Times have really changed in the last 50 years.  More and more households have two-income couples with dependent children to feed.  I think it has become the norm to believe that both partners must have full-time employment just to maintain a decent standard of living.

But how many people have actually done the math to determine the cost-benefit?  If spouse number 2 earns say $30,000, how much of that really filters down to additional disposable income for the family? Taxes take a big bite of it.  And what about the costs associated with the job, like child care, employee dues, uniforms or dress clothing, auto expense and so on?  And how does that person's absence from the family impact the family . what is that cost, if you could dollarize it?

If you have never done the math, the outcome might really surprise you.  I have a rule that I try to follow at all times: before I incur a cost, whether it is in dollars or my time, the benefit has to be sufficient to make it worthwhile.  Otherwise, I pass. And I think most people have a similar rule, but often we fail to put the pencil to the theory.

I believe quite a few families make the assumption that a second income is always beneficial, and never take the time to measure it.  If you wonder about that, then you should get your hands on this book, Two Incomes and Still Broke?  Linda Kelley has done an excellent job in defining the problem and in providing the reader with the necessary tools to measure the benefit.  Her extensive research revealed that many couples are worse off, not better.  Allow me to offer a direct quote from the book:

"The Bottom Line - or spendable income - is the main yardstick for those who work for dollars.  It's what's left of a paycheck after factoring in all job-related expenses (JRE) and perks.  Because job expenses wear so many disguises, many second incomers' incidental vocation is "money laundering".  Money pours into their budgets, spins and agitates, and then pours down the JRE (job related expense) drain.  As a result, the true financial benefit is so meager they don't contribute toward any gain."

I couldn't have said that better.  Don't conclude that I oppose two income families.  I don't.  But I do believe the benefits must outweigh the costs if it is to make financial sense.  And in my experience, I have witnessed many young couples who seemingly spin in circles and know not that they are worse off for having chased after a dream that is, for them, a myth. As the book cover says, "Its not how much you make, its how much you keep"