just how much income is a person "supposed to have"?

[Guest]

Gee, if we only had my brother here to give the Portuguese, we could have most of the Romantic languages covered.  Anyone know Romanian?

 

Edit: I found I could read the Portuguese from my French and Spanish background.  It is the same as the Spanish translation.

 

Portuguese:

...coração, poder, mente e força....

 

Poder is power or might.

 

 

Don't have Romanian but I got Finnish:

... sydämestänne, väkevyydestänne, mielestänne ja voimastanne ...

 

väkevyydestänne is might.

 

 

Edit:  Found Romanian:

... cu toată inima, cu tot sufletul, cu tot cugetul şi cu toată tăria voastră...

 

Interestingly, this translates to with all your heart, with all your soul , all our mind and with all your strength.

Edited January 5, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

Alternative languages:

Deuteronomy 6:5

Danish:

Og du skal elske HERREN din Gud af hele dit Hjerte, af hele din Sjæl og af hele din Styrke

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength

French:

Et tu aimeras l'Éternel, ton Dieu, de tout ton coeur, et de toute ton âme, et de toute ta force.

And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

German:

Und du sollst den HERRN, deinen Gott, liebhaben von ganzem Herzen, von ganzer Seele, von allem Vermögen.

And you shall have love the Lord, your God, with all my heart, with all their soul, of all assets.

Spanish:

Amarás al SEÑOR tu Dios con todo tu corazón, con toda tu alma y con toda tu fuerza.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength.

Greek:

Και θέλεις αγαπά Κύριον τον Θεόν σου εξ όλης της καρδίας σου και εξ όλης της ψυχής σου και εξ όλης της δυνάμεώς σου.

And thou shalt love the Lord your God in your heart and with all your soul and all your strength.

Latin:

diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota fortitudine tua

… the Lord thy God from (or out of) all thy heart and from (or out of) all thy spirit and from (or out of) all thy strength

Just for fun.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Even charity doesn't have to be money; 

 It doesn't have to be money, but most charities request donations because it's the best way to do good. The unpc truth is that money does still make the world go around, and not much gets done if it all depends on human love and kindness. 

[An Investigator]

I work and so does my Husband,  we have small Children so he works during the day and then I work four hours in the evening.  I enjoy going to work, the job I do isn't particularly hard and I have made some really good friends there, one of which actually introduced me to the Church.   I think at the end of the day everyone just needs to do what they think is right for their own family.  We could probably survive on my Husbands wage but to me there is a difference between surviving and actually living.

[LeSellers]

I work and so does my Husband,  we have small Children so he works during the day and then I work four hours in the evening.  I enjoy going to work, the job I do isn't particularly hard and I have made some really good friends there, one of which actually introduced me to the Church.   I think at the end of the day everyone just needs to do what they think is right for their own family.  We could probably survive on my Husbands wage but to me there is a difference between surviving and actually living.

How much does your four-hour per day Job actually "earn" you?

I did a calculation of how much money my Jacquie would have had to earn before she "made" us any money, i.e., improved our standard of living. Admittedly, mine is one of those women Solomon talked about in his "virtuous woman" passage: worth above rubies, but I believe it applies to any wife.

Any Job costs money (in new and additional taxes, new wardrobe, another car, etc.) and the opportunity cost of what she would do instead of working (baking bread, gardening, raising children, cooking meals, doing laundry), and, even more importantly, the emotional costs (divided loyalties, lack of energy after work, etc.).

I figured that she'd have to earn at least $40,000/year before she contributed one new dollar to our family economy. And she's worth far more than one dollar.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

I've not read this string, but, most people probably think it's okay to have just a little bit more than what they do. 

[Guest]

We've done some math and figured out why we are able to feed my large family on a shoestring budget.  My wife knows how to cook and she has the time to do it.  The alternative is to buy pre-packaged foods that cost a whole lot more per serving and offer fewer servings to boot.

 

Additionally, a little known fact is that when a man has a SAHW (or mother) she allows him to free his mind of tasks that she is willing to take on, allowing him to have more intellectual capital to spend on his work.  This makes him a better earner.  Statistics show that he will earn 38% more than his unmarried counterpart.  The data also indicate a difference between men whose wives stay at home vs those who have a job of their own.

 

I'll have to look up the economists name (something Williams).  He said that if a SAHW or SAHM gets divorced, she automatically has a right to 38% of the man's income for life.  Then they can argue over the remainder.

 

I will say that I at least fit the statistic.  I make a lot more than my counterparts. I have a more senior position, etc.

[LeSellers]

We've done some math and figured out why we are able to feed my large family on a shoestring budget.  My wife knows how to cook and she has the time to do it.  The alternative is to buy pre-packaged foods that cost a whole lot more per serving and offer fewer servings to boot.

I did that same calculation in 1980. See my post above (#55).

In our society, money has become the only means of measuring worth (if the government cannot tax it, it doesn't have value). Home work is valuable because, as you've said, it needs to be done somehow (prepackaged meals, maid service, whatever), and because not having to worry about it frees up the primary earner to do more in his own career.

In the military, there is the "tooth-to-tail" ratio that has limited armies since Hammurabi: it takes seven supporters to keep one soldier in the field. There have been uncounted attempts at reducing it by even a tiny fraction, and all have failed. In a family, the two parents have to do all eight pieces: the support ("tail") and the family rearing ("tooth"). How it divides between them is a function that's been going on for six millennia: Adam and Eve got it right, Abraham got it right, Isaac, Israel, Moses, Joseph, Brigham, and your own grandfather got it right: the man gets the resources his family needs, and the wife spends her time, largely, in "tooth": she raises the children. But to get all the resources they need, the man must spend a great deal of time. But if he must also do much of the other "tail" activities, he will not be able to achieve his primary duty.

God gave us different characteristics and needs, different abilities and responsibilities. He got it right.

In the past month or so, O'bama, has ordered that women be "allowed" to go into front-line combat jobs. Women are not built to perform well enough to win battles, and this will not end well. But it feels "good" to those who want to undermine the Family and destroy this country.

How much income a family needs is not the defining question. It's what does the family need to do to be successful in its primary function: raising children. No amount of new, wife-sourced income can compensate for a bad child-rearing environment.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[An Investigator]

My part time Job is in sales and I fetch home nearly the same as someone who works min wage full time,  I got the job as I have a degree.   If I was only fetching in pennies then I would re evaluate the situation

[Backroads]

I heard some finance gurus say a stay-at-home spouse is better insurance against job loss (assuming family can afford one breadwinner) than both partners working for more security than necessary. A home spouse is truly a priceless asset (do all LeSellers said plus do things without requiring getting off work). Plus, couples that say they both work in case one loses a job generally aren't practicing living on one income, negating the point. Two spouses working either had to be necessary or pure luxury, not insurance.

In other words, of course the wife (or husband or whomever is home) has thr potential to bring in money. Save that card for when you need it.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Backroads

[LeSellers]

My part time Job is in sales and I fetch home nearly the same as someone who works min wage full time,  I got the job as I have a degree.   If I was only fetching in pennies then I would re evaluate the situation

"Fetching home [money]" is not the same thing as improving your family economy. As I said, every Job has its costs. Just because someone has a net take home pay does not mean it is profitable, and it does not mean that it is a good use of time.

If anyone wants to work for the pleasure of the job and the company or any other reason, that's not part of this discussion. These may be good, valid reasons, but they are not economic reasons. They are or could be enough to tip the scales and it's up to the people involved to decide that. But they are not economic reasons.

In my experience, the majority of men who encourage their wives to work outside the home do not count the economics highly enough. Nor do they weigh the costs (both economic and otherwise) of having a tired, dual-allegiance wife, and children who are being raised by strangers. But it is their decision. My only purpose is to make people aware of those costs.

Let's take just the tax cost. If a second income of $12,000 changes a tax bill from $6,300 to $9,000, the entire $2,700 comes off of the second income. That's because the additional income is why the higher tax burden exists. But that's not all: the second car has its own taxes. The sales tax on new clothes, on meals at Jimbo's: they're all coming out of that second income. A second income can easily eat itself half up just in new and additional taxes.

Finally, totally outside the monetary costs, If you work 20 hrs/wk, you might be away from home more than 30. That's 1,500/hrs year. The question is, after all the wholly economic costs are subtracted from that additional income, and, for convenience we assume you are working for $20,000, are you worth more than $1.50/hr. I'd guess you are. And what do you get for that $2,000? What does the spouse get? I know I'd have a tired, grouchy, wearied wife, and it jess ain't worth it.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Where is your previous post you referred to?  #15 was not your post.

[Guest]

Investigator,

 

I think we all understand that everyone has to make their own decisions for their own family.  But we need to do so with proper information.  So, take a look at all the numbers that Lehi pointed out.  Also consider opportunity costs and offsetting costs, such as how much you end up spending on other stuff because of your time away from home (such as buying more pre-packaged foods because it is fast rather than cheaper foods you could cook from scratch.)  Not to mention that fact that you have more control over your diet when you cook from scratch.  Much healthier.

 

You mentioned a young child.  Is he school aged?  If so, are you there to pick him up from school?  If not, do you pay for daycare?  What kind of travel do you pay for?  Just gas in the car?  More for insurance because of mileage on the vehicle?

 

It is not just the dollars you bring home.  It is the whole picture.  There are so many hidden costs in all this that it may be difficult to really take all that into account.

 

***

One guy at work reported that the daycare they used -- well, their child got spider bites.  They tried looking at other daycare.  But they were just too expensive.  And even then they decided they just couldn't trust them.  So, the mom decided to give up her job to watch the child.  His conclusion was: "We figured out all the costs and the return on her time was pennies on the dollar.  So, we'll try to get by without.  If not, we'll give up cable TV."

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

Where is your previous post you referred to?  #15 was not your post.

Sorry, it is #55.

Lehi

[Guest]

Portuguese:

...coração, poder, mente e força....

 

Poder is power or might.

 

 

Don't have Romanian but I got Finnish:

... sydämestänne, väkevyydestänne, mielestänne ja voimastanne ...

 

väkevyydestänne is might.

 

 

Edit:  Found Romanian:

... cu toată inima, cu tot sufletul, cu tot cugetul şi cu toată tăria voastră...

 

Interestingly, this translates to with all your heart, with all your soul , all our mind and with all your strength.

 

Thanks.  The Romanian question was because it is another Romantic language.  Finnish is not.  But the Romanian sure looks different than other Romantic languages.  Though, I can see the patterns are still there.  Obviously they took a different route in the evolution of their language.

[NightSG]

Let's take just the tax cost. If a second income of $12,000 changes a tax bill from $6,300 to $9,000, the entire $2,700 comes off of the second income. That's because the additional income is why the higher tax burden exists. But that's not all: the second car has its own taxes. The sales tax on new clothes, on meals at Jimbo's: they're all coming out of that second income. A second income can easily eat itself half up just in new and additional taxes.

 

I see two problems here: first, you're assuming the second income is pretty low, and that SAHMs don't need cars.  (Or that working takes something more than a $500-1200 car.)  In my case, my ex wife's income was $60k, and having only one car wasn't an option, since there are still things to be done during the day.  We did, however, go through a few $500-1000 cars, mostly because she had a knack for picking the absolute worst solution to minor issues.  (Leave the car idling when it overheated, thinking the fan would cool it off turned a bad radiator hose into a ruined engine, for example.)

[LeSellers]

I see two problems here: first, you're assuming the second income is pretty low,

The same applies when the income is higher, since the higher income will increase the tax rate on the new, combined income. (Since we're talking about An Investigator's part-time, ~$16,00/year job, the assumption is concrete, so I have no apology for that.)

Increases in taxes accounts for a huge part of the reduction in purchasing power with that second income. But it is not the only reduction.

 

… and that SAHMs don't need cars.

My mother didn't have a second car until I was a teenager. A second car is not a necessity. If your family has one, it's s choice, not a requirement.

 

(Or that working takes something more than a $500-1200 car.)

Perhaps. But that car will need gas, insurance, maintenance, washing, tires, and a host of other things that must be accounted to the new income.

As I said, I don't care too much (although I pity her children) if a woman decides to take an outside job. It's her decision. I'd hope that she'd consult with her husband, and that they would exercise prayerful reflection on the costs, economic, spiritual, and mental, But before they can do this, they must understand that there are costs. A new paycheck doesn't come for free.

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[NightSG]

My mother didn't have a second car until I was a teenager. A second car is not a necessity. If your family has one, it's s choice, not a requirement.

So what happens when a child has a doctor appointment during the day, or gets sick at school and needs to be picked up? If the working parent has to take time off (assuming that's even an option, especially for unexpected issues; my job occasionally has me 3+ hours from home) to deal with something like that, it's far more economical to get a second car.

Perhaps. But that car will need gas, insurance, maintenance, washing, tires, and a host of other things that must be accounted to the new income.

Insurance discounts make that almost a non-issue, especially when the car isn't financed, so anything beyond liability U/UMC and PI becomes unnecessary, (after all, my last two cars each cost less than a year of comprehensive coverage, and the current one less than the deductible would be for any policy that isn't flat out insanely priced) gas and tires are tied to mileage, and the semiannual washing costs $1.50.

As I said, I don't care too much (although I pity her children) if a woman decides to take an outside job. It's her decision.

If she can't pick the kids up from school, there's really not that much time lost during the school year anyway; with even a half hour bus ride, they're out of the house for 6-7 hours. If she's within 15 minutes of home, (and assuming a 30 minute lunch off the clock) she'll only be gone for 9 to work full time. At least in 5th grade, I had a 90 minute bus ride; I left before everybody else, and we all got home at the same time.

[LeSellers]

So what happens when a child has a doctor appointment during the day, or gets sick at school and needs to be picked up? If the working parent has to take time off (assuming that's even an option, especially for unexpected issues; my job occasionally has me 3+ hours from home) to deal with something like that, it's far more economical to get a second car.

We rode a bus, a lot.

It was cheaper to take the bus a few times a month than to buy and maintain a car every day.

 

Insurance discounts make that almost a non-issue, especially when the car isn't financed, so anything beyond liability U/UMC and PI becomes unnecessary, (after all, my last two cars each cost less than a year of comprehensive coverage, and the current one less than the deductible would be for any policy that isn't flat out insanely priced) gas and tires are tied to mileage,

And break downs are expensive, too. I believe it was anatess who said that being poor is expensive.

As to insurance, I'll tell my agent next time that he should pay me to have a second policy.

 

If she can't pick the kids up from school, there's really not that much time lost during the school year anyway; with even a half hour bus ride, they're out of the house for 6-7 hours. If she's within 15 minutes of home, (and assuming a 30 minute lunch off the clock) she'll only be gone for 9 to work full time. At least in 5th grade, I had a 90 minute bus ride; I left before everybody else, and we all got home at the same time.

Not following this: you're saying a car is not necessary. I agree.

And who in his right mind would send his children to school?

Lehi

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

That's fine and well if you happen to live somewhere with public transportation.

[Guest MormonGator]

That's fine and well if you happen to live somewhere with public transportation.

I agree. Having one car is extremely difficult, especially with kids, other jobs, etc. If you live in a rural community, it's borderline impossible to impossible. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[Backroads]

The notion of the duty of a sick kid needing to be picked up amuses me... The school where I teach is a charter requiring so much parent volunteer time, so it seems half the time the parent of the ill child in question is somewhere in the school. The other half of them... our school hosts a big Latino population with big extended families, so despite the fact we also have a very poor student body, by and large, there is usually someone available with a car. Has nothing to do with the debate, just the thought that popped into my head.

 

Husband and I are actually considering not replacing my car when it gives up the ghost, though the most likely outcome will be Husband will insist on replacing it. Like he has suggested since we started dating 6 years ago. (I'm going to run this Chevy into the ground!) But we've discussed seriously just going to one car. For the time being, it's best (if arguably not ideal) we both work, but we do work opposite shifts and could get away with one car.

[Guest]

 

 

And who in his right mind would send his children to school?

 

At least you aren't being judgmental or anything. 

 

The attitude that if everyone doesn't think/act/make decisions the exact same way as you do is not only incredibly arrogant, but really narrow-minded. There are so many factors that go into decision making and so many variables when it comes to decisions about jobs, schooling, etc. What works for me might not work for my next door neighbor, and that's okay. 

[Backroads]

I agree. Having one car is extremely difficult, especially with kids, other jobs, etc. If you live in a rural community, it's borderline impossible to impossible. 

 

My MiL is the school bus driver in her rural community. But I don't know if the school district would appreciate her giving the whole community lifts...

[Guest MormonGator]

My MiL is the school bus driver in her rural community. But I don't know if the school district would appreciate her giving the whole community lifts...

Uber? Yes I'm being serious. I heart Uber.