at what cost?

Someone posited a question on Twitter recently asking what was the worst thing about being single; I know she was looking for emotional and non tangible reactions, but my reaction was that the worst part was the cost.

According to North American statistics (read US because Stats Can isn’t collecting data right now – don’t get me started, it’s a mess) we have officially tipped the scales and now more than 50% of households are now single. This is historically significant. It is socially significant. And it makes me wonder if finally marketers might start to consider changing the way they vend based on this new information. Read small sizes, with proportional price tags.

It’s the old mayonnaise dilemma I have about once a year when I need mayonnaise. The half-sized jar is 30 cents less than the full sized jar, but I will toss out half of the full sized jar, but it’s so much more economical to purchase the larger container. In truth I generally wait until one of them is on sale and then purchase that one. But it leads to the same question. Why am I asked to pay the same rate for half the product just because I’m single (or can’t consume the volume of product in the larger container)? The obvious answer is just to purchase the larger container on the off chance that I might consume more and then I’m not in the position of paying more, but that leads to food waste, which leads to a whole other argument about consumption and here I am still standing in the grocery aisle with a ethical dilemma over a goddamned jar of mayonnaise.

The basics and fun of life are still designed for couples, or more than one person. Rent, well other than me, who has amazingly low rent - I live as if I have roommate in terms of dollars - but for everyone else, coming up with that sum of money every month can be challenging, especially if you’re a woman and still make 30% less on average than a man for no reason that makes any sense. Vacations, while not the basics of life, are not half the cost for a single person, because most of those advertised rates and deals are based on double occupancy. And then there’s the good old ‘because female’ rationale for why things like deodorant, shampoo, razors and other genderfied items are more when you’re a woman than they are when you’re a man. Marketplace ran a show on this.

Sure there’s value in volume and in some cases it makes sense. It doesn’t cost that much more to wrap plastic around 12 rolls of toilet paper than it does 4, so it makes sense to offer it in larger packages. And let’s face it, 4 toilet rolls isn’t going to last all that long, although on the flipside, the toilet roll storage basket in my teensy little bathroom holds exactly 12 rolls, so those monster 30 packs are virtually useless to me. Sure they don’t go bad, but in my surprisingly reasonable apartment, there is very little storage space, and no place to put them until I need them. Ok, ok, I have a freezer and I can take a bigger package of say chicken and wrap it up to freeze and use later. But what if it’s something I haven’t tried and I’d like to try it once before deciding to buy a 3 month supply. Or would like to only heat up half that frozen convenience lasagna so that I won’t be eating it for the next 7 days?!

But this goes beyond marketing and consumables. Let’s talk taxes. Under Harper, a new, albeit controversial, tax break is announced for families. Great if you qualify and you have a family. Sure you’re paying for things I don’t have to consider such as educating someone other than myself, but where’s the break for me joining a gym or taking an exercise class? Only for kids you say? Hmm. They aren’t any. None. You might be able to claim some of your portion of rent under Ontario tax benefits, but so can anyone regardless of marital status. Yes, you get the same crappy education tax breaks of any student, but you aren’t able to claim yourself as a dependent and it goes on. In fact an article in The Atlantic pegged this number in the US as being over $1 Million dollars more to be single over a lifetime. Read it because the numbers are astounding.

Why are these financial penalties for being single? (Which I totally stole from an interviewer on HuffPost.) The more I read on this subject the angrier I became and if you listen to this interview you can heard the opinion of women with much more knowledge of the subject than I have. I don't have a pithy ending statement for this one. I keep trying to form a sentence about considering as a society why we revere marriage so much and why can’t we extend similar privilege to single person households too, but we need to be at a point beyond consideration and be at a point of action.  Let’s start with taxes and work backwards from there.