Can you raise a family on one income? | Hacker News Reader

Can you raise a family on one income?

econlib.org

16 pointsclircle27 comments

It's not easy, and there are trade offs, but we did. We have two kids out of the house. One on their own, the other will be a senior in college next year. We have a younger child in 5th grade that we home school.

We felt it was better for the kids to have one parent at home versus sending them to day care and spending a ton of money on that. It just wasn't worth what the take-home was after paying for that.

What would you say the lifetime cost of raising your two children conception -> college is roughly?

https://business.time.com/2009/09/18/1-1-million-cost-to-rai...

Article from 2009 says $1.1m

> When you add it all up, it’s not uncommon for a single child to cost a normal, middle-class family something like $1.1 million, from birth through the undergrad years.

Brookings says it’s about $310k per child for a family with 2 children, without including daycare or higher ed costs [1]. US median lifetime income is roughly $1.65 million [2]. Daycare averages somewhere between $10k-$15k/year per child [3]. In state public school tuition is ~$100k for 4 years [4]. Median sales price of a house is ~$425k [5]. Total cost of that house with mortgage interest and taxes over 30 years is roughly double that.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33879844 (courtesy u/lotsofpulp)

[2] https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/1...

[3] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/understanding-true-...

[4] https://educationdata.org/average-in-state-vs-out-of-state-t...

[5] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

That’s 50k a year from birth to 22, I don’t need to explain how this doesn’t make sense

If you're willing to accept a lower standard of living, you can raise a family on a quite modest income. Do we really need TVs and smartphones and hot water? Not to live, but they're widely valued for good reasons.

Why do smartphones make this list. I never understand it. The utility value of a smartphone is enormous compared to the cost. I'm sure you can buy a reasonably decent android phone for £100.

Indeed. In many ways smartphones are the great global equalizer. In many places without steady electricity or running water smartphones are still there.

The better question is why do TVs make the list.

I feel quite strongly they actually make life worse, not better, so they're a net negative.

I'd argue there is much good to be found on TV mixed in with the cr*p. e:g quality films, CBeebies here in UK. PBS I guess in USA. More to the point, who needs to actually buy a TV? I never have! People are always giving them away cos they got the latest fancy one.

None of those things are expensive. Rents and mortgages are.

That’s true, but I see where the original poster is coming from. Having grown up in a low-income household where every dime mattered, we couldn’t afford cable TV, and we didn’t have cell phones until 2004. The costs of cable/satellite TV subscriptions and data plans can add up.

I’m a single man who works in Silicon Valley as a researcher and make an upper-middle class salary by national standards. I spend $80 per month for my cable Internet connection, $95 per month on my cell phone plan, and roughly $20 total on subscriptions such as YouTube Premium and Crunchyroll. Yes, cutting these subscriptions won’t help me much with saving for the six-figure down payments needed to buy a home in Silicon Valley, which I’ve resigned myself to never being able to afford unless I win the “startup lottery” or become an executive. However, the ~$200/mo I spend on subscriptions could go a long way toward feeding and clothing kids, especially if money is tight after rent and utilities.

Abstractly? No, we don't. But we do need entertainment and leisure, and we do need to communicate with each other. In the modern age, those essential needs are most practically met by using advanced digital technologies, and not having them would result in a deficiency that would negatively affect one's sense of happiness.

Phone service (MVNOs, family plans) and hot water (heat pumps, Pex installs) are getting cheaper, too. TVs will as well, once they reach the size of typical living room walls. :)

The lifestyle inflation that has happened over the past 30-50 years is under appreciated. I had an upper middle class upbringing (two parents with graduate degrees, my mom stayed home for much of my childhood). My brother and I grew up in a 1,100 square foot house. I have a much smaller house than I could afford, and it’s still almost 4,000 square feet. 2,500 square feet seems to be table stakes outside the city.

Deleted comment

Yes. We had one car until I was 12. My dad took the bus to the metro.

Yes, you certainly can. Our family is not the only one that does but we are in the extreme minority. My neighbors waste tons of money on:

Landscapers

House cleaners

Food delivery

Brand new cars!

And of course baby sitters and child care

The "it's expensive to raise a family" is simply Parkinson's Law for budgeting. Similarly also due to hedonic treadmill.

2 main issues I observe, 1. folks expand their personal expenditure to live pay check to paycheck and then have a kid. The child is on top of them already spending everything, no wonder they think it's too expensive.

2. Having children later, they think they need to provide that child with their current standard of living or better. Imagine the standard of living a 21 yr old parent provides vs a 31 yr old vs a 41 yr old. All 3 of those children are likely to survive. Yes the older parents likely provide a superior outcome on some fronts, but that doesn't mean the 21 yr olds do not provide an adequate outcome. Children often just need the basics in most areas of expenditure.

Eg: Feed them a balanced diet with home cooked foods instead of expensive dining out and convenience[1] foods, let them play local soccer or basketball instead of expensive sports like football/hockey (unless you believe you have the genes to produce a NHL/NFL star). Spend time with them teaching them things (or learning together) like languages, small electronics kits, programming, music. It doesn't have to be expensive private lessons.

You can find more similarly minded advice at https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ -- eg the most recent blog post is pretty bang on point https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2022/12/10/the-california-ef...

[1]: which often proves more costly both in time and money, in reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtEaji27A8

Author says, "just live like they did in the 50s." Looking around me, there are plenty of homes from the 70s or earlier. Even from early 20th century. Guess what, they're all way more expensive. More or less the same price as the ones built in the past 20 years. And, no, I don't live in an elite tech hub.

Just look at Case Shiller[1], 63 in 1987 and 299 today -- so about 5x more expensive.

Also have to laugh out loud about the point that families in Niger or, previously, South Korea raise families with virtually no money. Yes, duh. But why bring it up? Are they seriously advocating we adopt those standards? You first!

[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPISA

This is a very strange article or post or what have you. It poses a question, answers it with a single word, and then adds "A few comments". The argument is not very cohesive and leaves me with lots of questions.

> It poses a question, answers it with a single word, and then adds "A few comments".

"Can you raise a family on one income?"

"Maybe. It depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances."

Yes. I'm doing it. It's not particularly hard. Any American software dev makes enough money to do so, as long as they avoid the high-cost cities, which is now easy.

In your view, what is “enough money to do so”?

$150k/yr

Americans again ignoring the rest of the world.

Yes. Zero Americans have one income and raise a family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com