WSJ Affording a Family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

No, they are the original and always "welfare queens and kings".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apple.news/Aufcdrb9tSU2X2_SBCbNyew

“ What It’s Really Like to Support a Big Family on a Modest Income in America
More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible.’”

Neither went to college, the DH is 34 and DW is 20 when they get married. 5 children. Not saving any money for college, they feel kids don’t need college since they did fine without it.

He managed to buy a house in 2002 in Cincinnati on his own, right before housing prices exploded but loaning standards were super loose (he was 20!). But more importantly because he has a UNION construction job that pays $30/hr.

Health insurance is of course Medicaid for the expensive medical issues the family faces.

They are a family of 7 in a two bedroom. This is like a developing nation.

The WSJ holds this up as an example of how a modest income family can afford children.

It’s an example as in an illustration. I didn’t read it as example as in something to strive for.

Read the subtitle: More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible

The title is chiding Americans for not having enough kids, and then again look at this working class family doing it, they make it work with effort — as other families view it as impossible because they won’t do the hard work.

Meanwhile, the Ivys have all these impossible advantages like buying a house 20 years ago, and government hand outs.

There's no "chiding".

[Anonymous]

The bigger issue with poor women having kids is fatherlessness and all of the problems that arise from it.

Intact families receiving benefits, especially for healthcare costs that are vastly inflated due to no fault of their own, are less problematic.

[Anonymous]

40k for an associates degree?? And we are all subsidizing these idiots lifestyle? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How old are the kids? A family that size in a two-bedroom might look almost charming and resourceful with a bunch of kids under 10. When those kids are teens and tweens, it will look like child abuse.

Not sure who big their place is, but plenty of large families lived in what was considered a good, up and coming neighborhood in the 1940s to 1980s. Their mostly post WWII homes were 900 sq ft. In the ‘40s kids not only shared rooms but also beds. I knew families with 4 to 12 kids in these homes, many were also multigenerational like mine. Kids went to Harvard and other ivies and every level up to that. The well off were a mix of blue and white collar workers.

Families don’t have 1000 sq ft / household member is completely unnecessary. Look at household density in other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are the kids? A family that size in a two-bedroom might look almost charming and resourceful with a bunch of kids under 10. When those kids are teens and tweens, it will look like child abuse.

Not sure who big their place is, but plenty of large families lived in what was considered a good, up and coming neighborhood in the 1940s to 1980s. Their mostly post WWII homes were 900 sq ft. In the ‘40s kids not only shared rooms but also beds. I knew families with 4 to 12 kids in these homes, many were also multigenerational like mine. Kids went to Harvard and other ivies and every level up to that. The well off were a mix of blue and white collar workers.

Families don’t have 1000 sq ft / household member is completely unnecessary. Look at household density in other countries.

Yeah but were they living off the state? Nope. This family is.

[Anonymous]

Is this unintentional rage bait?

I mean, doesn't this show you can't live like this without government handouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the 1970s in upstate NY in a middle-class neighborhood. We had plenty of larger families (Irish Catholics and Italians!) in small houses. 5 kids for a 2-bedroom house would not have been unusual, although very likely as the kids got older, they would bump out the house or renovate an attic space or garage to add another bedroom.

So it certainly is one way that working class or middle class families can afford a large family- kids share bedrooms and you don't save for college.

I think this is a big part of the budgeting pain.
People overextend on mortgages for unnecessarily large properties. Add in the college savings anxiety.

When people talk about the prior decades of ease we forget that McMansions were not a requirement (a modest saltbox was acceptable) and saving for college wasn't widespread. And college costs were considerably more moderate compared to today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apple.news/Aufcdrb9tSU2X2_SBCbNyew

“ What It’s Really Like to Support a Big Family on a Modest Income in America
More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible.’”

Neither went to college, the DH is 34 and DW is 20 when they get married. 5 children. Not saving any money for college, they feel kids don’t need college since they did fine without it.

He managed to buy a house in 2002 in Cincinnati on his own, right before housing prices exploded but loaning standards were super loose (he was 20!). But more importantly because he has a UNION construction job that pays $30/hr.

Health insurance is of course Medicaid for the expensive medical issues the family faces.

They are a family of 7 in a two bedroom. This is like a developing nation.

The WSJ holds this up as an example of how a modest income family can afford children.

It’s an example as in an illustration. I didn’t read it as example as in something to strive for.

Read the subtitle: More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible

The title is chiding Americans for not having enough kids, and then again look at this working class family doing it, they make it work with effort — as other families view it as impossible because they won’t do the hard work.

Meanwhile, the Ivys have all these impossible advantages like buying a house 20 years ago, and government hand outs.

I wonder if the intention behind profiling these people is to point out the differing entitlements that people operate under.
The profiled family is perhaps oblivious to their dependence on state sponsored entitlements.
Meanwhile, the upper economic tiers are not dependent but similarly make decisions based on presumed entitlements, like I must have a big house, a big career, or big something else and then I can have kids. So the latter group puts off having a family until they attain these things.

The WSJ family do not sound like planners.
Most DCUMers are planners. Maybe the skittishness about risk is what dooms the upper classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the 1970s in upstate NY in a middle-class neighborhood. We had plenty of larger families (Irish Catholics and Italians!) in small houses. 5 kids for a 2-bedroom house would not have been unusual, although very likely as the kids got older, they would bump out the house or renovate an attic space or garage to add another bedroom.

So it certainly is one way that working class or middle class families can afford a large family- kids share bedrooms and you don't save for college.

I think this is a big part of the budgeting pain.
People overextend on mortgages for unnecessarily large properties. Add in the college savings anxiety.

When people talk about the prior decades of ease we forget that McMansions were not a requirement (a modest saltbox was acceptable) and saving for college wasn't widespread. And college costs were considerably more moderate compared to today.

Look…the US has become a place where important things (healthcare, childcare, elder care, education) are expensive and material crap is cheap.

My father was greatest generation and his father went to an Ivy League school…yet his father told him he wasn’t paying for college (even though he had plenty of money) because that wasn’t something parents do. The flip side is that when my dad went to college in 1949, Harvard total cost of attendance was $500 and my dad went to Michigan for $300 OOS. It wasn’t that hard for him to work summers and part time during the school year to pay for it.

Back then the median HHi was $4k, so Harvard was only 12%. HHI today is $80k and Harvard is like $92k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apple.news/Aufcdrb9tSU2X2_SBCbNyew

“ What It’s Really Like to Support a Big Family on a Modest Income in America
More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible.’”

Neither went to college, the DH is 34 and DW is 20 when they get married. 5 children. Not saving any money for college, they feel kids don’t need college since they did fine without it.

He managed to buy a house in 2002 in Cincinnati on his own, right before housing prices exploded but loaning standards were super loose (he was 20!). But more importantly because he has a UNION construction job that pays $30/hr.

Health insurance is of course Medicaid for the expensive medical issues the family faces.

They are a family of 7 in a two bedroom. This is like a developing nation.

The WSJ holds this up as an example of how a modest income family can afford children.

It’s an example as in an illustration. I didn’t read it as example as in something to strive for.

Read the subtitle: More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible

The title is chiding Americans for not having enough kids, and then again look at this working class family doing it, they make it work with effort — as other families view it as impossible because they won’t do the hard work.

Meanwhile, the Ivys have all these impossible advantages like buying a house 20 years ago, and government hand outs.

I wonder if the intention behind profiling these people is to point out the differing entitlements that people operate under.
The profiled family is perhaps oblivious to their dependence on state sponsored entitlements.
Meanwhile, the upper economic tiers are not dependent but similarly make decisions based on presumed entitlements, like I must have a big house, a big career, or big something else and then I can have kids. So the latter group puts off having a family until they attain these things.

The WSJ family do not sound like planners.
Most DCUMers are planners. Maybe the skittishness about risk is what dooms the upper classes?

+1 it takes specific planning to keep the upper middle class lifestyle rolling. The people at that level are not guaranteed wealth like a one percenter and correct decisions must be made to keep the money and pass the lifestyle onto their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:40k for an associates degree?? And we are all subsidizing these idiots lifestyle? Wow.

Easy to judge someone when you have not been in their shoes.

Maybe instead of judging the person who does not have the benefit of as much knowledge as you do, we should hold the institutions accountable. Schools shouldn’t be able to charge that much for a degree that won’t lead to a high paying job, and if they do, at least banks shouldn’t not be lending to student borrowers unlikely to recoup the cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the 1970s in upstate NY in a middle-class neighborhood. We had plenty of larger families (Irish Catholics and Italians!) in small houses. 5 kids for a 2-bedroom house would not have been unusual, although very likely as the kids got older, they would bump out the house or renovate an attic space or garage to add another bedroom.

So it certainly is one way that working class or middle class families can afford a large family- kids share bedrooms and you don't save for college.

I think this is a big part of the budgeting pain.
People overextend on mortgages for unnecessarily large properties. Add in the college savings anxiety.

When people talk about the prior decades of ease we forget that McMansions were not a requirement (a modest saltbox was acceptable) and saving for college wasn't widespread. And college costs were considerably more moderate compared to today.

Look…the US has become a place where important things (healthcare, childcare, elder care, education) are expensive and material crap is cheap.

My father was greatest generation and his father went to an Ivy League school…yet his father told him he wasn’t paying for college (even though he had plenty of money) because that wasn’t something parents do. The flip side is that when my dad went to college in 1949, Harvard total cost of attendance was $500 and my dad went to Michigan for $300 OOS. It wasn’t that hard for him to work summers and part time during the school year to pay for it.

Back then the median HHi was $4k, so Harvard was only 12%. HHI today is $80k and Harvard is like $92k.

Those who make 100k and under pay nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the 1970s in upstate NY in a middle-class neighborhood. We had plenty of larger families (Irish Catholics and Italians!) in small houses. 5 kids for a 2-bedroom house would not have been unusual, although very likely as the kids got older, they would bump out the house or renovate an attic space or garage to add another bedroom.

So it certainly is one way that working class or middle class families can afford a large family- kids share bedrooms and you don't save for college.

I think this is a big part of the budgeting pain.
People overextend on mortgages for unnecessarily large properties. Add in the college savings anxiety.

When people talk about the prior decades of ease we forget that McMansions were not a requirement (a modest saltbox was acceptable) and saving for college wasn't widespread. And college costs were considerably more moderate compared to today.

Look…the US has become a place where important things (healthcare, childcare, elder care, education) are expensive and material crap is cheap.

My father was greatest generation and his father went to an Ivy League school…yet his father told him he wasn’t paying for college (even though he had plenty of money) because that wasn’t something parents do. The flip side is that when my dad went to college in 1949, Harvard total cost of attendance was $500 and my dad went to Michigan for $300 OOS. It wasn’t that hard for him to work summers and part time during the school year to pay for it.

Back then the median HHi was $4k, so Harvard was only 12%. HHI today is $80k and Harvard is like $92k.

Those who make 100k and under pay nothing.

For Harvard or Ivy. For everyone else, college is expensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the 1970s in upstate NY in a middle-class neighborhood. We had plenty of larger families (Irish Catholics and Italians!) in small houses. 5 kids for a 2-bedroom house would not have been unusual, although very likely as the kids got older, they would bump out the house or renovate an attic space or garage to add another bedroom.

So it certainly is one way that working class or middle class families can afford a large family- kids share bedrooms and you don't save for college.

I think this is a big part of the budgeting pain.
People overextend on mortgages for unnecessarily large properties. Add in the college savings anxiety.

When people talk about the prior decades of ease we forget that McMansions were not a requirement (a modest saltbox was acceptable) and saving for college wasn't widespread. And college costs were considerably more moderate compared to today.

Houses are expensive because of the land not the house on them generally. Material coasts, building technology, have driven down the cost of building a house, so a saltbox or McMansion cost pretty similarly to build. It’s the land that’s expensive, and generally you can’t pack them in because of zoning and local community capacities like schools etc.