WMN: t3_2uh710_t1_co8etc2

[TITLE]

CMV: It's no longer reasonable to expect to raise a family on a single blue collar wage due to all the monthly billed, modern "necessities" we have compared to decades past

[balancespec2]

EDIT: For purposes of this view, assume blue collar to be roughly $30,000 a year household income everywhere but California and NYC, where blue collar would be closer to 50k. I am referring to household income, whether it's two minimum wage parents making 30k combined or one parent earning 30k alone. Basically I am referring to the jobs you can get without an education or trade school. A single parent cannot afford to raise a child on a blue collar wage. A married couple cannot afford to raise a child on a single persons blue collar wage (in many but not all cases). Compared to 50 to 100 years ago, it is *much* more expensive to live by "first world standards" than it used to be. 50 to 100 years ago, you really just needed food, shelter and clothing, and of course an education. As living things, we still really only *need* the same things, but to survive in the first world above what people consider poverty here, you need the following: -Transportation (your own if you live in a rural area) -A cell phone. Good luck getting a job without one. -A computer and internet connection. -Health insurance. and I'm sure you guys can add many others. It's comforting to think about how we live like kings today compared to 50 or 100 years. All the technology we have that makes our lives better and more enriched. It comes at a price though. It seems that every decade or two, a new luxury became a necessity and with that, a new monthly bill was added. (Think car payments, insurance, computers, internet, cell phones, then smart phones, data plans, etc). While a single person can reasonably enjoy all of these things, it's a bit more of a burden to try to provide them for family members too. I think that if we were living 50 or 100 years ago that you could easily raise a family as a waitress or factory worker, due to the low overhead of running a household. I do not think that is possible anymore without living in what the first world would consider poverty. Bottom line, if you choose to have kids when you can't afford to provide for them and your household all the modern "necessities", then I do not think you have room to complain about being in (first world) poverty. My definition of first world poverty is you are not starving to death, you have clean water, and you have a roof over your head at night (even if it's a homeless shelter, it's still a roof). Now, what will change my view? Someone showing me an example of a modern economy where you can have all these modern day necessities and raise a family as well (without financial stress) while working a single blue collar job. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Omega037]

Japan is a modern economy whose society is mostly a large middle class, and many of these jobs are blue collar (rice farmer, fisherman, repairman, shop owner, etc), especially in rural areas.

[mbleslie]

Japan has an extremely high cost of living. Also perhaps because of this high cost of living the birthrate is plunging. Japan has next to no immigration at all, making a comparison even less attractive.

[Omega037]

It has a high cost of living in Shinjuku, but not so much in more rural areas. As for the birth rate and immigration, these are irrelevant to the question being asked by the OP.

[BaconCanada]

Japan is also suffering from a decades long depression, very high cost of living, extreme work hours and a very high suicide rate paired with plummeting birth rates. If anything Japan supports OPs view.

[Omega037]

The depression is at the macro-level and mostly has to do with issues of deficit spending and globalization unrelated to the question at hand. The very high cost of living is true in the middle of downtown Shinjuku, but less so in more rural areas like where I lived (Kagawa Prefecture). It is why many Japanese return to their hometowns to raise families. The long work hours are a function of Japanese culture, the actual amount of productivity is the same or less than an American worker who spend far less hours at work. In other words, it isn't so much that they *have* to work long hours as the culture expects them to do so. They could all work less and the system would function the same. The suicide rate is high relative to other countries, but again it is more cultural (how they view suicide) and pretty much unrelated to OPs question. The falling birth rates are in large part due to overpopulation of cities and a changing culture (in which women do not wanna be tied down as stay at home moms from young ages). Regardless of the reasons though, nothing you listed here really has to do with the fundamental question of whether a blue collar worker can support a family and have a middle class lifestyle in a modern economy. The answer is they definitely can in semi-rural areas of Japan if they choose that path. In fact, high school is not a requirement in Japan, so they can be even more "blue collar" than what the OP suggested.

[UniverseBomb]

I well argue that service industry and retail jobs that now pay low wages like $8 are no longer feasible, but you can still do a fine job raising a family with manual labor jobs like construction. I've seen it done enough times, you'll either eventually wind up middle class or right below it.

[raanne]

That seems like a lowball for blue collar work. Blue collar which includes police, nurses, electricians, etc. who all make much higher wages. I think there is a difference between "blue collar work" and "minimum wage work" as well, which should be recognized. One is a career that typically is focused more around physical work, and the other is just a job (not a career).

[Theopaulson]

I would say the modern conveniences are not that bad. It is housing that is tough. Try living in a decent suburb with a good school and enough job prospects to make it blue collar. With a few kids- most suburbs are difficult to afford. It would be hard to spend less than 12 grand a year on housing in most suburban areas. Moving to more rural or blue collar areas and you will find substandard schools and limited job prospects.

[GoldenEst82]

This is absolutely true. Housing prices are directly connected to the educational opportunities that better neighborhoods provide.

[raanne]

First off, separating 50 years ago from 100 years ago (given 1965 is fairly different from 1915), lets just address 50 years ago. In 1965, you still needed transportation, so we will call that a wash. If anything its cheaper now than it was. Yes you need a cell phone, but you no longer need a home phone, so that is pretty even. A computer and internet connection are nice, but not necessary. Many people use the library, and with a decent cell phone package you can easily cross internet off your list. You talk about the burden of providing them for family members, but an internet connection for a single person or a family is still goign to be the same cost. Generally speaking, many kids don't have cell phones until they are in middle school at the earliest. And even with that, on my unlimited data smart phone plan its only something like $25/month to add an extra line. Health insurance would be free for people in this income range as well. Essentially, what you are lamenting is the lack of minimum wage increases, as 2 parents working minimum wage full time make around 30k. If minimum wage had kept up with inflation, then this wouldn't be the issue. the idea that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to give them a cell phone is a bit extreme though. Whats next - cable tv? a tablet? At what point do modern luxuries become necessities?

[skinbearxett]

It's not about the increase in costs, it is about the decrease in wages. Wages have levelled out for the past 30+ years while inflation has continued. Robert Reich has a great documentary on YouTube called 'inequality for all' which covers the economic situation we are now in. It is important to remember that our situation used to be one parent working, one at home, no major credit. In the 70s it was both parents work, but no major debt. In the 90s it became both parents work and credit cards galore.

[Exribbit]

Actually, nominal wages have increased. Real wages (inflation already taken into account) have leveled out.

[angeion]

Was this post inspired by Dan Carlin's latest podcast?

[balancespec2]

No its been a long standing view of mine.

[jay520]

[STA-CITE]> Bottom line, if you choose to have kids when you can't afford to provide for them and your household all the modern "necessities", then I do not think you have room to complain about being in (first world) poverty. [END-CITE]What is your view? Is it the title or is it that these people have no room to complain?

[balancespec2]

Both, they're kind of the same view. I'm arguing that it's no longer reasonable in today's world and people should think before saddling themselves with debt like that.

[Diabolico]

[STA-CITE]> I'm arguing that it's no longer reasonable in today's world and people should think before saddling themselves with debt like that. [END-CITE]Is the problem that you can't support yourself above first world poverty standards on a blue collar job? or Is the problem that blue collar people try to do it at all? I think this is where a lot of the confusion about your view comes from.

[balancespec2]

That they try to do it at all

[Diabolico]

So your view is that poor people should stop reproducing because they can't afford cell phones? I'm not trying to lampoon you, but that's what I'm getting from your posts and I figure you'd like to clarify that statement.

[balancespec2]

No. I'm saying if you have a kid and you're poor don't expect to be able to afford all the first world comforts. If you want a first world standard of living and your broke, don't have kids.

[silverionmox]

Most people in that situation did have a sufficient income but lost it later. Your reasoning doesn't apply to them - life isn't under our individual control to that extent.

[riggorous]

[STA-CITE]> I'm saying if you have a kid and you're poor don't expect to be able to afford all the first world comforts. [END-CITE]What are these first world comforts that poor people with children are complaining about not having?

[GoldenEst82]

There is a big swath of space that is "first world " poverty. First world poverty is living in a car, rather than a slum. Also, your veiwpoint has little compassion for those that fall into poverty- often through age and effects of globalization. To say that everyone who cannot afford a smart phone and data plan, should be shamed for procreating, is judgmental and rather absurd.

[mizz_kittay]

But that view is just so lacking of empathy. You explain clearly how and why this problem of working-class poverty exists, and you explain how it exists because of society - not because of any one individual's choice. But then, immediately after explaining how society has created a problem, you then blame the individual members of society for having to deal with a problem they didn't create, and you blame *the individuals* for having the natural desire to reproduce that almost all human beings have and have had since the beginning of mankind because the individuals live in *a society* that makes it difficult for them to reproduce comfortably.

[balancespec2]

I'm saying that if you want to live in NYC... you probably won't be able to afford your own car if you aren't upper middle class. (Analogy) Noones stopping you but good luck staying financially stable

[the-axis]

[If you don't waste your money you can live on ~25k a year.](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/01/16/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2014-spending/) Granted, my example has plenty of extra money for unexpected expenses and has invested in creating a living situation that enables such a lifestyle. On the other hand, people do live on a single minimum wage income, and since they do, anyone with more money than that can learn from them how to not spend (but do avoid learning to live on credit, that ends poorly). Car payments shouldn't be a thing, ever. Get one used and it will do just fine. Or hell, a bike. Smart phones are a luxury, a basic cell or home phone is all you need for a job. Internet at the local library if you need to cut expenses more. Your basic necessities listed and actual basic necessities you can live with (and hold a blue collar job) may be quite different. And providing for kids if you can barely provide for yourself... well, I agree and I don't feel bad for those people either. I'm assuming a person at the poverty line. Below, I know it can be more difficult to get out, but anywhere above, it comes down to spending within your means. *** It is amazing how cheaply you can live if you try.

[dsws2]

For that matter, you can live in unlimited luxury on no income at all, if you have a pre-paid contract for people to provide your every whim. Having your house already paid off, having your car already paid off (or enough money on hand to buy one for cash), and so on is basically the same kind of thing, just less of it. But low income tends to go with low wealth.

[Pinewood74]

While I also cited that same MMM article, you can't just quote that article and call it good. MMM has a paid off home mortgage, that's going to eat up a large portion of many budgets and would expand MMM's budget out to about $35k. Also, biking everywhere is not going to be feasible for a blue collar worker. They aren't necessarily going to be able to afford a house near their work. They also need some retirement savings. That MMM article is definitely a good baseline, but you need to massage the numbers (remove healthcare costs because medicaid, remove vacation costs, but scale food up to 4 people, etc.) to make it apply here.

[the-axis]

Sure, in that case I will Again say MMM has invested in making his lifestyle livable with his chosen luxuries on 25k and let you do the math and hand waving to make a better approximation of what a no luxury bare minimum may be.

[cdb03b]

We are talking about family wages here. Since you posted the stuff it should have been you massaging the numbers, not us. You lead a very false premise by not doing so.

[balancespec2]

It's possible but I'm not sure that's a realistic situation for most people. How is his housing expense zero? What if you can't afford to buy a house?

[ejp1082]

I'll argue with the "due to". We'll just take for granted that there's a lot more "monthly bills" today than there were in decades past. Cable and smartphones didn't exist in the 1960's (though I think you're discounting how many subscription services used to be necessary that technology has eliminated. No one gets delivered blocks of ice to their ice box anymore, for example) But let's look at [how the family budget has actually evolved in the last century](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/). Note in particular that the price of food has gone down dramatically, from about 30% of the family budget in 1950 to 15% today. This is largely due to increased efficiencies is modern farming and distribution. That's 15% savings that go right into the pockets of families, or an extra $4500 or so less taxes. That's easily enough to pay for a cable and smartphone bill. So it's simply not the extra necessities that are breaking family's budgets, because the costs of all necessities have decreased dramatically, even when you include the new ones. So why is it so hard to support a family today on a single income compared to previous decades, especially given that it was more expensive to do so then? The answer is income stagnation. [Workers haven't gotten a raise since 1980 or so](http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/photos/wages_overtime_UnitedStates.png), and many have actually lost ground. It's harder to raise a family today not because we're spending more than our parents and grandparents, but because we're poorer compared to them.

[balancespec2]

∆ Great point. I forgot about all the stuff we no longer need due to automation. Would be interesting to see a study done that compares necessities that became obsolete with necessities that were added. I still think reproducing and having a first world standard of living is a luxury not a right (i.e. you can either have one or the other as a poor person) but I didn't think about all the bills we no longer have. For example I lease my car so I never have to worry about unexpected car repairs. The internet allows troubleshooting of everything from medical shit to appliances so it saves on going to the doctor a or calling a repairman, etc

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ejp1082. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ejp1082)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[ghostmcspiritwolf]

define blue collar. construction workers, tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc.), ironworkers, factory workers, and employees of public works departments all make pretty good wages. That would be one classic definition of "blue collar." relatively few people work in these fields compared to decades past, however, especially factory workers. Service workers in relatively less skilled positions do not generally make great wages, and are often included in other definitions of "blue collar." While professional waiters and waitresses actually can make good money, this is not the case for gas station attendants, fast food workers, grocery store clerks, etc.

[balancespec2]

Jobs you can get without a trade school or college. Or any job that pays $30,000 or less in the midwest, or less than $50,000 in California/NYC etc. I'm talking household income by the way, so basically single parents, or families with a stay at home parent and one wage earner. Or it could be two wage earners making minimum wage.

[raanne]

[STA-CITE]> Jobs you can get without a trade school or college [END-CITE]So - Nursing, police, electricians, plumbers, etc - that would generally be considered blue collar - you are excluding?

[Pinewood74]

The average construction worker makes $35k per year. After taxes that is about $31.6k for a family of four. Mr. Money Mustache (an early retirement blogger) lived off [$25k](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/01/16/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2014-spending/) last year. Now, this didn't include a house payment which I estimated to be at about $700 a month, but it also included $4200 in healthcare costs which our construction worker wouldn't have had because he qualified for Medicaid. In addition it included about $8k in assorted luxuries such as vacations and organic food. Let's call the organic food a wash because he only had to feed 3 people and put the luxury budget at $6k. Counting up all the differences between his budget and our blue collar guys budget you're looking at a yearly budget of $23200. Now, MMM also bikes everywhere so there's going to be some transportation costs which the normal family will have, but I think the $8000 spare dollars should more than cover that and a little bit of retirement savings. It's definitely doable and it's not like you'd be living some awful lifestyle, just being super careful with your money and not wasting it on eating out or booze constantly.

[ghostmcspiritwolf]

I've worked construction in the past. My supervisor had only a high school diploma and was making well over 50K a year, in a fairly rural area. This was the rule more than the exception. This is absolutely not true of all jobs requiring only a high school education, but to say it's not *possible* to make decent money in a blue collar job is far different from saying it's much more difficult or that it's uncommon. Also, I think your 30K and 50K cutoffs are somewhat circular reasoning. You can't say blue collar wages are too low and then define "blue collar" as an income level.

[balancespec2]

Well unfortunately I can't change the post title. But for purposes of the argument replace blue collar with 30 to 50k depending on cost of living index

[ghostmcspiritwolf]

but that changes the entire nature of your argument. Saying blue collar jobs don't pay enough to raise a family on is a very, *very* different thing from saying that a certain level of income isn't sufficient to raise a family on.

[balancespec2]

As far as I know blue collar is just an adjective. Is there a hard income amount for it posted somewhere?

[ghostmcspiritwolf]

Blue collar *is* an adjective, and it traditionally refers to manual labor. It usually includes trades, which pay better than unskilled labor, but blue collar jobs in general don't pay all that poorly, they're just harder to come by than they were a few decades ago. There isn't a specified income level for blue collar jobs in general, and that's my point. You started out by saying that a certain type of work (blue collar) couldn't support a family, and then changed your position to a certain income level, regardless of the type of work being done.

[balancespec2]

I'm not sure how the type of work is relevant at all to raising a family. Based on the context of the title it should have been clear it was referring to income. I'm sorry if it wasnt.

[fayryover]

[STA-CITE]>Based on the context of the title it should have been clear it was referring to income. [END-CITE]Why? Blue collar does not refer to income but a type of work (manual labor). So why would your title clearly be about income. And if it is clearly about income then the use of the term 'blue collar' implies it is clearly about income of blue collar jobs. Which implies you think the majority of blue collar jobs pay badly. So it was a relevant argument against the post.