The Fall of the One-Earner Household

You’ve got to wonder why so many Americans think economic conditions are poor when we have the lowest unemployment in over half a century and when consumers are spending freely even though inflation has recently firmed.?

Our elected representatives should know that for Americans with a memory, it’s a matter of then and now. Most people born in Generation X and prior to that were able to live on one earner’s paycheck while paying for food, housing, health care, transportation, and their child’s education. In addition, there was enough supplementary money available from that one earner for the family to be able to afford some luxuries, such as dining out, going to a Broadway play, or taking a vacation.?

Today, such luxuries are unavailable without more work and more stress on the American household. Most people my age–in Generation Z—probably grew up in a household where both of their parents worked full-time jobs. Indeed, while in the 1980’s it took an average of 40 weeks of work each year to pay for household essentials, it takes about 62 weeks each year to do so today. In other words, in order for an average American family to secure their childrens’ futures and their own needs–to say nothing of taking a vacation–both parents will need to work a full-time job.?

The reverberations of the increased pressure on the American family are immense. Fifty years ago, many people my age had married and were beginning to have children. Today, most of them still live with their parents and are drowning in debt due to college loans. They will probably not marry and have children until much later in life, if they do so at all. More and more people have been enlisted into the rolls for Medicaid and food stamps. Americans are moving away from their hometowns to live in cheaper areas of the country. None of this is good fiscally, physically, or morally.?

Some people argue that the shift from one-earner households to two-earner households is unimportant. One should thoroughly disagree with this sentiment, both from a financial and a psychological viewpoint. Surely the vast majority of mothers would like to spend a significant amount of time at home caring for her young child rather than struggling to support him or her at an office job. These views are especially prevalent below the upper-middle class, where it is less likely that parents have a college education and thus less likely for them to work anywhere other than at a ministerial job. As anyone who has worked in a ministerial job can attest to, they are often dull and boring.?

The only families with two children that can get ahead and have some wiggle room in their lives are those that have two college-educated parents that both work full-time jobs. Increasingly, everyone else either has to choose between the unenviable options of accepting a lower standard of living, not having children or having children later in life, or a combination of these things. Or they can take on debt. And since it is the human instinct to reward ourselves with a comfortable and prosperous lifestyle, that is what many families have done, and the consequences bear out for themselves. Americans take three times the amount of consumer debt today then they did in 1985. A reminder that these tough decisions are made only to get ahead, forget thriving. If there’s an economic calamity, the tables could change dramatically for these Americans and they could be struggling.?

Politicians over the years have attempted to solve this problem by doling out subsidies and tax credits for everything from child care to food stamps to college tuition, arguing that such programs will rein in unbridled capitalism and provide a safety net for American families. But all these measures have done is shift costs from the private sector to the public sector. They have not made it more difficult to raise a family, and it is voodoo economics to think that a new government program will make it less so.?

The economic outlook for the man on the street does not involve meeting certain statistical benchmarks for GDP, employment, etc. It involves ensuring that every American, regardless of zip code and regardless of socioeconomic status, has the resources they need not only to make ends meet but to thrive. Essential to thriving is to have the government get out of the way as much as possible while keeping important safeguards for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and any unexpected events. Simply put, any money the government provides to help should fund people, not systems. If we are committed to these ideals, we can foster the conditions for one-earner households that were so prevalent from the post-World War II era to the end of the century. We will strengthen and encourage the family unit. We will improve the economic, physical, and mental well-being of the American people. And it can be guaranteed we will improve their perceptions on both our nation and their own future.