Comment by turtlesdown11 2 days ago
> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93.
https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...
> I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
Young is abolutely the best age to have kids. Ask biology.
If you want a society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children.
If you want a healthy society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children at a young age.
While I agree, you've gone way off topic now, though. Because supporting them would be... something like a job that pays $23.66 per hour.
I’ve been thinking about how modern family structures seem increasingly misaligned with what our biology and history may have prepared us for. It seems likely that nature "intended" families to be multigenerational, larger clan-like units linked by shared responsibility, proximity, and care.
Modern norms have instead left many parents effectively on their own, juggling full-time work with full-time childcare. If multigenerational living were normalized, the retired could help raise the kids while the working adults focus on providing. That setup allows for more quality time rather than burnout.
This isn’t anecdotal. I didn’t grow up in a household like that. But the research supports it:
1. Older adults living with younger generations experience less loneliness, better mental health, and even longer lifespans. 2. Multigenerational households are more financially resilient, less likely to live in poverty, and able to share housing, food, and caregiving costs. 3. Children benefit cognitively and emotionally from regular grandparent involvement. 4. Multigenerational setups enable parents to stay in the workforce while providing more consistent and affordable childcare. 5. Families in these homes report stronger relationships and better intergenerational understanding.
Of course there are challenges. Privacy, space, and generational conflict are real. But with today's social isolation, rising living costs, and aging demographics, we might want to normalize this kind of household again.
Maybe the future isn't just smarter cities or more automation, but rethinking how we live together.
---
*Sources:*
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9876343/ 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/the-inc... 3. https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/75/6/12... 4. https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2021/03/FamilyMatters2021.pdf 5. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db255.pdf
I guess? The town my parents settled in was doing well when they moved there. 15 years later when I was born, it and all the surrounding towns were clearly in decline. Today, friends that have stuck around say it’s not safe to walk around because of the meth.
They also didn’t have jobs for programmers, so I moved to where they did.
We have plenty of people in the world. We'd be a whole lot better off if more people waited until they're financially stable before having children.
There are some child care costs for two working adults, so the calculator wants about 15% more money in that case, but yes it says that wage is roughly enough for two adults and two children.
"Living wage" in that report isn't "starvation wage", though. For the housing component for instance, they use 40 percentile rents. The methodology page isn't too clear about how they determine the next highest cost component (transportation), but it looks like they also use the median cost for used cars. The "living wage" might not correspond to a luxurious experience, but it's nowhere near destitute, either.
> it's nothing more than that, if even
How do you characterize the poverty line, since it's much much lower?
The entire point of the term "living wage" is that it's fine. Yes including the ability to save up for unexpected costs.
Indeed. The independently calculated Living Wage in my country (as opposed to the government's "Living Wage" which is just a minimum wage law with better branding) is actually very slightly higher than my average annual expenditure when I last checked.
Most people wouldn't want to live like me (I don't drink, I don't holiday abroad, I don't have kids, or expensive hobbies), but I prefer this. Also, some of the discrepancy is explained by the annoying "Being poor is expensive" where I can make choices that are cheaper over the long term but would be ruinously expensive for a poor person.
>It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that
Did you read the methodology page or even my comment? I made specific objections with the methodology and you didn't even address them.
>Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.
I shouldn't have to tell you that if you read the methodology page, you'd see there's a specific category for "Other necessities" and "Civic engagement" (whatever that means), and I'm not objecting to those categories.
So the entry level job at the factory is a living wage for the area it's in. Sounds like that's what people have been asking for?
So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level.
Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization.
Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.