Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, why do people even *have* two salaries in the first place? Don't they know it's less stressful for everyone in the household if only one parent works? Someone should tell people this.

I mean, you jest, but women entering the work force en masse drove up prices on everything. This is not a matter of opinion. The rise of two-income families is actually the reason most families now need two incomes. It’s kind of ironic.

The percentage of men making equal to or more than their spouses is shrinking. For women who are holding out for a man who can cover all the living expenses with a single income are going to be fighting over a relative few number of men. This leaves more women with a mate because they can’t find that match. There are more women looking for this than there are men who can meet it.

Even if you aren’t looking for a SAHM situation, many women are looking for at least their equal. This makes the pool even smaller.

While I agree that the dual income increase in part led to the housing cost increase, it is an impossible choice for women overall.

No one would ever be able to own a home then now that starter homes are going for over $400 and $500k+.

So many Boomers still living in the 1960s when you could own home on the husband's GM factory job alone while the wife stayed home.

You’ve really missed out on a massive amount of home appreciation equity if you were too conservative in the past when buying a house.

We stretched on two incomes and bought a house in a neighborhood with good schools so we didn’t need to pay for private schools. Now 15 years later our incomes have doubled and our house has more than doubled in price. We bought at 750k (which I thought was over our price range but the house was too good to pass up). It’s worth at least in paper 2 million now.

Friends bought a house in an area with not so great schools for 450k. Their house has probably doubled to 900k but they also ended up eventually having to pay for junior high.

So just looking at home equity based on the increase in value, they have made 450k while we have made 1.25 million. And now we could pay the mortgage on one income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

There's a hedge there which is the spouse with the salary that's low can step it up if the main breadwinner loses their job if needed. That's not there if you've bought based on two salaries.

It's called "The Two Income Trap." Elizabeth Warren wrote a whole book about it. It's a great book. We've based our whole family economy on it and it's been a great guide.

Yes this. We also bought based on one salary (14 years ago, when that was possible in DC) and it has given us so much flexibility over the years. The "two income trap" is an amazing concept -- once you learn about it, you can't unsee it. (that people who base their lives on two salaries end up without any flex space. But if you base it on one, you can always flex up when you need to.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

I know, right? Big law is really a scourge on this area.

The majority of biglaw lawyers in this area are not going to stay in biglaw unless they win the partnership game and are going to have a significant salary drop when they leave biglaw. Many will either go to government, in-house (though this really only applies to lawyers with the right skillset to go in-house, and many DC lawyers don't have that skillset), government adjacent, or small firms.

Well I worked for one of the biggest firms for 10 years and most of the lawyers I worked with are still there. Maybe 20% left.

Did you only work with senior attorneys who are partners and of counsel? Because most associates definitely leave.

Have you ever worked at big law? A Google search will tell you what the attrition rate is.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

There's a hedge there which is the spouse with the salary that's low can step it up if the main breadwinner loses their job if needed. That's not there if you've bought based on two salaries.

It's called "The Two Income Trap." Elizabeth Warren wrote a whole book about it. It's a great book. We've based our whole family economy on it and it's been a great guide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

I know, right? Big law is really a scourge on this area.

The majority of biglaw lawyers in this area are not going to stay in biglaw unless they win the partnership game and are going to have a significant salary drop when they leave biglaw. Many will either go to government, in-house (though this really only applies to lawyers with the right skillset to go in-house, and many DC lawyers don't have that skillset), government adjacent, or small firms.

Well I worked for one of the biggest firms for 10 years and most of the lawyers I worked with are still there. Maybe 20% left.

Did you only work with senior attorneys who are partners and of counsel? Because most associates definitely leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought on the basis of one salary but each of our salaries was more than double the median HHI in the US. It would be easy to pat ourselves on the back for being so frugal and farsighted but the truth is we were just well off.

And since we have been fortunate enough not to have suffered a job loss, we have certainly wondered since then if we were too conservative because we now have to wonder if we're in the right school pyramid, if we have enough room for our growing family, if interest rates will ever be that low again, etc. So it's not like there's one right answer and OP and OP alone has found it.

Same. We were WAY too conservative. Now navigating if we renovate, teardown + rebuild, or take the loss and buy a larger house (bought at peak prices so we likely can't get what we paid). There's a balance between being extremely conservative on one end and really pushing the DTI / HHI multiple on the other end.

We were also WAY too conservative. My DH is in sales and I'm in tech and we bought on the basis of our absolute base salaries, which accounted for well under half of our income even at the time.

Because many people struggle to provide housing for their families even with two salaries.

Why did housing prices rise precipitously just as two -salaries became the norm for white, formerly middle class families?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

I know, right? Big law is really a scourge on this area.

The majority of biglaw lawyers in this area are not going to stay in biglaw unless they win the partnership game and are going to have a significant salary drop when they leave biglaw. Many will either go to government, in-house (though this really only applies to lawyers with the right skillset to go in-house, and many DC lawyers don't have that skillset), government adjacent, or small firms.

Well I worked for one of the biggest firms for 10 years and most of the lawyers I worked with are still there. Maybe 20% left.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

I know, right? Big law is really a scourge on this area.

The majority of biglaw lawyers in this area are not going to stay in biglaw unless they win the partnership game and are going to have a significant salary drop when they leave biglaw. Many will either go to government, in-house (though this really only applies to lawyers with the right skillset to go in-house, and many DC lawyers don't have that skillset), government adjacent, or small firms.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

I know, right? Big law is really a scourge on this area.

Spouse with the lower salary? What about families with a stay at home parent, or one parent who has a much lower paying job or a job that pays low but they truly believe in (academic researchers saving lives, social workers, etc.) Should they all live in shacks even if the other parent has a good salary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check your privilege.

Most couples don't have the typical DCUM HHI. They afford townhouses in the exurbs on TWO salaries so they can raise their children. Most Americans can never aspire to DCUM salaries.

Shame on you. I despise posters like you.

Relax hombre. They didn't voice their opinion..they simply asked why people buy on the basis of 2 incomes..And they are not wrong. A lot of us can't see ourselves living in normal "basic" homes.

PP was correct. Most people buy their homes on the basis of 2 incomes because they truly need both incomes to buy a home. The DCUM privilege really shows in posts like the OP. Most people don’t have two biglaw or physician salaries and don’t have their parents giving them a downpayment in the name of “preserving generational wealth”.

So out of touch.

I'm a single parent and bought a very modest house on my income during covid. Think a townhouse way out in the burbs fo $350,000. My house is now worth over $500,000 and there is no way in hell I would qualify or be able to afford the same house. And I make a decent income ($130,000). So these tone deaf posts are just gross. A young family buying a very basic home these days simply can't afford a house on just one income. My commute is hell, but hey at least I own, right.

Yes, and it would also be better if we had a year's salary in an emergency fund, and if we had fully funded 529s and we were maxing our 401(k)s and also if I had a pony.

I make $110k. Husband makes $120k. We both have secure jobs. We have three kids. We wanted three bedrooms in DC proper, in a walkable neighborhood that we liked. That's not possible to do if we were pretending our HHI was only $120k.

Everyone has to make choices. We chose to stretch a bit on our house ($860k) but we don't own a car, we never take big vacations (visit family or Great Wolf Lodge is it for us), we almost never eat out, we don't pay for expensive extracurriculars, and we buy all our clothes at thrift stores.

Surely you can understand this.