Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Call me nuts but someone like a fireman who has a wife with an income should comfortable be able to buy a detached home, support a family of 4-6, save for retirement, and afford a vacation here and there. 30 years ago the fireman wouldn't have needed the dual income to comfortably afford that. A second income was added, and many still can't afford that, and that's if you manage to get that fireman job, which now takes years of high effort to get.
This is a mess.
|
Can't a fireman do that now? Let's assume a wage of $90,000 for a firefighter (and assuming he has no 2nd, part time job like lots of firefighters I know) let's assume his wife makes $60,000. That's $150,000. He's got a great pension, so there's retirement set.
I don't know anyone that has 4 kids anymore, but let's assume 2-3 kids. If they buy a $400,000 house in the outer suburbs. 2 used vehicles. Assuming vacations are reasonable (camping in the mountains rather than $10,000 family vacations every year) and no ridiculous competitive hockey fees for the kids, they should be able to have a nice life - keep in mind families 30-40 years ago weren't taking their kids to Mexico and paying 5-10k a year for kids hockey.
The days of one breadwinner have been over for a long time. Does it make sense today that a dad who works as a store clerk, or bus driver should be able to support of a family of 5 like the old days? Should women not be in the workforce anymore, or have their fields super low paid again? There's a reason construction labourers are still paid much high than early childhood educators, because men historically needed to support a family.