What do people do for a living?

I agree. Trying to index for CPI is too hard and prices for goods and services never rise in a consistent fashion. Plus, a major benefit of home ownership is that inflation happens, making your mortgage cheap relative to rents. This of course is only true for long holding periods, 10+ years, and of course many of the buyers over the past decade had no intention of staying put.

I agree that a classic 6 should cost about what a decent (but not spectacular) 4 bedroom home should in a nice suburban town - like Scarsdale or Tenafly. It's the same buyer, but the person in the city is willing to make do with a lot less space.

I speak as such a person/family...Right 3000 sqft vs. 1400-1500.

Feels like it would mean a decent classic six for $1.1mm vs. current
$1.5mm.

imho the suburbs vs city will depend on how many kids most young households (those in their 20s-30s) decide to have. imho 2 or less might become the norm.

with only 1 kid city living is way much more convenient. with 3+ the space constrains and premium for space are harder to justify, so suburbs usually win.

Its all price. If you could accept 1500 instead of 3000 sqft for
a similar price...in a good PS (both in NYC or out there), I think
that would stem the outflow. The bottom line is $1.1mm still doesnt
afford a decent 3 BR family apartment (assumes two kids).

This demographic for the most part is having kids in their 30s, not 20s. Although I do think people are having kids younger again. I think 2 or less is pretty normal, but the larger point that 3 is the breaking point for staying in the city.

Of course - you do hear "3 is the new 2" - but in my opinion having 3+ kids is more common for people making A LOT of money (well over $1 million) then people with incomes in the $300-$600k range. That's what I'm seeing anyway.

I have one, and plan to have two. I think two is the breaking point on the current price/cost comparison, unless Manhattan prices fall a bit more...And speaking in that $300-600k. Over $1mm with confidence of consistency...you can do what you want.

Of course - you do hear "3 is the new 2" - but in my opinion having 3+ kids is more common for people making A LOT of money (well over $1 million) then people with incomes in the $300-$600k range.
----------

wow, i'm seing the opposite. 3+ being common in the city only for the poor. but, i guess it depends on religiosity (for ex, people in the midwest still love to have 4+ kids in very religious places) and whether the mother wants a career of her own. USA doesn't have a family friendly labor environment.

Actually, I know for a fact I'm not making this up. I realize it's the opposite of what historically has been true. There was an article in the Economist about this - that for the first time in history, it appears wealthier families are having more kids and poorer families fewer.

I see this. Most of the really succesful managing directors / hedge fund managers I know have 3+ kids.

"people in the midwest still love to have 4+ kids in very religious places) and whether the mother wants a career of her own. "

Outside of New York, in "very religious places", many mothers consider motherhood to be their "career", and choose to raise their own children, rather than outsourcing their parental responsibilities to some illegal alien for eight bucks an hour while they pursue another "career".

lol, the economist is not the bible. you are better off reading good demographic books than a TE article. true, in richer countries with good safety nets (mostly scandinavia) young couples are trending back to 3. but in usa you have 2 big different waves going on at the same time.

btw, do you think that in what you've been seeing there's a difference in whether the wife works (i mean here works for a higher purpose than just to get out of the house)?

Haha....always a dickhead...qualified to judge women/mothers and their decisions.

I agree though, I am seeing some well off a little more prolific. I think 3-4 was very uncommon and is now becoming a little more common.

"rather than outsourcing their parental responsibilities to some illegal alien for eight bucks an hour while they pursue another "career"."

so true! doing that should be considered as having half a kid at the most.

i see this outsourcing all the time in the playground. the worse part is that the mothers that opt for working full time instead of being full time with their kids get really jealous that their kid prefers the latin nanny to them. sometimes it's even the reason why they are replaced by others (excess attachment to the nanny). sad!

wonder whether there would be a little bit of a comeback to taking turns earning the bacon with the hubby, so that at least 1 parent is with the kids. i do have friends that are successfully doing that.

how come those 8$ an hour nannies always seem to have superior parenting skills? you rarely see them negotiating with 4yr olds..."but johnny you can't sit in the stroller...if u walk you can watch t.v when we get home...oh alright you can ride in the stroller half the way home and then..."

why not negotiating is superior? most latin nannies i've seen rock imho.

i concur they do rock..setting boundaries that make the world a less scary place for the 4yr old

Of the 11 families with young kids from a sample pool of my co-workers, friends, and relatives:
(All middle class to upper middle class families)
2 - the grandma is taking care of the kids during the day (1 kid / 2 kids)
2 - works part-time and grandma helps out (2 kids / 3 kids)
2 - hired a nanny (2 kids each) - highest household income of the batch
3 - husband is stay at home Dad (2 kids each)
2 - wife stays at home Mom (1 kid / 4 kids) - both are the lowest household income of the batch

Not exactly scientific since I just counted whoever came to mind first.

"i see this outsourcing all the time in the playground. the worse part is that the mothers that opt for working full time instead of being full time with their kids get really jealous that their kid prefers the latin nanny to them. sometimes it's even the reason why they are replaced by others (excess attachment to the nanny). sad!"

****

It's often the reason why the mothers THEMSELVES are replaced by others. I know a lot of women are going to hate hearing this, but I often hear these comments from married men -- particularly with wives who earn substantially less than they do (so they're picking up most of the household tab) or who don't work at all and still employ a "nanny". They start wondering what exactly it is that "mom" is contributing to the family, if she's not earning a paycheck AND they're paying another woman to raise their kids.

Then there's the whole "bonding" that happens between not only the nanny and the children, but -- whether the moms want to admit it or not -- the "bonding" that happens on a whole different level between the nanny and the DAD. It's long been said that men are "hard-wired" to want to spread their seed to as many women as possible. What's not as widely reported, however, is that men are also "hard-wired" to be attracted to the woman -- whomever she is -- who cares for his offspring. It's Nature's way of trying to cement the nuclear family unit, at least long enough until the offspring are grown. Nature never intended mom to outsource her parental responsibilities so she could be a second "hunter/gatherer" ("Dad").

Look, I'm not trying to bash working mothers. I'm just saying we all have to be honest with ourselves and realize that bringing in a third party to raise the children is hardly an "ideal" situation. It shouldn't have to "take a village" to raise a child.

great imput matt and sunday. i hear that some grandmas are not willing to help (cause they are "retired") or also live too far away. but those that have grandma possibly end up earning the biggest net income.

matt, your point with daddy's attachment i guess is mostly with au pairs?

"They start wondering what exactly it is that "mom" is contributing to the family, if she's not earning a paycheck AND they're paying another woman to raise their kids."

the increase social status that being able to afford a useless adult brings to the husband? or are we past that status consideration?

Even if she brings in just enough to pay the nanny, isn't she accounting for her traditional responsibilities?

"matt, your point with daddy's attachment i guess is mostly with au pairs?"

No.

You'd be surprised.

No, wait -- you'd be shocked. I used to work out at the gym with a guy in his 40s who could easily have posed for Playgirl, whose wife was a knockout. They had a 50-something Spanish nanny, whom he confessed he was (not in his words) having "relations" with. I said "Whaaa??? Her??? But your WIFE ... she's gorgeous ..." He said "Yeah, I know, I don't know what it is, something about her ..."

"Even if she brings in just enough to pay the nanny, isn't she accounting for her traditional responsibilities?"

At that point it's a wash -- so why work just to pay a nanny?

I guess they find what they do more compelling. I can't pretend to know what its like to be a woman. Personally, if I couldn't make a multiple of a nanny then I'd rather be Mr. Mom myself....so it does surprise me that women would rather do X than be with their children. Its tougher for them, there is so much conflict in the decision. For some, it probably has a lot to do with the years they've put into building a career...and hard time pitching that work in the dumper.

At that point it's a wash -- so why work just to pay a nanny?
--------

and to pay tons of taxes without getting added services and work towards benefits you don't need? will young households figure this out decreasing women's labor force participation while having young kids?

"Yeah, I know, I don't know what it is, something about her ..."

many of these nannies exude more maternal instinct than 100 of women like his wife would be able to show imho. but i don't know if that's sexy to a guy though.

"but i don't know if that's sexy to a guy though."

It worked for this guy.

Working mom here so a few comments:

1) The nanny does not really spend more time with your kids, if you really try to spend your free time with your kids. I can do the math, but it's tiresome. A rough cut: if you get 3 hours a day during the weekday, plus 10 hours on the weekends each day, that's 35 hours a week. Before they are in school, most kids take a nap 2 hours a day. So the 9 hour day a nanny spends with the kids becomes a 7 hour day. So that's 35 hours a week. Add in vacations, holidays, Fridays in the summer when you cut out early and the math goes in mom's favor. And that' just for the under 3 set. Once they are in school, it's not even close.

2) In a historical sense, the argument that mothers for all of human history have spent hours cradlihg their babies is garbage. First, women used to have a lot more kids - so they just couldn't devote that much time to any one kid. Women used to work on the farm, cook meals from ingredients from scratch, sew clothes for the family, etc. Running a household used to be a 40 hour a week job, not even counting childcare. Kids were pretty much sent out to play (or, for most of human history, work) and fend for themselves.

3) Matt's nanny heroes. The reality is - these are working women too!!!! They leave their kids too. In fact, many of the nannys I know left their kids IN ANOTHER COUNTRY to come to the U.S. to work. They send money home; this is how they help their families, and a grandmother or sister raises them. Once the nanny becomes legal or has enough money, she brings her kids to the U.S.

4) Men have been f*ing their employees for years. Household help, secretaries, you name it. They can always make up a reason - it's how she is with the kids - but I don't buy it.

"3) Matt's nanny heroes. The reality is - these are working women too!!!! They leave their kids too. In fact, many of the nannys I know left their kids IN ANOTHER COUNTRY to come to the U.S. to work. They send money home; this is how they help their families, and a grandmother or sister raises them. Once the nanny becomes legal or has enough money, she brings her kids to the U.S."

You've just proven my point.

If women just raised their own children, there would be no need for these nannies to leave THEIR children.

Ummm ... nobody's forcing the nanny's to leave their children to be somebody else's nanny. They would just get another job.

But see point 1) that the nanny isn't "raising" your children.

kspeak....excellent points...

"But see point 1) that the nanny isn't "raising" your children."

You keep telling yourself that.

try having kids yourself, matt. keep judging something you're not doing.

tell me again how the nanny is being forced to leave her kids?

working from a class list that is a few years out of date, i counted 14 families at my child's school that have three or four children. twelve of those have stay at home moms. i'd classify them (all but a couple) as on the very wealthy side.

in most (but not all) of the families with one or two children, the mother works. we have a couple of families where the father works less than the mother, but isn't a stay-at-home dad.

most people need the two incomes, many women wish to work. we decided to give up the second income when our daughter was around two, but it wasn't easy, and i have very mixed feelings about our decision. it wasn't easy, even though we only had one child. as notadmin said, we are not a particularly family-friendly society.

"tell me again how the nanny is being forced to leave her kids?"

in the case you described, by the reality of third world countries, where the certainty of being able to provide the basic needs is not there.

"we are not a particularly family-friendly society."

Actually, we ARE a "family-friendly" society.

The problem arises when "families" live beyond their means, necessitating two incomes just to pay the bills.

AR, that makes a lot of sense to me. working full time and having 3+ seems too much if any of those kids are 4 or younger. once they get to be institutionalized... then maybe is another story.

no, by almost all measures, we are not a very family friendly society.

how many children have you raised, matt?

"no, by almost all measures, we are not a very family friendly society."

By what measures?

Aboutready - it's a very personal decision. It would be nice if women could more easily take time off and re-enter. I also wish there were more part-time options. At the end of the day, I don't judge women for whatever they chose. Whatever works for your family - happy kids, happy parents. And for the record I know plenty of well-adjusted kids and messed-up kids from both sides of the camp.

NYCMatt is not wrong entirely - I don't "need" to work. It's not that I only make enough to cover the nanny's salary - my income contribution to the family is substantial and I make only slightly less than my husband. But my husband makes well into the mid six figures? So why do I work. Several reasons - uncertainty. We save A LOT of our income. My husband makes a great living now, but it's relatively volatile career. Second, I don't want to be dependent on my husband. Call my cynical - maybe I am - but I know too many women who quit their jobs to stay at home, and 10 years later, their husband left them for younger women. Sure, there's alimony, but who knows what the courts will do? People can swear all day long that if you marry the "right" man that will never happen. But you just never, ever, ever know. Not to mention the risk of death ... Why should women take all of the risk?

"I don't want to be dependent on my husband."

wise wise wise

------------------

"no, by almost all measures, we are not a very family friendly society."

By what measures?

flexible schedules, paid maternity+paternity leave, subsidize health care & child care, decent vacations (instead of only few weeks per year), work at home few days/week... all these are staples in Scandinavian & other continental european countries.

but they got there after they realized that due to aging demographics they needed most women to join the labor force and that few women that dropped when having kids rejoined. here in usa being overworked is kind of a plus socially speaking "good work ethics". in other places, when the numbers don't work in your favor, you just drop the labor force without problem. here i guess people still define themselves by the work they do.

I see (anecdotally) a lot of lower-income families having 3+ children. Ditto single moms. I also see 1m+ families having 3+. Don't know which group is bigger, either by numbers or proportion. My guess is the former. All NYC metro area.

Family-friendly in the 1st World:
1) 1-year paternity/maternity leaves
2) Universal health insurance (I would add dental to this)
3) Free or cheap pre-K options for the 3+ set (yes, yes, I know people didn't need this in the dark ages)

I hate online discussions where one gets tpo lazy to flesh out one's points. Yes, 30 yrs ago the UWS wasn't as nice or safe as it is now. But one could afford on 2 professional salaries (assume the working mom which was uncommon) a family-sized space, private school, and a relatively safe location within the neighborhood as well as a place in the Hamptons. In general, RE didn't take up that big a proportion of income. That family could well afford Bxville or nice Wchester suburb (which has also soared beyond the reach of many Biglaw couples, I might add).

I don't think it's just the supply of cheap $ that has caused a disproportionate rise in RE prices in NYC, or yuppie-desirable city nabes worldwide. Or even outsized finance salaries (don't exist in some places of theh world). Curiously, private school and college costs have also skyrocketed worldwide. Can't use cheap $ to explain away those things. My sentiment is that bobo values have changed. Some things have become more $ as people (educated elite everywhere) have become more willing to pay more for them. We shall see if this continues.
more comfortable paying more for them or perceive those items as "worth it".

kspeak, i definitely hear what you are saying. i just happened to support my husband through law school in a community property state. under both New York law and the law of that state I own half of his law degree, and half of his future earnings until he retires. and the law has said that he can't try to screw me by accepting a lower-paying position, either. i don't know if you've read the price of motherhood. a very grim read.

without that, i'm not sure i would have made this choice. even with that, yes, divorce would be devastating financially. death i'm covered for, lots of insurance (although would go further with higher rates). long-term disability would be a tough one. as my daughter said when she was 10, there aren't a lot of good part-time options for mothers, are there. my decision was easier in a way, and more painful in another. because my husband was a late bloomer, not entering law school until he was almost 30 (we couldn't afford to have us both go at the same time, had a mortgage, student loans from undergrad, etc.), i never had the opportunity to get an advanced degree or really find my employment niche. we honestly considered not having children, but i decided i personally couldn't live with that option.

Matt, you were making sense for about 36 hours a day or two ago .....
But now you've reverted back to the Matt-ness that is like chalk screeching across the board .......
And you know not of what you speak ........

Poorishlady, I always speak "sense".

Just because you don't like hearing some of it doesn't mean it's not "sensible".

matt the oracle.

It's not easy for a lot of us "educated" women who leave the workforce. One might even call my decision to quit working irresponsible. I do worry about it, less from a financial perspective, but more from not being able to be a role model for my daughters.

Don't be so quick to judge women who have a lot of household help. Many times, that's the only way to go if they want their kids to take advantage of all the cultural and social activities that living in NYC affords.

I feel very strongly that my daughters get a solid financial education, and have it knocked into their heads that life is never certain. I'm certainly not knocking housewives (I am one!) but I think it's a dangerous choice for many women.

"more from not being able to be a role model for my daughters."

How is putting your daughters in the care of an $8/hour illegal alien good role modeling?

***
"
Don't be so quick to judge women who have a lot of household help. Many times, that's the only way to go if they want their kids to take advantage of all the cultural and social activities that living in NYC affords."

I think that being raised by your own mother is more important than any "cultural" or "social activities".

"no offense, mom, but i don't think i could stand to do what you do." or don't do, is what she's really saying, and yet she has told me frequently that she is very, very grateful. no, it's not so easy, on either side of the fence.

"I think it's a dangerous choice for many women."

"Dangerous" how?

Matt: I'm not going to flesh out my personal circumstances here, but that would not be our situation were I working the 60+ hour weeks. As for outside activities, sure, fine to stay at home with your parent when you are a toddler but kids want to DO things with other kids and see and learn things.

Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood.

read it matt, then get back to us.

Matt: you don't know anything about divorce law. Or the rates of divorce. Or the precariousness of relying on one job given this economy. What does one do if one gets divorced and doesn't get a Perelman type payout? Step back into the workforce that easily?

" What does one do if one gets divorced and doesn't get a Perelman type payout?"

Then one DOESN'T GET DIVORCED.

One owns up to his or her responsibilities they assumed on their wedding day and WORKS THROUGH THE PROBLEM to make the marriage work.

AR: yes, we've spoken about this before. And it's hard.

"Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood.

read it matt, then get back to us."

***

After you read Elizabeth Warren, "The Two Income Trap".

Read it, then get back to us.

one doesn't always have a say in whether or not one is divorced. are you really that clueless? a woman can not prevent divorce if the husband decides to give her the heave-ho.

"a woman can not prevent divorce if the husband decides to give her the heave-ho."

She can dispute the divorce.

Or she can work with her spouse on solving the problem.

Or she can do a better job of choosing a spouse in the first place.

actually matt, i've already read it. and it doesn't really support your thesis.

Eh, I've read both. And the truth (or rather what one should do) is somewhere in the middle.

If you step out of the workforce, and your partner loses his/her job, you're screwed. You're screwed
if you divorce.
If you keep working, yes, there is the chance you may overspend and spend up to the 2 incomes instead
of wisely saving. But in the case of divorce, I'd rather be in the 2nd situation.

Matt...come on. I see your point to a large extent, but sometimes it is neither possible nor desirable to continue to try to make it work.

"sometimes it is neither possible nor desirable to continue to try to make it work."

SOMEtimes.

MOST of the time, however, it's a matter of one or both parties being too lazy to do the work required to make the marriage successful.

"30 yrs ago the UWS wasn't as nice or safe as it is now. But one could afford on 2 professional salaries"

30 years ago 20% of the population had a college degree, now is more than 30%. so you can say that the proportion of professionals went up by 50%. how much of the increase in the cost of homes, stagnation of prof salaries and cost of college have to do with this? granted, tons of those recent graduates are coming out with "creative writing" type of degrees... so for labor mkt and consumption purposes maybe they shouldn't be taken into account.

Matt-Lets compromise on "MUCH" of the time ;-)

Fine. "Much".

MOST of the time? according to matt's very scientific analysis?

and it doesn't really matter. if it happens to you as a stay at home mother you're pretty much screwed.

Exactly. You can't always make it work. Even if you marry the "right" man, people can change. Wealth can definitely change a man, for example.

NYC10023 - You're being a role model for your daughter by doing what works for your family, that nothing is black and white.

"If you step out of the workforce, and your partner loses his/her job, you're screwed."

you are not. in our case, we would both be looking for a job as supposed to only one. most dual income households live paycheck by paycheck anyway, the single income household might have even more savings and lower carrying costs to weather this. it's a good opportunity for me to go to work and for my husband to take a well deserved break.

notadmin, not in my case. our earning abilities are way too divergent. we'd be ok for a couple of years, but there goes the savings. although the likelihood would be that he would be employed fairly easily, but at probably a much lower salary.

"although the likelihood would be that he would be employed fairly easily, but at probably a much lower salary."

LOLOL.

Yeah, that's what a lot of people thought who lost their jobs over the past 16 months.

yep. my case is the opposite. my earnings potential is somewhat higher than my husband's (at least that's what he believes). i even earned more than he does from his wage while staying at home making smart invest/speculative decisions. the best part for me is that i get to profit in my investment in education (heavy in time and effort, not tuition wise as got fellowships/stipends).

i was "taught" over and over again about sunk costs but my mind just doesn't work like that. if i make an effort, i want to have sth to show for it. maybe not in the way i expected, but i need to feel it wasn't a waste.

matt, he has a client who has given him a standing invitation to go in-house whenever he'd like. just repeated the offer a couple of weeks ago. and a couple of other options. maybe your hysterical laughter is warranted, but in this case i don't think so.

notadmin, you bring up a very good point. my husband frequently reminds me that i've done all of the investing and real estate work, and successfully as well. how quickly we (or at least i) overlook the value we add, when it's not in an employment context.

With alimony and child support isn't a stay at home parent covered in case of a divorce? That's assuming the other parent is making enough to support everyone. I personally think the benefit of being able to spend more time with your kid seems to out weigh the risk of financial distress that accompanies a potential divorce. I would even argue that such financial freedom increase the chance of divorce as there are less incentive to work things out.

On the other hand, some people are not good parents and the kid might benefit from spending time with a nanny who is well trained and enjoy being with the kid.

There is no right answer. However, from the examples I gave early, I can tell you that the families where the mother works part-time and the grandma helps out is where everyone is most happy. In those cases, the family had to compromise on where they live so that the grandma is nearby. The career of the mother working part-time is limited and won't go anywhere until she returns to work full time. I know that setup is not possible for most family for various reasons, but if you have an opportunity for such a setup, I strongly recommend it!

"how quickly we (or at least i) overlook the value we add, when it's not in an employment context."
----

i don't overlook what i add/added/will add at all. and also make sure that people around me understand that after taxes and childcare/lower quality of food/higher stress... it just pays more for me to do what i'm doing than being under a heavy taxed W2 type of income. otherwise i'd have people suggesting that i could ... find a job and become useful (i'm thinking about my mother in law for some reason). i don't need that BS. i'm fully aware that if we were dual income, chances are, we would be closer to paycheck to paycheck than we are now.

This is probably one of the most pathetic regressions from a valid concern that I've seen in a while on this site.

Even more baffling is that "thought" and effort have purportedly been put into these postings about the "bad" choices of working women. There has been a (ridiculous) amount of oversimplification of the challenges that confront women who are capable of holding down a job and carrying out the desire to be a mother.

To the "playgirl" who is bopping his nanny, she probably doesn't enjoy it but figures this is job security; further, he would probably nail anything in his path - and he probably has. Such is the make-up of most any individual, male or female, that chooses to cheat. There may be something alluring about the ways of those (nannies or otherwise) who are maternal, but the fact that the nanny's a skank for bopping a married person doesn't turn playgirl off?

AND, $8 an hour for a nanny? Where do you guys outsource your nanny duties to because that's butt cheap?!

To say that the attachment between mother and child is lost BECAUSE of the nanny is illogical; most any mother that is not attentive to her children will lose the attachment of her children even without a nanny's involvement. I grew up with a nanny in this city, and I adore my mother.

"Living beyond one's means" isn't the ONLY reason for dual income households. It could be that this economy has demonstrated the importance of having a fallback income. It could be that the children will eventually go to school then that same woman who underwent the trials (and joy) of pregnancy, labor, and raising kids, is now at home while her kids are at school. Same woman is now taunted for doing "nothing" while the kids are at school.

OP - living in this city and owning property within it isn't too difficult. You don't have to earn the millions of dollars that only a small percentage of people in this city earn. One can earn millions upon millions, but without financial smarts including the propensity to save and invest properly, this city can still be unaffordable.

My family is middle class and hails from middle class backgrounds. For the record, we have an above average sized family - and we're not looking to trek to the 'burbs. Until the time that I start to hate seeing my family, our apartment size and the frequency that we interact with one another as a result, is just fine. Lastly, we hate the commute from the 'burbs and calculated that it would eat into our schedule and energy as working parents who are also actively involved in our children's lives.

Sunday: alimony isn't life-long, and it will cost more to maintain 2 households over 1. And child support is also calculated differently in joint physical custody cases. In addition, marital property is not necessarily split 50-50 (regardless of title). And if you look it up, financial distress is a leading cause of divorce (though logically it makes sense to stay together under those circumstances). And that's assuming the working spouse doesn't deliberately lower income. Happens. And what do you do when the ex-spouse has more kids? Yet another can of worms.

With people having kids in their mid-late 30s, grandma/grandpa isn't an option for many.

Also, don't forget that childcare is temporary until the kid/s go to school FT. Childcare costs can drop dramatically when that happens (yes, yes, there is still afterschool/summers/holidays).

"On the other hand, some people are not good parents and the kid might benefit from spending time with a nanny who is well trained and enjoy being with the kid."

So again, I pose the question: Why are these people having kids in the first place?

""Living beyond one's means" isn't the ONLY reason for dual income households. It could be that this economy has demonstrated the importance of having a fallback income."

Really.

Because so far in this thread, people have been using the excuse that you need two incomes just to "survive" in this city.

In that case, the "second" income isn't a "fallback", it's a primary.

My family is middle class and hails from middle class backgrounds. For the record, we have an above average sized family - and we're not looking to trek to the 'burbs. Until the time that I start to hate seeing my family, our apartment size and the frequency that we interact with one another as a result, is just fine. Lastly, we hate the commute from the 'burbs and calculated that it would eat into our schedule and energy as working parents who are also actively involved in our children's lives.
---------------

interesting manhattanisgood. what square footage is your place? and how many live there? when did you buy? are you originally from nyc? have grandma to help you out?

i agree with 1 thing, the $8/hour is half as much as the rate that i've know people pay around here. it's kind of $15/hour.

Matt: "Why are these people having kids in the first place?"

1. because the husband, his/her parents, and society expect women to have kids.
2. because they didn't know they suck as parents until the kid was born
3. because of an accident and they're pro-life
.
.
.

"to go in-house"

AR, what does it mean?

to work for a company instead of a law firm. often a very nice QOL compromise, but in this case would be less money.

4. because the biological clock was ticking
5. because they didn't know better
6. because they were looking for "meaning"
7. because the marriage needed a new "project"
8. because babies are cute
9. because... you might regret not having them later, once it's too late (for women to do so naturally)

nyc20023, alimony is life long if the marriage last 10 years or something like that no? Not familiar with it, but I remember reading hearing that. In NY, I think it's actually difficult to get a divorce if one party doesn't want to.

Again, I think it's a totally personal choice. Only the individual knows what's best for her and her family.

Fallback or not, can anyone argue that everything else being equal, two incomes are better than one, particularly if there's a threat (as it is in this poor job market) that any job can be lost? Splitting hairs over the usage of "fallback" versus "primary" doesn't take away from the good sense that more money - only if it is used properly - is better.

We are a family of 6. 1800 (optimistically) square feet. Bought in 1999. I WISH I had grandma to help out. I adore her but she's way too frail to keep up with my kids. Sitters, schools, and after school activities comprise our support system.

"to work for a company instead of a law firm. often a very nice QOL compromise, but in this case would be less money. "

AR, what's QOL? you are explaining law-speak with more law-speak?

"In NY, I think it's actually difficult to get a divorce if one party doesn't want to."
i had a boyfriend that didn't want to give me a divorce, what a pain!!! i can only imagine when it's about a real divorce.

god, i forgot the most common reason:
10. because it was the next natural step to follow

sorry, not law speak although you hear it enough in biglaw. quality of life.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh i'm gonna begin to use it!

The thing about divorce is, in most cases, one party thought the marriage was doing just fine, even if it wasn't perfect. It's actually uncommon for BOTH to conclude that a divorce is the best option.

'MOST of the time, however, it's a matter of one or both parties being too lazy to do the work required to make the marriage successful.'

Matt, are you married?
This is a statement from someone who has had little relationship experience (IMHO).

If you 'have to work' at your marriage then I feel sorry for you. Some things in life should be for free or fun and not considered work. If hanging out with my spouse was not one of my favorite things than I would be a sad life. People should fit or be close to fitting. If you marriage takes that kind of effort where is the pay off? Life, my friends, is short. If your decision on a spouse is flawed than I encorage you to rectify the situation ASAP! Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Folks that stay together for the 'sake of it' or for the kids usually make a very unhappy home.
LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT LIFE IS SHORT
DON'T WASTE A MOMENT!
A spouse can never make you happy. You must be happy on your own. A spouse CAN make you unhappy.

Kspeka. When's the last time you shagged your husband/girlfriend? I f it's been more than a month, your marriage is shit

Men marry for love/sex. Looks to me mr matt and the ladies look upon marriage as more financial, when did it turn that way? For me I look upon marriages in 10 yr increments. My wife and I both are free to lv and have to 'earn' the right to be together the next 10.

And seriously, 'the city's really clean' is your counter to all my ad nausea arguments for why NYC re will hit $500 psf bf $3000psf, if ever. You smokin some good shit.....

"Some things in life should be for free or fun and not considered work."

Wow.

If this is what people really think about marriage, no wonder HALF of all marriages end in divorce these days.

I bet they still believe in Santa Claus too.

falco, ONE of the reasons for such high divorce rate in this country is because of attitude like that.

All marriages/relationships require work regardless of how compatible and in love two people are.

Falco. Yes! It shouldn't fee like work. I Try to be considerate bc I have great affection for her. You my friend gotz it.

"Men marry for love/sex."

you don't need to marry for love/sex!

i must be on the wrong website