Five Myths of Divorce, CS, and Custody in the USA

Your father's standard of living did not include internet, microwave ovens, big screen TVs, cell phones, and lots of other things that are considered normal parts of the standard of living today. Back then (at least in my father's age) few people had health insurance, and certainly not dental insurance. Most houses did not have dishwashers, and if a family owned a car at all, it was only one, not one for each driver.

All things considered, you probably are living at a higher standard of living than your father did. Considering ONLY the cost of housing is not a true reflection of the standard of living.

Also, a lot of your standard of living is dependent on where you choose to live. You live in a very expensive part of the country. From the generalities you've given, I suspect my income is very close to yours. I live in a $190,000 suburban house ( 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2000 SF, 2 car garage) in an excellent school district, amongst educated neighbors. I support 3 people on my salary, plus pay my mortgage and all other expenses... including health insurance for my kids.

My folks' house was bigger and nicer than mine, but all things considered I think my standard of living is equal to or better than what they had. I would not be able to replicate this standard of living if I were to choose to live where you do.

That is a good post, but (and it will be full of very big buts) …

Big TV does not cost any more than small TV did 20 years ago, in real terms (and $500 TV every 15 years is so meaningless compared to five-figure annual property tax) – but you know that.

Cell phone (only) is less than he paid for POTS – but you know that. And $244 / year mobile phone is far less than five-figure property tax (at 7.1% CAGR in NJ.) – but you know that.

I am confident (not having the data though) my father had far better health cover than employers offer today. Not to mention the ridiculous 6%+ CAGR heath inflation – but you know that.

I don’t choose where I live, my employer does (I would move in an instant if I could.)

And we haven’t even begun to talk about longer work weeks for lesser security, no pension, etc – but you know that.

Fact is, men have lost real wages in the US. Full stop.

Cost of housing, the largest expense for most people.

"A house is just a box with a top on it, where you keep all your stuff."

George Carlin, paraphrased. I think...

I live very similarly to you, my wonderous wonder of all wonderwomen.

And I live well.


- Saul

Now that everyone is getting along, maybe I should not stir up the nest but here goes...

This is just an observation I have made over the years - take it as you may...

I work in the health industry. There is a federal mandate that child support agencies may send a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMSCO) to an employer. These QMCSOs are issued to an employer giving the employer the authority to add a child unto a health plan and take any necessary deductions out of an employee's paycheck without authorization from the employee. These are issued when an employee has a court order to provide health coverage for their child but they fail to do so.

So these QMCSOs are issued because "deadbeat" parents are not fulfilling their obligation as issued by the court.

Here is the part that is just an observation so take it how you may...

I have seen hundreds of these QMSCOs and out of all them, only one has been issued on a female employee.

With that, you can draw a few conclusions and I am not really sure how accurate they are.

Conclusion one - Men are more often responsible to cover their children under their health plans.

Conclusion two - Men more often shirk their responsibility of covering their children under their health plans.

Conclusion three - In my observation, QMSCOs are more likely issued on people making a lower wage than average and typically these employees have been male due to the industry/work (at least for the plans I administer) and that is why there seems to be a slant towards men appearing as "deadbeat" parents.

(Modified - My money is on a combination of conclusion one and conclusion three.)

So, it would seem that a salary of @$150-160k would be roughly equivalent to your father's situation 25 years ago.

I am trying to find a job out of this welare state - trying!

I won't bore you to remind you the CPI has not in it owner-occupied housing, which inflates faster than CPI.

And again, I face regional data, not national data.

And customary credit terms for mortgage is housing cost (principal, interest, tax, and homeowner's premium ought to be at or under 28% of salary - at least, before the current economic quagmire got rolling.)