Missing Men and the Biolgical Clock

[Xantippe]

Are you saying that the majority of American families with kids at home have household incomes of $150k +? That doesn’t sound right.

Presumably the $75k+ was household income, not individual income.

 

[Xantippe]

I honestly cannot fathom why some people I have met get so wrapped around the axle when at my age am not a wife and a mother.

I have been asked if I was gay so many times and disbelieved when I replied in the negative.

It’s possibly a backward compliment.

They must be thinking, “Sarcelle is so good-looking and such a nice person that she **ought **to be married and have kids.”

(I know I’ve felt that way about the lovely Miss D, my oldest’s former 3rd grade teacher, who was basically an angel in human form.)

 

[bitterhope]

Well, there are those studies that come up with $14k or so as the annual cost of a kid. 2 kids makes $28k, then you still have two adults and taxes. It seems impossible

I have never seen a kid truly cost $14,000 a year. Of course you could spend 5 times that or even much more if you make choices in your parenting that require that. But even then, most of those expenses are not truly doubled for each additional person. It comes down to what you find you want not what is really necessary.

 

[ThePCWife]

Are you saying that the majority of American families with kids at home have household incomes of $150k +? That doesn’t sound right.

Yes, the 75k+ was as a household.

 

[Xantippe]

I have never seen a kid truly cost $14,000 a year. Of course you could spend 5 times that or even much more if you make choices in your parenting that require that. But even then, most of those expenses are not truly doubled for each additional person. It comes down to what you find you want not what is really necessary.

If the couple loses $14k in income, the kid has already cost $14k without a single diaper being purchased.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I have never seen a kid truly cost $14,000 a year. Of course you could spend 5 times that or even much more if you make choices in your parenting that require that. But even then, most of those expenses are not truly doubled for each additional person. It comes down to what you find you want not what is really necessary.

foxnews.com/us/2017/01/10/cost-raising-child-is-more-than-233k-in-us.html
article:

The Department of Agriculture says the estimated cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 is $233,610, or as much as almost $14,000 annually.

Not sure how real those numbers are.

 

[ThePCWife]

It really seems most Americans regardless of income only have 2 children so that really isn’t telling much.

About 1/4 to 1/3 of women have exactly 2 kids, depending on ethnic background. American women are more likely to have exactly 3 kids than exactly 1, as a rule. More than 4 children is now uncommon these days except in a handful of areas (near military bases, Mormons and one or two Catholic enclaves), but 3-4 is more common than it used to be.

 

[ATraveller]

Those aren’t the only options, thank goodness.

Also, the second 25-year-old is going to have a heck of a time managing to feed a growing Catholic family without food stamps if he can just barely manage to take care of himself.

The only way that is going to work is some combination of a) high earning wife b) birth control and c) federal aid (Medicaid and food stamps). Also, unless the wife is a) a very high earner, the kids are going to public school.

Two extremes but is there any reason the second guy is going to be in that situation permanently? He could go for skills upgrading or something else. Sometimes it seems a person’s potential isn’t given enough attention.

Besides that, what is wrong with public schools? Most Americans attend public schools. I dare say that the majority of high income earners are the product of public schools. And quite a few went to the not so great public schools at that.

I’m the product of public schools but I would encourage homeschooling if possible. Not even private schools unless they’re willing to discipline troublemakers like the public schools in Japan or South Korea. Public schools push agendas and they’re being more aggressive with this across the West.
However, if parents emphasis character building and practise their faith beyond Sundays, public schools aren’t going to ruin their children.

 

[Xantippe]

foxnews.com/us/2017/01/10/cost-raising-child-is-more-than-233k-in-us.html

Not sure how real those numbers are.

“There were also differences depending on income. Lower-income families are expected to spend around $174,690 per child from birth through 17; higher-income families will spend a whopping $372,210.”

“The average middle-income family earns between $59,200 and $107,400 before taxes.”

“USDA estimates the annual housing cost per child in urban areas is $3,900, while it’s $2,400 in rural areas.”

“After housing, child care, education and food are the highest costs for families. For a middle-income couple with two children, food costs make up about 18 percent of the cost of raising a child. Child care and education costs make up 16 percent.”

"After housing, child care, education and food are the highest costs for families. For a middle-income couple with two children, food costs make up about 18 percent of the cost of raising a child. Child care and education costs make up 16 percent.

“Education costs have sharply risen since 1960, when USDA estimated that those expenses were around 2 percent of child-rearing expenses. The report says this growth is likely due to the increased number of women in the workforce, prompting the need for more child care.”

I would suggest that public schools are now more expensive for families.

“While a child costs around $12,680 when he or she is between 0 and 2, a teenager between 15 and 17 costs around $13,900 annually.”

"There is some good news for big families. Families with three or more children spend an average of 24 percent less per child. USDA says that’s because children often share bedrooms in bigger families, clothing and toys are handed down and food can be purchased in larger and more economical packages. Also, private schools and child care providers may offer sibling discounts.

“In contrast, one-child households spend an average of 27 percent more on the single child.”

 

[Xantippe]

About 1/4 to 1/3 of women have exactly 2 kids, depending on ethnic background. American women are more likely to have exactly 3 kids than exactly 1, as a rule. More than 4 children is now uncommon these days except in a handful of areas (near military bases, Mormons and one or two Catholic enclaves), but 3-4 is more common than it used to be.

Interesting.

 

[Xantippe]

Two extremes but is there any reason the second guy is going to be in that situation permanently? **He could go for skills upgrading or something else. **Sometimes it seems a person’s potential isn’t given enough attention.

He’s going to have an easier time upgrading those skills before he has a houseful of little children clamoring for his attention. Really, if he’s working full-time and doing night school, when does he spend time with his children or do anything around the house?

If upgrading his skills and increasing his earnings is so easy, why not do it now?

 

[pensmama87]

He’s going to have an easier time upgrading those skills before he has a houseful of little children clamoring for his attention. Really, if he’s working full-time and doing night school, when does he spend time with his children or do anything around the house?

If upgrading his skills and increasing his earnings is so easy, why not do it now?

Yes - if you’re marriage minded, it’s not enough to find a good spouse but to be one, too. (That goes for men and women.)

 

[Xantippe]

Also, I have to say that potential can be really hard to read in young adults. A lot of people look promising when they’re young and cute.

I had very good luck in that respect, as my husband and I got married in grad school (when he was making something like $14k a year) and he has done very well since then.

However, now that I’ve been around a while, I know a number of families who have had less satisfactory results from doing more or less the same thing. You can patiently take care of kids on nothing a year while your husband is in grad school, only to find that his career is a dud (or at least never going to provide a family wage), and you need to go make sushi at 40 to make ends meet. (The sushi is a real example–that exact thing happened to a friend.)

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

Call me a communist (I have pretty thick skin and don’t mind such slander), but I always wonder why, in this day and age, do we still struggle to make ends meet just to survive? In my very insignificant opinion, the state should provide food, water, shelter, you know, the basic things to stay alive. Sure, we cannot expect people to live equally (same wage/salary, same things), and I am hardly an egalitarian. What I believe is that if one is a working citizen, then one should have the aforementioned necessities guaranteed. If these services must be paid for, they should be paid through taxes. Taxes would be immediately taken from salary, so person x making 100 000 would actually be making 75 000 if all taxes amounted to 25 % of income. I started thinking about this idea after watching a scene from a Chinese film where the water suddenly stopped, and somebody asked, ‘did you forget to pay your taxes?’

Anyway, enough of my rant, I just think that the state’s collective power should be used more effectively than it is now. In the end it all comes down to how a society defines a basic/crucial necessity and how much it values order as opposed to profit or economic freedom.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

We need to look at what’s changed for working people. Looking at my own family my grandad and relatives around his age all left education in their teens, had working class (blue collar) jobs and were based around London. They weren’t rich but they were able to buy a house and support a family without needing to be topped up with benefits, what’s gone so wrong now that young men today can’t do the same thing?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Call me a communist (I have pretty thick skin and don’t mind such slander), but I always wonder why, in this day and age, do we still struggle to make ends meet just to survive? In my very insignificant opinion, the state should provide food, water, shelter, you know, the basic things to stay alive. Sure, we cannot expect people to live equally (same wage/salary, same things), and I am hardly an egalitarian. What I believe is that if one is a working citizen, then one should have the aforementioned necessities guaranteed. If these services must be paid for, they should be paid through taxes. Taxes would be immediately taken from salary, so person x making 100 000 would actually be making 75 000 if all taxes amounted to 25 % of income. I started thinking about this idea after watching a scene from a Chinese film where the water suddenly stopped, and somebody asked, ‘did you forget to pay your taxes?’

Anyway, enough of my rant, I just think that the state’s collective power should be used more effectively than it is now. In the end it all comes down to how a society defines a basic/crucial necessity and how much it values order as opposed to profit or economic freedom.

Umm in the current system, between federal, state, social security, property, and sales tax, someone making $100,000 (in wages, not investments) can easily pay 40% or more in taxes. Probably 50% if they don’t have the right tax shelters.

 

[pensmama87]

Call me a communist (I have pretty thick skin and don’t mind such slander), but I always wonder why, in this day and age, do we still struggle to make ends meet just to survive? In my very insignificant opinion, the state should provide food, water, shelter, you know, the basic things to stay alive. Sure, we cannot expect people to live equally (same wage/salary, same things), and I am hardly an egalitarian. What I believe is that if one is a working citizen, then one should have the aforementioned necessities guaranteed. If these services must be paid for, they should be paid through taxes. Taxes would be immediately taken from salary, so person x making 100 000 would actually be making 75 000 if all taxes amounted to 25 % of income. I started thinking about this idea after watching a scene from a Chinese film where the water suddenly stopped, and somebody asked, ‘did you forget to pay your taxes?’

Anyway, enough of my rant, I just think that the state’s collective power should be used more effectively than it is now. In the end it all comes down to how a society defines a basic/crucial necessity and how much it values order as opposed to profit or economic freedom.

In theory, in the US (I live there, so that’s my example) this is already true. Housing and food assistance is available, and you cannot be denied water, even if it might be shut off to your direct residence (though at least around here, it’s the property owner who pays it, so it’s built into a rent payment.)

But how we give that assistance and to whom under what conditions is always a source for lively debate. There’s also the matter of those who cannot currently work and who may never be able to. Also subject to much debate.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We need to look at what’s changed for working people. Looking at my own family my grandad and relatives around his age all left education in their teens, had working class (blue collar) jobs and were based around London. They weren’t rich but they were able to buy a house and support a family without needing to be topped up with benefits, what’s gone so wrong now that young men today can’t do the same thing?

Mostly the cost of living in certain places like London, NYC, San Francisco, etc. coupled with a mindset of dependency on benefits. As to the first point, cities have historically been very expensive places to live, so if you are not guaranteed of a good job, which is typically the case now that cities are no longer manufacturing centers like they used to be, then you are probably going to be poor, especially as the cost of real estate in cities goes up due to demand. There are a number of remote areas of the USA where a man like what you describe could probably still support a family, if he had the skills and motivation to be self-reliant.

As to the second point, people in previous eras grew or hunted or fished a significant percentage of their food and they knew how to make do or do without, and what to buy in order to stretch money while still feeding the family. Many people nowadays have lost those skills, never learned them, or have some other problem like an addiction or a bad lifestyle that keeps them from being able to learn how to do something like buy beans in bulk and have a place to cook them and eat them all month.

 

[bitterhope]

We need to look at what’s changed for working people. Looking at my own family my grandad and relatives around his age all left education in their teens, had working class (blue collar) jobs and were based around London. They weren’t rich but they were able to buy a house and support a family without needing to be topped up with benefits, what’s gone so wrong now that young men today can’t do the same thing?

Most of the men I know have done just that. They graduate high school at 17-19, get a trade or factory job, raise a family. Or they join the military after high school and raise a family. These aren’t just relatives either. I really think that it is either a regional thing in the US that people believe this can’t be done or something. Honestly I have seen far fewer men sitting around playing video games without a job that are NOT college graduates than the ones who have gone off to college. The men with a trade are never out of work, have no debts to repay for a college degree that they aren’t using, and are home owners. Many of these trades are very well paying jobs and soon there won’t be enough workers to fill them all. My husband and I worked on farms before he joined the Army. when he retires from the military most likely he will work as a carpenter. My oldest son is currently in college. He is an Air Force cadet. My second son is already out of school and is a welder. He’s making more money already than his older brother will as a 2nd LT when he finishes school. He has his own apartment and is living in a different state (where we used to live). The next two will be finishing up with high school next year. One (the girl) is going to college. The boy has a trade lined up he is wanting. He even has an apprenticeship lined up. He has worked off and on for the man in the past. The next boy decided so far (he has a few more years of school still) that he plans to join the marines and then go to college later on. The other kids have a long time to go still, but I don’t have any doubts that they will all decide to take whatever path leads to success for them. All children need to be taught some sort of trade as at least a back up. Not only do they learn how to work, they will always have a well paying job if (when?) their degree doesn’t pan out. My second son is making quite a bit more than many with 4 year degrees because they end up working retail jobs and have tons of loans to repay. They have little to no prospects of ever actually using the degree they studied for.

Part of the problem I see an awful lot is people seem to measure success in terms of how much money a person makes without ever needing to break a sweat. No one wants these blue collar jobs because they have an elitist idea of them not being worth their time, too hard, and/or poor paying. These jobs sit empty waiting for someone. There are always openings, and if someone can pass a drug test and not be in and out of jail, they have work for life. The son that is a welder is thinking of going to college, but he has the opportunity to pay his way with no loans. He makes enough money and his employer does tuition reimbursement. Once out of college, he can continue with his employer but be making more as a supervisor. He will still do the job he loves though. Why more people don’t take these jobs starting out is beyond me. Maybe it’s harder to do in some regions, but we’ve lived a lot of places and have met men and women in all of them that have done just fine actually working instead of complaining they can’t get a job “in their field.” These people may never make $100,000 a year (some do!) but they are all raising families and self supporting.

 

[Naskor]

As El Rushbo has pointed out, the men in our culture have become “chickafied” and now no one wants to marry them.

Many priests are saying different. They are noticing a trend where it is the MEN who don’t want marriage anymore: blog.adw.org/2015/10/men-are-more-disinclined-to-marry-than-ever-a-reflection-on-a-serious-problem/