family should comfortably live on 4K per month net pay. My family isn’t on anything like that.

Not in London...

Modest family house... 600k, nursery, car/tube ... on that income you’d be living in a 2 bed flat

@Circumlocutious So is your mortgage based on one income and you save the other?

So do tell. If you both work part time how does it work financially for you?

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

Me either.

Re: single incomes - there are definitely situations, such as current school closures, where single income households have it incredibly hard. I don’t think there’s a lot of choice there at all.

But perversely, it’s also logical that dual income households (where all the income goes towards living costs), are more unstable, because there’s double the risk of something going wrong with one of their jobs.

@Circumlocutious No answer?

I would also add that you rarely know what others earn.

I'm fairly sure friends of mine think I earn about half what I actually do. They probably think I'm spending the lot, I'm not.

Circumlocutious

I'm not sure you understand risk

Just because there are two jobs it's not double the risk of things going wrong. And the chance that both jobs would be lost is hugely variable.

YABU

That's quite ridiculous- many couples need 2 incomes just to cover the basics e.g. rent/mortgage and bills

A single income household (unless super duper high earner) is just unrealistic

You make reference to paying for school fees etc

I don't think we live in the same universe

Not necessarily double the risk, surely that depends on the individual risks within each partners industry.

Half the impact though if either partner goes down. And providing both partners take out employment insurance that impact is reduced and cushioned while a new role is found.

Its none of your business what other people do with the money they earn.

Your theory only really applies to people who have big houses or expensive holidays or send their children to private school. I agree with you if you’re talking about those people, why work your arse off and put all that financial pressure on yourself? Most people don’t have that kind of money though so your theory doesn’t work when you present it as a massive sweeping statement applicable to everyone.

it’s also logical that dual income households (where all the income goes towards living costs), are more unstable, because there’s double the risk of something going wrong with one of their jobs.

I don't think it's logical the 2 jobs increases the risk of something going wrong. For one 2 people already working likely have transferable skills so could find faster employment then someone who's been out of work for a long time.

I think you are over complicating it.

Everyone should leave themselves a cushion, and build up savings.

In reality it’s hard for most couples to manage their finances in a way which would mean losing one income wouldn’t put a dent in Their lifestyle.

You have also misunderstood how risk and probabilities are calculated.

Some people have income insurance - to protect their family’s lifestyle whether they rely on one income or two

[quote Nicknacky]@Circumlocutious So is your mortgage based on one income and you save the other?[/quote]
Not completely. Saving a decent chunk, yes. And we do each have the option of increasing our hours should we want to. So I don’t fully practice the lofty ideals of one-income spending but there’s wiggle room and some savings.

As a caveat, we do live in a town commonly described on MN as ‘grim’ When I was searching threads on here about it, the common advice to posters was ‘can’t you stretch to afford lovely such and such village nearby’? But - and this is triggered by a pp - DH has a (very well-managed) chronic illness that is at the back of our minds and perhaps shaping some of our decision making.

Also, the town now has a Jojo store so things are looking up!

Also mortgage providers etc lend less in terms of income multiples to couples vs single income and apply affordability tests, so generally this limits sensitivity of ability to pay to job loss.

I wonder if your Op is fuelled a bit by jealousy of other peoples spending choices OP. Are you sure people are stretched so much, maybe a lot of people have more than you think so can afford to spend AND save.

I think each to their own. I think if you have strong feelings about other people's finances then there is some hidden agenda.

Wow your thread has pressed a nerve OP.

I know lots of people who have thought twice about "upgrading" and think it makes sense to question how you'd survive on one income before committing to expenses that some would consider luxuries such as a bedroom for each NT child.

Lol OP you must be young and naive.
When we bought our first house in 1989 our mortgage rate was 16% (because we had a 100% LTV) and ALL of one wage was mortgage. We sat on a pile of curtains as we didn’t have a suite.

You have clearly grown up in an era of low interest rates and the nouveau-50s concept of the SAHM.

Sorry just seen the last sentence of OPs post where she does say that people should save one whole salary....ok I do think that is a bit unrealistic and as others have said pointless to save and never spend - but do I think there's an argument to be made for keeping committed spending as low as possible and then spending the excess on luxuries you can cut back on if needed.

e.g. if you commit to a car on PCP you are stuck paying for it no matter what happens with your income, whereas if you buy a nicer (2nd hand) car outright you can always downgrade. If you commit to a high monthly mortgage you're screwed if you lose your job, whereas if you have a lower one you can always make overpayments when you are in a good financial position, etc.

They must live beyond their means. A family should comfortably live on 4K per month net pay.
My family isn’t on anything like that

But a mortgage & childcare costs could eat that up. Someone earning that who got on the ladder in the 90s will be in a far superior position to someone born in the 90s earning that.

So you aren’t practicing what you preach then. Got it.

Is this do with schools closing?

I get what you mean but it really isnt a choice for many.