Homeschooling what-if...

[Vort]

What back up do you have to assume most people that have two incomes can just drop one?

Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income. I doubt that much has changed. What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically. Our houses are larger, we eat much more, we have lots more electronic toys, our televisions are huge, and so forth. Thus, I suspect that a return to a more modest and sustainable standard of living would allow the large majority of households to function on a single income.

Can you now provide your evidence suggesting that single-income households are no longer economically viable?

[estradling75]

A very reasonable observation. You may well be right. But whether my expectation is valid or misguided, I still believe that the onus of education must rest with the parents, not with the state.

I agree with the need (speaking generally as a whole) of parents to step up as an active role in their kids lives. If we could prove what you hope/expect it would be a much easier argument to make. As it is I think we have tons more options now for educating our kids then has ever been available. Home schooling, public schooling, private schooling, charter schooling etc etc...

Because of this the only parent who I think should feel bad about what choices they make... Should be the parent who can't be bothered to make any choice. If the families situation is such that public schooling is what they need to do for their kids then they should not be made to feel bad about it

[Jennarator]

Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income. I doubt that much has changed. What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically. Our houses are larger, we eat much more, we have lots more electronic toys, our televisions are huge, and so forth. Thus, I suspect that a return to a more modest and sustainable standard of living would allow the large majority of households to function on a single income.

Can you now provide your evidence suggesting that single-income households are no longer economically viable?

This proves nothing. Times and economics have drastically changed. I know tons of people that don't even have a tv, let alone cable or cell phones.....I have a cell phone, but no text or data, and I would gladly give that up if it were enough for me to stay at home with my kids.

[Vort]

This proves nothing. Times and economics have drastically changed. I know tons of people that don't even have a tv, let alone cable or cell phones.....I have a cell phone, but no text or data, and I would gladly give that up if it were enough for me to stay at home with my kids.

I didn't claim to prove anything. I provided evidence beyond my own opinion. Now, for the third time, can you provide any evidence to back up your assertion?

[Jennarator]

I did...times have changed. That is just as true as people generations ago being able to stay at home. Also that know people. I know that in my state one out of 4 kids don't have enough food in there homes and the job outlook is fairly strong, so that shows that people that have jobs aren't earning enough. I just went city sponsored meeting about the schools that talked about that even tho most people have jobs, they are not earning enough and are having a hard time feeding the families.

[dahlia]

Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income. I doubt that much has changed. What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically.

I don't know if I want to step in here, but here I go anyway. A major part of the reason one parent can't stay home, why one income doesn't go as far as it did, is the tax bite. Streamline the income tax system and more people will have money available to fund a single earner lifestyle.

The other reason is just what you've said - most people don't want a modest and sustainable standard of living. They don't want one car, for example, or a car that's paid for instead of hundreds of dollars in a payment each month. I'm not against cable, but I must have been the last person in the US to buy a flat screen TV. Most everyone else decided to 'upgrade,' even when their old TVs were working fine. Sadly, many young women can't cook, and the family either eats take out or more expensive frozen foods (rather than making the meal from scratch).

I worked in an office where 3 women got pregnant at the same time. They were married, so no single mother/income issues. None of them left after having the baby, even though they were sick, nursing, had long commutes, weren't up to working with a new baby, etc. Why? Because they *needed* their income for the house, the car, the vacations, etc.

Years ago, I read an analysis of what a woman making around $30,000 actually brings home. By time you pay for commuting, work appropriate clothes, lunches out, take out for dinner because you are too tired to cook, 'guilt gifts' to the kids because you aren't around, day care, etc., the lower income working woman brings home very little of her money. She's better off staying at home and learning how to cook, use coupons, etc.

It's sad, really. Even if they planned to go back to work at some point, I know that none of these women wanted to be back at 6 weeks - and with some planning, they didn't have to come back to work that soon, if at all.

[Leah]

Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income. I doubt that much has changed. What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically. Our houses are larger, we eat much more, we have lots more electronic toys, our televisions are huge, and so forth. Thus, I suspect that a return to a more modest and sustainable standard of living would allow the large majority of households to function on a single income.

Can you now provide your evidence suggesting that single-income households are no longer economically viable?

Why are you asking someone else for evidence, when all you have supplied is your opinion? Do you get to play by a different set of rules?

You made sweeping generalizations and judgments that you appear to want to apply to everyone. That's not fair.

"I doubt that much has changed". What fairy tale world are you living in?

My parents bought their first (and only) house when i was in 7th grade. Their house payment was $80/month. Even my own first house - bought when I was 19 - was several times that (and much smaller) at $305/month. Today, I can't even rent a room for that amount. And you say you doubt that much has changed? Have you checked the price of gas or groceries or health care recently? My salary doesn't grow at anywhere near the rate the cost of living goes up.

I am widowed now, but when I was married, we didn't live the kind of lifestyle you assume everyone who is two-income does. Far, far from it. That's not to say there aren't plenty of people who do live that kind of lifestyle....where the mom works because she'd be "bored" staying at home or because she's just not that interested in raising children, or precisely because they do want all the luxuries and toys. But to suggest that that is true for every two-income household....just isn't true.

[Jennarator]

I don't know if I want to step in here, but here I go anyway. A major part of the reason one parent can't stay home, why one income doesn't go as far as it did, is the tax bite. Streamline the income tax system and more people will have money available to fund a single earner lifestyle.

The other reason is just what you've said - most people don't want a modest and sustainable standard of living. They don't want one car, for example, or a car that's paid for instead of hundreds of dollars in a payment each month. I'm not against cable, but I must have been the last person in the US to buy a flat screen TV. Most everyone else decided to 'upgrade,' even when their old TVs were working fine. Sadly, many young women can't cook, and the family either eats take out or more expensive frozen foods (rather than making the meal from scratch).

I worked in an office where 3 women got pregnant at the same time. They were married, so no single mother/income issues. None of them left after having the baby, even though they were sick, nursing, had long commutes, weren't up to working with a new baby, etc. Why? Because they *needed* their income for the house, the car, the vacations, etc.

Years ago, I read an analysis of what a woman making around $30,000 actually brings home. By time you pay for commuting, work appropriate clothes, lunches out, take out for dinner because you are too tired to cook, 'guilt gifts' to the kids because you aren't around, day care, etc., the lower income working woman brings home very little of her money. She's better off staying at home and learning how to cook, use coupons, etc.

It's sad, really. Even if they planned to go back to work at some point, I know that none of these women wanted to be back at 6 weeks - and with some planning, they didn't have to come back to work that soon, if at all.

Lucky women. I came back at 6 weeks for all my kids, I cook my meals and rarley go out to eat (like once every few months.) I still know very few women in that situation. Even when I lived in San Diego. Here in Idaho, they just stay home anyways and never consider working so they live off welfare.

Oh and I also walk to work and don't pay child care. Never have with any of them

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jennarator

[Leah]

I didn't claim to prove anything. I provided evidence beyond my own opinion. Now, for the third time, can you provide any evidence to back up your assertion?

What evidence? All you provided was your opinions on a message board.

[GabriellaDance]

I can't believe I'm actually seeing a prohomeschooler and mormon write this...

"Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in ...higher education."

Creation and intelligent design die out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

I disagree. "Most" people cannot live on one income. I apologized for going off.....get over it. I still stick my claim. Home schooling is fine, but most people need both incomes. Unless you want even. Ore people on welfare.

I see this differently. You may not be part of "most" but it is true that "MOST" people CAN live on one income. But, it does require proper planning and a perspective shift to get it accomplished.

Caveat. I grew up in the Philippines. So I have a different perspective on what being "poor" means.

[Wingnut]

I can't believe I'm actually seeing a prohomeschooler and mormon write this...

"Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in ...higher education."

Creation and intelligent design die out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What can't you believe? Also, I'm not sure the OP actually said he was pro-homeschooling.

[GabriellaDance]

God help us.

[Wingnut]

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question.

[Guest]

What can't you believe? Also, I'm not sure the OP actually said he was pro-homeschooling.

He didn't. But we know Vort. He is a pro-homeschooling type of guy. Which is cool.

[Guest]

What evidence? All you provided was your opinions on a message board.

How about I provide the evidence. Will that count? Sorry Vort... I know I'm usurping your conversations...

This method has been used by many people who successfully achieved it. This is actually not the actual method - the actual method I'm talking about came from a popular book that I have researched before but can't seem to remember the exact title of. That book had references to statistics. I will find it. It's in my pile of books here somewhere...

[Jennarator]

See I love the idea of homeschooling too. I am just saying it is not feasible for most.

I also had another thought....

Homeschooling, if forced, would really keep the undereducated and poor at status quo. If they don't have the means to have internet or other advantages, they don't learn as much, they don't move up in the "class" system. Yes, our country, tho not as bad as many still have a class system. It would simply make it much harder if not impossible for a child of an uneducated person with out any other resources to get the education they are capable of receiving. DOn't get me wrong, in no way do I think the current education system is the answer, but I think it is currently better than the uneducated teaching uneducated.

It was stated in previous posts that people were responsible, back in the days, of educating their our, with by a nanny or getting groups or whatever. Well back in those days, the poor stayed poor generation after generation. Yes, that happens more than we want, even today, but it is more feasible to get out of that rut now than it was back then.

[Guest]

I FOUND IT!!!

Here it is:

The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke: Elizabeth Warren, Amelia Warren Tyagi: 9780465090907: Amazon.com: Books

It's quite an interesting read. I don't agree with a lot of the proposed societal solutions provided in the book but that's not why I mentioned it. I mentioned it because the book is full of evidence and references to show that the two-income household is weaker than the one-income household... so, the paradigm shift of the now-common - I need to work because we just can't make it with one income - to the - we can't make it with one income, so let me think of other ways (including societal and political change) to raise our standard of living without having to add income - is quite insightful.

To Jennarator - this is not directed to you specifically... this is directed to "most". Like I mentioned before - you might not be part of "most". So hope you don't feel like I'm attacking your decisions. This is really a very personal thing and it's difficult to discuss without stepping on someone's toes. I just wanted to make sure you understand that I have no intention of making you feel bad.

Edited May 13, 2013 by anatess

[Vort]

Why are you asking someone else for evidence, when all you have supplied is your opinion? Do you get to play by a different set of rules?

Which of these do you think is merely my opinion?

• Two generations ago, or even one, it was common for most households to be run on a single income.
• What is undeniable is that our expectations have increased dramatically.

Based on the above two observations, I came up with what I thought was a reasonable conclusion:

• Thus, I suspect that a return to a more modest and sustainable standard of living would allow the large majority of households to function on a single income.

Obviously my conclusion is opinion. But I substantiated it with what I thought were pretty commonly accepted observations, nothing very controversial.

You made sweeping generalizations and judgments that you appear to want to apply to everyone. That's not fair.

Which generalizations or judgments are you talking about?

"I doubt that much has changed". What fairy tale world are you living in?

Not sure how to answer this question.

My parents bought their first (and only) house when i was in 7th grade. Their house payment was $80/month. Even my own first house - bought when I was 19 - was several times that (and much smaller) at $305/month. Today, I can't even rent a room for that amount. And you say you doubt that much has changed? Have you checked the price of gas or groceries or health care recently? My salary doesn't grow at anywhere near the rate the cost of living goes up.

Have you corrected for inflation of wages as well as prices? Googling around, I see that gasoline in 1960 cost the equivalent of about $2.20 per gallon, not all that much less than it costs now. Factoring in the better mileage of modern automobiles, the cost of fuel is more or less a wash. The federal minimum wage is somewhat higher than the 1960 level. In 1960, an average house cost about $12,500; in 2010, it cost about $240,000. Average wages in 1960 were about $4750, or a bit over 1/3 the cost of a house; in 2010, they were about $42,000, or roughly 1/6 the cost of a house. So the cost of housing appears to have doubled. But consider that in 1960, the average single-family house was 1000 square feet, while in 2010, it was almost 2400 square feet -- more than double the size! And that's for an average family size of less than 2.6, compared to an average family size in 1960 of almost 3.3! Our parents put more people in less square footage.

These statistics look to me to bear out my contention: We have higher expectations, and this is the root of many of our financial problems.

I am widowed now, but when I was married, we didn't live the kind of lifestyle you assume everyone who is two-income does.

What makes you think I have some sort of lifestyle assumption of two-income families?

But to suggest that that is true for every two-income household....just isn't true.

Pretty sure I did no such thing.

[Vort]

What evidence? All you provided was your opinions on a message board.

I provided what I thought were non-controversial observations as evidence. Do you dispute my observations?

[Guest]

See I love the idea of homeschooling too. I am just saying it is not feasible for most.

I also had another thought....

Homeschooling, if forced, would really keep the undereducated and poor at status quo. If they don't have the means to have internet or other advantages, they don't learn as much, they don't move up in the "class" system. Yes, our country, tho not as bad as many still have a class system. It would simply make it much harder if not impossible for a child of an uneducated person with out any other resources to get the education they are capable of receiving. DOn't get me wrong, in no way do I think the current education system is the answer, but I think it is currently better than the uneducated teaching uneducated.

It was stated in previous posts that people were responsible, back in the days, of educating their our, with by a nanny or getting groups or whatever. Well back in those days, the poor stayed poor generation after generation. Yes, that happens more than we want, even today, but it is more feasible to get out of that rut now than it was back then.

Jenn, I know where you're coming from so I understand your point of view. But, I think there's a lot of things that you assumed from homeschooling that is not quite correct.

Let me clarify one point:

" If they don't have the means to have internet or other advantages, they don't learn as much, they don't move up in the "class" system. "

I am a Montessori method fan. In the Montessori method of teaching, the theory is that children are capable of self-learning. So that, students are not dependent on what the teacher/facilitator teaches. They learn by self discovery and capitalizes on the instinctive curiosity of children. This applies, not only to children with "normal learning capacity", but also to special needs children. Therefore, the teacher (facilitator) is not the only source of information. The student is encouraged to find different sources of information to satisfy his curiousity. For example - if the student wants to know how long the shadow will be when the sun is blocked by the flag pole at 2PM, they can go find a flagpole or build a mock-up and measure the shadow. The natural curiousity of children will cause him to discover why that is and take different measurements of different objects and different positions of the sun and try to make sense out of it. At this point, all the teacher has to do is give them a theory book on the subject and the student can find out for themselves - Aha! That's why! As you can see here, the teacher did not have to teach the math on the properties of a right angle - the student learned it for himself from direct observation.

So, the teacher doesn't really have to know the subject. All the teacher needs to do is give the student access to where the information can be found. And it is completely okay if the student knows more about things than the teacher. It's a natural progression as each individual have their own "specialty" of curiousities. Some people are more curious about natural sciences while others are more curious about numbers. The teacher just tries to make sure that the student tries to learn about a wide variety of subjects and not just things that they are especially curious about.

So yes, in America, resources are always available. The library is free. Parks are free. Museums are free. You can find all kinds of creatures everywhere. In the Philippines, you'll be hard-pressed to find a bird bigger than a budgie in a populated area - they don't last 5 minutes as they usually end up in someone's dinner table. And, if you can find a public library (rare) it would be a challenge to find a book written at least within the past 30 years.

So, what is important is that parents/teachers/facilitators encourage that natural curiousity among children and find room for it to grow, take root, and find an outlet. It's not necessary to know the subject themselves.

[Vort]

I can't believe I'm actually seeing a prohomeschooler and mormon write this...

"Within a couple of generations, ideas such as Creationism and most forms of "intelligent design" would die out as they were rigorously exposed to the realities of educational Darwinianism in ...higher education."

Creation and intelligent design die out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you surprised?

[Vort]

See I love the idea of homeschooling too. I am just saying it is not feasible for most.

Is this merely your conjecture, or do you have some evidence that this is so?

Homeschooling, if forced, would really keep the undereducated and poor at status quo.

Of course, no one on this thread has suggested forcing homeschooling.

[Jennarator]

Museums are not free.

Libraries are not always withing walking distance, and not everyone has a car. An uneducated person, doesn't know how to get to these resources. I know these things because I deal with them at work. I have people coming in with issues all the time. We try to get word about "resources" to people all the time, but the message just doesn't get there. Sure, the average person knows how to borrow free books at the library, but the uneducated, really uneducated person doesn't. Even with public school those lower class people don't know how to utilize all the resources out there. That number of people is bigger than yo think. Perhaps not in your neighborhood, but they are there.

Like I said I realize public school isn't working either, I just think there would need to be massive information sharing, somehow. We would need to give some sort of public education to parents for them to learn how to take advantage of such things. I worked in a Montessori school, certainly the people I see come into my office would not know how to cultivate that type of learning without being taught, first how to do that. Like I said, home schooling sounds great, it is just not possible, tight now. Changes need made, first.

[Vort]

Like I said, home schooling sounds great, it is just not possible, tight now. Changes need made, first.

Millions of homeschoolers dispute your assertion.