What is your income to allow one parent to stay at home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

You remain clueless. I am pp, Gen X and graduated from law school approximately twenty years ago. Starting salary for big law was slightly more than $100,000 in DC and Boston then. New York more like $130,00. I can guarantee you no one thought $50,000 was anywhere close to upper middle class in 1996. Also took more than five years off to stay at home with my kids approximately 10 years ago and am back to work in a coveted legal job now. Please stop your whining and grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

You remain clueless. I am pp, Gen X and graduated from law school approximately twenty years ago. Starting salary for big law was slightly more than $100,000 in DC and Boston then. New York more like $130,00. I can guarantee you no one thought $50,000 was anywhere close to upper middle class in 1996. Also took more than five years off to stay at home with my kids approximately 10 years ago and am back to work in a coveted legal job now. Please stop your whining and grow up.

Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

You remain clueless. I am pp, Gen X and graduated from law school approximately twenty years ago. Starting salary for big law was slightly more than $100,000 in DC and Boston then. New York more like $130,00. I can guarantee you no one thought $50,000 was anywhere close to upper middle class in 1996. Also took more than five years off to stay at home with my kids approximately 10 years ago and am back to work in a coveted legal job now. Please stop your whining and grow up.

Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

20 years ago was exactly what we were talking about, try reading before speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

You remain clueless. I am pp, Gen X and graduated from law school approximately twenty years ago. Starting salary for big law was slightly more than $100,000 in DC and Boston then. New York more like $130,00. I can guarantee you no one thought $50,000 was anywhere close to upper middle class in 1996. Also took more than five years off to stay at home with my kids approximately 10 years ago and am back to work in a coveted legal job now. Please stop your whining and grow up.

Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

20 years ago was exactly what we were talking about, try reading before speaking.

You try reading. I specifically said places like NC in 1996 was someplace where $50k was living large. 50% over national average, houses cost maybe $100k. No one was talking about Boston or NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$375K. It's hard to live comfortably, in the DC area, with an income under $200k.

Agree. Ours is $275k before bonus and I don't make enough to not work since childcare is so expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of income a family needs for one parent to stay home varies with the family and their priorities. There is no set answer, every family just has to decide on where their own balance point is between spending money and spending time.

This is very true. Also you need to keep in mind that they will not always be little and so going to the library and zoo for free, for example, will only last so long. Although I guess by the time they are older the SAH parent may be back at work or earning part- time, if that is what you are thinking. I guess I am sharing our experience of being able to SAH when ours were young on one salary and never thought about:

Piano/ guitar
Braces
Tutors
Therapy
School trips
Sports activites
Church activities
Enrichment camps, etc.

These are not extravagant and not all at once. Merely pointing out that you never know what your kids might need/ be interested in. You can absolutely say no but I've found almost universal that kids in my neighborhood will do a chess club, robotics club, girls scouts, drama group, a music lesson. Again, not all at once but if they have interests through the years or if you have more than one DC. I'm only posting as I think sometimes the posts are heavy with parents of young children and they (rightly so) have no idea what an older child may need or want and how expensive it can be. Hope this helps.

Some of the one-income HHIs listed by PPs make those things a drop in the bucket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were willing to sacrifice just about everything but necessities to keep me at home. The first few years were rough. We lived in Raleigh, North Carolina on less $50,000. My DH's income is about $160,000 now so while we are not rich, we are comfortable. We moved away from DC and $160,000 feels like a ton of money here. I went back to work part-time when our youngest started middle school and that helped as well.

We only had one car but my DH had a work vehicle. That really helped. Almost all of our vacations were trips to visit family in different parts of the country. We lived overseas for a few years so we were able to travel some then as well. I budgeted very carefully. We limited activities to one per child. We were just really careful with our money back then. It's much easier to save with one parent at home.

Our kids are grown now. Zero regrets. It was worth it for our family.

You realize that $50k want a lot farther when you started staying home 25-30 years ago (or whatever) than it does now, right?

Yes, things were quite different a generation ago.

LOL, more millennial excuses.

C'mon you're delusional if you dont accept what's happened to the housing market and cost of higher education.

I am the poster who was willing to sacrifice everything to SAH. Think. $50,000 went a lot further 35 years ago. My DH's salary would have been higher by today's standards. It all comes down to how important being home is to you and to your family. We would have sold our home and moved into a tiny apartment to avoid daycare. It was that important to us. There are truly people who have no choice but to have both parents working. But that is not the case for most people. In DC you can afford to live comfortably on 80,000. In my hometown you could easily live on 50,000. You won't drive brand new cars, take expensive vacations, splurge on clothing, send your kids to private school, or live in a grand home. But you will be present for your kids. For us there was no price tag on that.

Mine are college and beyond and I'm working in a job I love. I have zero regrets about my 27 years at home.

NP here, age 37. If your story started 35 years ago you are contemporaries of my parents. They bought their house in the California Bay Area for low 5 figures; it's now worth over $1 mil. Neither of them went to college but they were still able to get great jobs that put 2 kids through private school. Mom has a pension that pays 80% of her salary for life. It's a completely different world now and none of that is possible for people my age or younger. It's great that you stayed home, but I cannot stay home on the 2016 equivalent of $50k.

Depends where you live. The median HHI in the US is just over $50K, so clearly it's very very possible especially if you're living in a low COL area like NC (granted it's gotten much more expensive since PP lived there).

Maybe in Greenville NC, but no way you can live where there are OK schoools in RTP like Cary even at 80k.

PP is easy to claim they would live in a small apartment, but rents rise rapidly and they would have been squeezed on one income. And generally good schools are in suburban hoods fed by SFH, so is she claiming she would have given her kids a disadvantage in life with poor schools so she could avoid the boogie man of daycare? Easy to talk now, but $50k 20 years ago was upper middle class and housing was crazy cheap compared to today because. Really she doesn't add much to discussion than her smug confidence of what she claims she would do today.

No 50,000 twenty years ago was not upper middle class. It was just plain middle working class. You millennial are out of touch of anything that happened more than five years ago.

Haha, no I grew up in one of those flyover places like outside pre-boom RTP. My parents working together earned about 50k in 1996, and we were definitely some of the wealthiest in our neighborhood. Think about it: today, 20 years later, $50k is the national average income? 20 years ago, national average income was $35k. And again housing was dirt cheap. It's okay, it's obvious you are another entitled boomer who screwed things up for Gen X & Y. Peachy. Would love to hear from SAHM who don't preach against daycare in a sidelong dig, and instead how they make it work in recent times with the high cost of housing, less stables jobs, on modest salary.

I don't blame the boomers per se. If we'd all just stayed home we wouldn't be in this mess. But noooo, we had to be "equal" and enter the workforce en masse and now the market has adjusted prices on everything to reflect dual incomes so either your DH has to be a senior partner or you have to work too in order to make ends meet. Should have stayed barefoot and pregnant with the spatula in hand.

You remain clueless. I am pp, Gen X and graduated from law school approximately twenty years ago. Starting salary for big law was slightly more than $100,000 in DC and Boston then. New York more like $130,00. I can guarantee you no one thought $50,000 was anywhere close to upper middle class in 1996. Also took more than five years off to stay at home with my kids approximately 10 years ago and am back to work in a coveted legal job now. Please stop your whining and grow up.

Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

20 years ago was exactly what we were talking about, try reading before speaking.

You try reading. I specifically said places like NC in 1996 was someplace where $50k was living large. 50% over national average, houses cost maybe $100k. No one was talking about Boston or NY.

It is always cheap to live in the boondocks. Not sure why this is relevant to a discussion about what income single earner families in D.C. Think is sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

One professional salary CAN support a family, if you are willing to live as your grandparents lived. One car, eat all meals at home, one vacation a year that is probably a camping trip, small wardrobes, one TV -- no cell phone contracts, cable packages, etc. No private lessons/sports/extracurriculars before early elementary school and then limited to local little league and piano lessons with the lady down the street. Kids probably don't go to preschool but if they do it's a low cost church or community program.

Yes, housing is expensive and student loans are a problem for a lot of people but a lot of it is that expectations of a "normal" middle-class life have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

One professional salary CAN support a family, if you are willing to live as your grandparents lived. One car, eat all meals at home, one vacation a year that is probably a camping trip, small wardrobes, one TV -- no cell phone contracts, cable packages, etc. No private lessons/sports/extracurriculars before early elementary school and then limited to local little league and piano lessons with the lady down the street. Kids probably don't go to preschool but if they do it's a low cost church or community program.

Yes, housing is expensive and student loans are a problem for a lot of people but a lot of it is that expectations of a "normal" middle-class life have changed.

Plus you live in the type of house that DCUM now derides as a 'shitshack'. Probably 3 bedroom/1 bath and kids' share bedrooms. Many people happily raised families in those little houses but now they aren't good enough for today's young families.

[Anonymous]

We do it in the Midwest with ~125k; we planned to do it with 50k so the extra money is great.

That said, the DC metro median HHI is 93k while the national median is 55k, per https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/21/the-dc-area-has-the-highest-median-income-in-the-us-again/, suggesting that if we could do it here at 50k, we could do it there at 93k. As others have noted, though, it does require changing your expectations, and a lot. Public schools, small house, used cars, no cable, no smart phones, etc. We're considering private schools here, but that would be much harder to swing at 50k. Then again, if we did that, DW would most likely work part time outside the home, which would cover tuition. At any rate, it's doable wherever you are if you're at median HHI for the region and willing to live a simpler life than your peer group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Must be an English major that went to law school. It doesn't take a quantitative genius to figure out that our grandparents were perfectly capable of supporting an entire family on one professional income (engineer, etc.). Try that now.. Mid 90s isn't far back enough, but thanks for trying.

One professional salary CAN support a family, if you are willing to live as your grandparents lived. One car, eat all meals at home, one vacation a year that is probably a camping trip, small wardrobes, one TV -- no cell phone contracts, cable packages, etc. No private lessons/sports/extracurriculars before early elementary school and then limited to local little league and piano lessons with the lady down the street. Kids probably don't go to preschool but if they do it's a low cost church or community program.

Yes, housing is expensive and student loans are a problem for a lot of people but a lot of it is that expectations of a "normal" middle-class life have changed.

This is very true.