Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (143896)	10/28/2008 7:50:40 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 173976

There are increases in costs that eat up that second income. The increases in costs directly because of the 2nd income are almost always minor compared to the income (and when they are not, when the approach the amount of the income, than couples usually wouldn't opt for a 2nd income) The increases in costs that aren't directly or nearly directly because of the 2nd income, are to a great extent because people have expectations of a higher living standard. We have more stuff, larger homes and apartments, more resources devoted to cars (both per cars, and also having a higher ratio of cars to people), we eat out more, and generally have all sorts of luxuries that we didn't have in the past. Living with the standards of a generation or two ago (no cable or satellite TV, and maybe one TV for the family, maybe one car shared by the family, or perhaps two, but not one for each of the teens, and each car is more downmarket to partially compensate for the fact that cars are more powerful and have more luxury and convenience features today, less travel, smaller living spaces, less luxuries in general etc.) would cause are costs to be lower. The idea that we are at more risk than a generation or two ago is highly questionable, the idea that we have reduced opportunity is simply false.