![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103034-100x100.png\")
RE: Libraries, except if you live in Philadelphia where apparently they axed the budget on public libraries? or so the legend goes...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@hypnotik_jello: Good news! The Philadelphia library system will not be shut down after all. Yesterday the state legislature finally passed the sales tax increase/pension restructuring bill that was needed to avert the \"doomsday\" budget. So the libraries are safe...for the time being...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-865061-100x100.png\")
Are we supposed to be impressed by a family living on a budget that is still slightly higher than the national median household income? They haven't even made it over the half-way hump into \"how the other half lives.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479856-100x100.png\")
@OneTrickPony: No. It's just a party trick. This family used to have $6 - $7k per month for their needs, and now they have $3500. They'll adjust to that without using savings to make up for what they're missing.
Much of this depends on how much their house payment and property taxes are. We looked at some properties in Chicago and burbs online to get an idea of the cost of living. $10,000 a year in property taxes?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@catastrophegirl: I live in Peoria. Almost all my friends in the Chicago area pay more more per month in mortgage than I pay in total yearly property taxes. And, yeah, many of them pay quite a bit more in property taxes than I pay in total yearly mortgage.
Similarly-sized houses. The only difference is geography.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): hehe, my yearly property taxes are pretty close to my monthly mortgage. no city taxes!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350988-100x100.png\")
@catastrophegirl: Chicago taxes are CRAZY, which is why so many people start moving over towards NW Indiana. While the town I live in, Valparaiso, IN, isn't that cheap, it's still less expensive than Chicago or most of it's surrounding suburbs.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
I don't know, maybe I have it really good as a single guy, but 54 grand seems like a lot of money to me, even with a kid. Maybe I'm frugal (or a cheapskate) but I've lived comfortably on a quarter of that - I guess I don't have house payments, but even so...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
@coren: I have plenty of friends with kids who live well on sums far below that, and I can say with certainty that my husband and I are doing nicely with about twenty grand less than that a year. Makes me wonder how they were living.
@JulesNoctambule: Yeah - I had a job where I made about 3600 pretax (I wanna say it was 2800 after) and I know that if you cut that in half I'd be fine sans a major emergency, and that's with me supporting someone else as well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1220420-100x100.png\")
@coren: My husband and I live on less than half that with 2 cars plus insurance, rent, hospital bills, and my tuition. The tuition is killing us since we are paying full price out of pocket with no help whatsoever and no way to get financial aide.
This is a feat for someone used to making so much more, but I'm not that impressed. Wish I could buy chocolate whenever I felt like it.
@coren: The Chicago Suburbs can be really expensive. The little bitty \"starter home\" I lived in when I was a little kid, before the burbs got insane, is worth about $600,000 these days, with around $6,000 in property taxes. And that's AFTER it lost a ton of value in the crash.
But yes, I also think $54k is a lot of money.
@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Ouch - the joys of homeownership I guess. I didn't consider that it was Chicago - you have to have a ginormous place or lots of land to come up with a pricetag that high where I'm at...but I've seen Seattle prices and they're up there
@coren: The other thing about Illinois is that Illinois funds its schools through local property taxes. Property taxes in the Chicago suburbs are so high partly because they pay for excellent schools. Property taxes in Illinois in general are high because they pay for schools in general.
@coren: It's pretax, though, remember. Around $3400 per month--doesn't go very far for a family of three with a house and two vehicles, but it's obviously doable.
@thesadtomato: I don't know about vehicle payments, but it sounds like she's not driving her car much, if at all, which would minimize that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1013031-100x100.png\")
See, and if they find themselves gainfully employed in the near future, they should continue living the same way so, the next time a crisis strikes, they'll have enough in savings to carry them safely through.
The more money you have, the more you spend, it seems. I make very, very little money in my current job, but my only debt is student loans (and that debt is substantial). I live very frugally and I like to think, should I suddenly find a job that pays twice what I'm making now, I could save money very easily.
Yet, my friend who makes three times as much money as I do is perpetually broke.
The consumer mind is a strange place.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1504-100x100.png\")
@bennilynn: One thing we don't know is if they do have substantial savings. They want to stretch her severance without dipping into their savings. They might have plenty, but don't want to be stuck without in case of an emergency.
But, yes, they would be much better off in the future if they lived a more frugal lifestyle.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-86968-100x100.png\")
@bennilynn: It's not just the consumer mind, but alot of social pressures that come with various peer groups, which are related to your job.
So for example, if you go from working in academia to working in an office, the pay goes up, but you're expected to wear a suit every day, so you have to buy a few suits. Also if everyone around you is making the same amount and living a much \"better\" lifestyle, many people feel envious and want to catch up with what they see their (debt drowned) peers doing.
Not to mention all the couples who don't discuss finance and where one spouse spends alot without making sure that's sustainable.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-808630-100x100.png\")
@huadpe: Too true, although luckily my husband is a geek amongst geeks in a small company where even the boss/owner is a geek, so none of them ever wear ties or suits. And the company gave him some company shirts that he can wear if he wants to...I think the only time they ask him to is at trade shows for easy identification, and he doesn't do many of those.
And half of them are long-haired, bearded hippies, totally ripe for being accused as terrorists every time they board a plane. So they're not spending money on haircuts either.
But yeah, a lot of why it's more cost-effective for me to be a stay-at-home-mum is that most jobs I could get that pay well would require me to have an expensive wardrobe, even more so for me being plus-sized.
@huadpe: True, true. Although my friend in the example mentioned above works from home for a construction company, so no suits there. ;p
I live well below my means, though, even with my limited income. I still manage to sock away about 15% to 20% of my income each month, tossing it into a pathetic sort of savings account. And yet, I'm a very healthy eater (no junk food, fast food, or ready-made stuff, due to allergies), I have nice clothes, a car, a pet, cable (that I split with a roommate), and that's pretty much all I need.
In my friend's situation, it's not that she's broke trying to keep up with a specific kind of lifestyle, per se. It's just that she spends money on a lot of little junk (coffee every morning, eating out most nights, cigs, impulse buys, etc). Those little things add up insanely quickly and, honestly, I feel that's where a lot of folks run into trouble.
I was living the high life about six years ago, making really good money. Then, I found myself unemployed rather abruptly. Six months of job searching landed me in the job I'm in now, but I learned to live lean during those six months I was living off my meager savings. I think that's one of those life lessons you don't can't really learn unless you're in that kind of situation. At least, it never really occurred to me until I found myself in a pinch.
@huadpe: \"working in an office, the pay goes up, but you're expected to wear a suit every day, so you have to buy a few suits.\"
I wish! When I become company President, the first thing that will change is the dress code. I am in sales and travel all over the US and most office people I see, unfortunately, dress more Microsoft Campus slob than Mad Men slick. It's like everyday is casual Friday.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@MarcosMaximus: Ick. I hate wearing nice clothes. Part of my office job entails crawling around on the floor of the file room and handling messy (sawdust-covered) wood samples and dirty boxes. All my clothes come from Walmart and are washable, and I dress as much as I can for comfort. I'm not spending a lot on clothes just to tear them up and get crap all over them.
the sad thing is the her health insurance will only last a full year. and after that just one thing that make them lose that home they worked so hard to keep.
that is why we need to fix health care now.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-373342-100x100.png\")
@Joeb5: Yeah, because taxpayers should be forced to support these people so they can keep their house in Crystal Lake, IL. There are plenty of options for this family to keep health insurance, some of which may require sacrifice for them. there is no free lunch, regardless of what Obama might be peddling (healthcare w/out raising taxes or the deficit).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498940-100x100.png\")
@Joeb5: Are you talking about COBRA? (Didn't read the linked-to article). If so, the initial period is 18 months and then you can extend that our further under certain circumstances. Not saying that's so much super awesome than 12 months, but it's something. Now affording the COBRA payments, that's another story...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1241864-100x100.png\")
Haaaaah, 54k? Most Americans would BE so lucky. Give me a break. Even if most of that goes towards the mortgage, I bet they have plenty left to blow on their nice cars and \"necessities.\"
Libraries are awesome. More people should use and donate to them. We go to free public events all the time. Hell, just a trip to the park or a walk around our community is an exciting day. Throw in a meal cooked at home and there is nothing better.
@goodfellow_puck: Living in the suburbs of cities like Chicago, Boston, NY or SF is just plain expensive. I have a below average size mortage in a Boston suburb and mortgage, property taxes and insurance add up to 2100 per month. Whether buying or renting for a family of four you won't spend much less than that within 50 miles of where I am. Add in food, electricity and heat and you need a salary of 40k. And note that you haven't bought clothes, paid for car maintenance or gas, are not covering school loans, paying for cable TV, saving for retirement, saving for college, taking vacations or anything else.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@bishophicks: And it's not like you can just sell off that house quickly and buy a cheaper one, either.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-513573-100x100.png\")
@goodfellow_puck: I \"donate\" to my library all the time. Just now I owe about $20 in late fines. Sigh. The more kids I have, the later the books get turned in, it seems. Still, it's a great resource if you love to read like my family does.
i would think that the best thing to do would be for both of them to look for new jobs, rather than try this experiment which might cause them to lose their house.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
@steveliv: In the article, they state that part of the reason they're doing this is so Karin can look for a job she'll enjoy, and not feel forced to accept the first thing she finds in a panic.
They have their own family and child-rearing reasons for wanting the dad to stay at home with the kid. I'm not gonna comment on that, it's not my business.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158650-100x100.png\")
@steveliv: I don't see why they don't get jobs and put all that money straight into savings. They can still do the experiment (if they have enough will power).
@ecwis:
but that may forced them to drive to jobs and they want to cut back on useing a car. or they can take the train but then they will need to pay for that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@Joeb5: Potentially getting a new job and about $40,000+ in income .....or sitting on your butt, not spending $40 to fill up the gas tank once every two weeks.
This is seriously a debate?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-523434-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: i wish i only spent $40 dollars every 2 weeks on gas. I spend $35 a week. 95% of my mileage in a week is for work.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580579-100x100.png\")
@Joeb5: I dunno, it seems like the cost/benefit ratio would make it worth having to use transportation to get to a new job that would greatly boost their income.
Crystal Lake is a nicer suburb then I live in and I can see why 54,000 would be tough to get by on.
If you live in a part of the country that the cost of living was lower, 54,000. would seem like a windfall but around here it is not.
My Chicago suburb is by far a lower quality then Crystal Lake and it is still very expensive. My 2 bedroom 1 bath 800 sq.foot ranch cost me 230,000 - it is 60 years old! i wish I could have bought it for half the price.
Sales tax is the highest in the country at 10%.
Crystal lake is much nicer and more expensive to live in!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-451722-100x100.png\")
Come on people! Give them a break. $54K can be a lot for someone living in Billings; but it is nothing for someone living in New York. Besides, we have not heard yet the details of their private life. Do we know if any of them has a health issue that require expensive medications? What about car insurance? There are so, so many incidentals that we do not know. Nonetheless, I wish them well in this experiment. If nothing else, it will serve them to learn what is really important.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20312-100x100.png\")
@Aisley: Median household income in the US is something around $50000 a year. This is an article, literally, about a household becoming average.
@jessedybka: You have no idea how statistics work. Please go to school.
A more accurate statistic would be to find the average income for that suburb. You realize that they may pay more in property tax than you pay in rent for an entire year, yes? You're not just 'OMG 50K!!!!' as if the number has a static value across the entire world, right?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-659687-100x100.png\")
@jessedybka, @veronykah: Estimated 2007 median income for Cystal Lake was almost $85K, so relatively, $54K can be tough when you have a mortgage, kids, etc. in a town that expensive
Living in the burbs can definitely be a way more expensive than living in a small apt. in the city.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-77175-100x100.png\")
@Aisley: That argument is tired.
I lived in NYC and now I live in Los Angeles, I have NEVER made anywhere near what those people make. I have friends who live in NYC with a child and for most of their life together didn't make anywhere near 45k.
It is possible to live in NYC on a small amount of money, I can guarantee you there are entire NEIGHBORHOODS in NYC and LA that probably don't make 45k/yr on average.
Living in Hollywood, 45k would not be \"nothing\" to me nor would it have been in Manhattan.
@veronykah: Tired? This argument is *accurate*.
Making over six figures, I'm \"wealthy\" by any standard other than I live in Washington D.C. Here, I drive an 8-year-old \"luxury\" compact and live in a 2000 square-foot duplex \"mansion.\"
Cost of living is different in different areas of the country. It is what it is.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
@Daveinva:
And what it is, is affluence. This cost-of-living argument misses one important thing--you get to live in the opl;ace with the higher COLA, and the higher COLA is precisely *because* they are more attractive places to live. When people say, yeah, but I'm not rich because it costs so-and-so to live here, what they're really saying is, I'm spending more to gain the (real or perceived) benefits of living in this place; i.e., they are buying something that others can't afford (like the ability to live in Manhatten below Morningside heights). Last time I checked, the ability to buy something that others could not was a pretty good working definition of wealth.
Everyone is in a different situation with different bills and different challenges.... Why not just support anyone that is trying to better themselves?
I wish these folks the best!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
@LessMuda: That's not the snarky hipster way. You have to find something wrong with everyone I'm afraid :\\
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87038-100x100.png\")
We went through this 2 years ago when my partner started medical school. The advantage we had was that we were able to plan in advance... the disadvantage was that starting medical school involved a move, losing money on the previous house and renovation expenses on this one.
Anyway, except for the fact that we're racking up student loans to cover his tuition and books, we're doing really well without his income because we made lots of changes in the way we live.
Personally, I think the \"taking time\" strategy is not a good one. The job market sucks and it may take a lot of effort to find a job anytime soon, let alone one you are going to \"love\". Beeing picky seems nice for a while now, but when they end up unemployed for a year they will be kicking themselves for not looking hard for a job.
Wow, two kid's, wife, two dogs, 3 cars and a mortgage on a 1500sqft house on $30,000 a year for me.
Tell me when they want to cry some more and I'll buy them the tissue's with my spare cash sitting in the bank.
Really people it is all about what you spend and how you spend it. I took the time to work with all of my bills changing service and such till i could get everything as a flat rate every month and that amount spread over 52 weeks is put into a separate account each week to cover all bills but food and gas.
Example
Screw so many minutes for two cell phones per month and the bill being different every month. I switched to two $50 boost mobile unlimited phones. Tax and all equal just under $110 total every month and never gets higher and is fully unlimited so then we have no need for a land line either. Total savings aprox. $130 a month and no change and now we can talk anywhere in the usa unlimited.
So less equaled more.
If the consumerist would like a write up on my budget method I'd be willing to write one up to share.
@tobashadow: Do you have positive net worth? Do you live in that suburb? Where did you get that down payment for that house?
God, I'm sick of people saying \"I live in X area\" and compare themselves to this situation. You're probably not a financial genius. Nobody cares about your budget. Stop posting.
@WillB: Yes i do have positive net worth.
I got the down payment buy not buying new cars and clothes and TV's and run up credit card debt to be likes the \"crowd\".
I lived within my means and didn't buy a mcmansion.
I owe one loan which is my house, how much debt are you in?
And about the Stop Posting, bite my ass.
@tobashadow: I have positive net worth. Also, if you lived in my area, 30k a year would get you a 1br apartment in a sub-optimal area of town or a studio apartment in an average area. The whole point is that REGIONAL COSTS OF LIVING ARE VARIED AND COMPARING YOURSELF TO THEM IS ASININE.
@tobashadow: You are not proving anything. Cut your salary in half and then compare yourselves to them.
I seriously do not understand how people to not get the differences in the cost of living around the US. Blows my freaking mind.
@downwithmonstercable: It'd be funny if he turned out to have a lakeside house in Kenilworth, though.
I was adjusting my budget today and realized I could do this as well, and planned to start on Nov 1. I already posses plenty of cool stuff and have been thinning the junk heard via Ebay on nights I have nothing else going on.
Cash in savings and income from investments turn me on more than a monster HDTV or a new car(+note). It may just mean fewer sushi nights per month.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-337579-100x100.png\")
My gf and I both had jobs, but were on a limited budget, with rent, bills and other stuff we had to budget our money fairly well. We'd go to free stuff like the art museum (which is very good btw) or just go for a walk somewhere like the park. We also had a few game system and a pretty large library of games we already owned before we moved in together so that would be our activity along with watching movies (which we had a large library as well, so there was no extra money spent). Then every so often when we had extra money we would treat ourselves to something nice like ordering out.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116400-100x100.png\")
They could probably do this with scrimping and whatnot but I think it'd be far easier for her to just get another job.
They make 3 times the federal poverty line amount. I see no problem in surviving on that. If they can't afford their mortgage & property tax because Chicago is \"too expensive\" then they need to get another job or sell their house and move to somewhere they can afford. Why do people who made over 100K think they are special because they can live on the average persons wages??
If you were used to living at $100K a year, slashing to $50K with losing the house you bought when you had $100K a year is a little tough.
If all you had was $20k a year, you wouldn't have that monster mortgage.
That is why we ALL should be living below our means.
I am happy they are learn to live a more frugal life. That lesson may serve their children well.
Hmmm...according to CityData.com, \"The median income for a household in the city was $67,000, and the median income for a family was $75,000\" for Crystal Lake. My husband and I live in one of the wealthiest Chicago suburbs (median income 97k) and our combined take home pay is $2,800 a month (with no credit card debt). Here's the thing: I don't feel poor at all. I guess I didn't realize getting by on such an income was newsworthy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1238020-100x100.png\")
This is news? We (and millions of other families) purposely do that by having a stay at home mom (or dad). And we live in the DC area suburbs so it's not exactly cheap out here.
Sure, we don't have fancy cars (only one, in fact), we've skipped out on cable, don't go out to eat all the time, have older phones and only voice on them, and shopping is not a hobby for us, but we're still well fed, with a roof over our heads and putting some money away for retirement and savings.
$54K. You need at least $100K to live in New York City. If you can't make $100K here you should live elsewhere.
I don't understand why anyone has to be judgemental about their decision, lifestyle or income. We don't know the ins and outs of their financial obligations. I just think it's great that rather than moaning and wallowing, they've decided to view this as a turning point in their lives (financially and emotionally) and to move forward with a purpose and an eye toward changing the way they live.
Well, if they hadn't put it out there in the media, no one would be commenting. Moreover, knowing the \"ins and outs of their financial obligations\" is precisely what we need to know to make this \"experiment\" make any sense.
I've been reading this book called \"The Two-Income Trap,\" and the gist of it is that the secret weapon in a family's arsenal used to be having a stay-at-home parent. When the breadwinner lost his/her job, the stay-at-home parent went out and got temporary work to cover things while their partner looked for a new job. Once said partner found gainful employment again, he/she returned to work and the other became the stay-at-home parent once again. While we have no children as of yet, my husband and I had been doing well with this scenario. . .until our state couldn't pass a budget and everyone's pay was cut. (Husband works for a state university.) As such, I had to look for ways to make money until the job market in our area picks back up again for event planning, a specialty of mine.
The book also outlines why dual-income households have become the norm (according to the authors' research), especially in suburban areas: The desire to send their kids to good schools. The area immediately surrounding school districts with excellent performance records tends to skyrocket in value (relatively speaking), thus requiring two incomes to afford the housing near said good schools.
An example: One of the reasons we were able to survive on a single income was that the nearest elementary school to our rural neighborhood was nearly 30 minutes away. Early last year, a charter school was built at the entrance to our neighborhood, and suddenly everyone's property value went up. . .as did our property taxes. Our property taxes have DOUBLED since last summer, and now we've had to rearrange a LOT of things to pay the difference.
I have to wonder if that may be part of why the Kubacki family wound up in this expensive suburb, and thus the idea of living off of half their normal income is so novel?
i dont think people are taking into account where they live, etc, here in boston, 52k doesnt get you much when you factor in winter heating costs, rent, etc. at least for a family of three
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614388-100x100.png\")
@krztov: I was just thinking about how not a lot $54,000/year is to live on and then I remembered I live in Manhattan.
Have none of these commenters complaining that $54K is a ton of money never heard of poverty being a relative thing. By your logic, people making $18,000 a year shouldn't complain, because they could move down to Mexico and live like kings. But these folks live in an affluent suburb, so that money doesn't go so far relative to their expenses.
And don't try to bash them for living in an affluent suburb either...
@cc82:
But hiow is it \"bashing\" to point out that living in an affluent suburb is, well, evidence of (relative) affluence? If they want their fianancial situation private, they could keep it out of the media.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-274773-100x100.png\")
I lived in Crystal Lake, it's where I grew up. They should be fine, even if they have to move.
Why does CNN keep doing this? I've never seen an article like this about somebody that is poor, it's always somebody that makes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and then they have to live off a paltry $100,000 a year.
Considering the couple was already driving an 8 year-old car, and has an 11 year-old truck, it doesn't seem like they were spending huge amounts of money on luxuries. In the area they live in, dropping in income that much can be hard. While it would be nice for me if I made $54,000 a year, I get by on what I do make, but I rent and I don't have kids. Chicago is EXPENSIVE. Not just the cost of items, but the taxes. Property tax is high, sales tax is high. Gas prices are some of the highest in the country. For this area, that's not a high salary, especially since that is the pre-tax amount. They haven't paid federal or state income taxes out of that.
Those of you who say it's not that big of a feat to do this, well, try living on half of what you make right now and see how hard it is. You've budgeted and made long term purchases based on a much higher income. I think the principles the couple talk about can be applied to any income. While they still have more money than some, their points about buying necessities and getting them on sale and finding free activities are good.
The more money you make, the more you can (want to) spend and save. I make 80k now, but my bare minimum needs are around 30k. I just wouldn't be able to travel buy so much stuff, but I'd get better use out of the stuff i already have.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453882-100x100.png\")
Are you even kidding me? I was with you until the \"barebones\" they were trying to live off of is more than I make in a year.
Forget the actual dollar amount of their household income. If someone suddenly said to you \"starting now, you have to get by on half of your current income\", could you do it?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-184636-100x100.png\")
@schernoff: Yes, that happened to me last year. Spouse lost job and went to school. so now it's LESS than half of the income considering the tuition.
It's not easy with two people on ~$1400/month take home.
According to Money Magazine ([money.cnn.com]), the median home price in Crystal Lake is a shade under $200k. The median family income a shade under $100k. For those who are saying that $54,000 is a lot of money, how do those numbers compare to where you are?
I'm stretching half a year's pay into a year for likely the next 5 years... :/
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1222019-100x100.png\")
Gross income is > net so their take home pay is not that level. Based on their location, 54,000 gross pay is very little. Remember those home in Silicon Valley that had 800 sqft and cost a quarter million? The salaries may have been 70K but the housing was still completely out of reach. So where you live matter a great deal as to what qualifies for a lot of money. In their area, this may very well be quite a feat. What if the house payment was half of their old income? Then you have to heat and cool that home. Then there is insurance, food, utilities, children's clothing, car payments, etc... The net won't go far on the necessities alone. If someone gets sick, there is no money for that and if they go to credit cards to cover the medical bills it just gets worse and worse.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436924-100x100.png\")
What's the big deal?
We've been doing this for the past 5 years.
I quit my job to be a stay at home dad.
We're living solely on my wife's salary as a teacher which cut our income in half.
Still have cable, eat out whenever we want, take vacations, have 2 cars, etc. Plus we have a 5 year old.
We have not altered our lifestyle one iota.
We just wonder where we pissed away the equivalent of an entire salary for all those years.
To quote Christian Bale \"OHHHHHHH GOOD FOR YOU!!!!\"
Neither one of them is working and they are living off her unemployment??
Here's what they should do... go out and get everyone in the family a new cell phone for about $600 total. Get all the add-ons for a total monthly bill of about $200. Now you're paying $2400 per year, BUT you can drop the home phone, which of course saves you money (about $20-$30 per month), so now you've got $2400-$350, for a savings of -$2050! Oh wait, I forgot about the obligatory new cell phones... so we saved -$2650.
See, going cell only always saves money!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1175017-100x100.png\")
My brother and his wife did this. She lost her job in late spring, and decided not to go back to work right away so she could stay home and take care of the kids while they were out of school. My brother makes about what Chris Kubacki does. They did just fine. Now she's bored and she wants to go back to work, but she might not go full time. My brother told me, \"Wow, when she's working, we have a lot of money.\" Must be nice. :D
@speedwell, avatar of snark: Don't just look at the numbers, look at where they're living compared to your brother and sister-in-law. Cost of living may differ. Although, it's great that they managed to do well on a smaller salary (even if it may not have been a 50% cut)