Couples who are childless, and where both partners work, may be referred to by the acronym DINK, or DINKs in plural form. DINKs stands for double or dual income, no kids. A related term is DINKY, which can be interpreted as double income, no kids yet. The term came into use in the 1980s period, and DINKs were thought of as a subset of yuppies, typically perceived as affluent, with more money to spend than two parent or double income families.
There are plenty of couples where both people work, and where the couple has no children. This doesn’t always signify riches or affluence. A couple working at low paying jobs may be barely able to make it with combined salaries. DINKs are often thought of as separate, and usually represent the well-educated, higher earning folks who have chosen not to procreate, may not be able to have children, or are simply not ready for children yet.
In fact, a big concern for many of these couples is when it seems financially appropriate to have children and what will occur if they do. Will some income be lost, can a luxurious style of living be maintained, and will both members of the couple continue to work? These concerns may matter less if one member of the couple has a very high income, freeing up the other person to remain home with children. Alternately, a high income coupled with significant savings can mean children will not significantly change their financial outlook, whether a parent stays home with the kids or continues to work.
From an economic perspective, DINKs are often thought of as marketing gold. When advertisers create ads for luxury items or services, they frequently try to attract the attention of couples in this economic group, who are thought to have more disposable income. Additionally, investment agencies and banks may market to these double income partners because they have more money to save or invest as well as to spend.
One group formerly not considered in marketing strategies for DINKs includes same-sex couples. Though it is an overgeneralization to say that no same-sex couples have kids, there can be more likelihood that they don’t. Given that, some marketing companies now try to include dual income same sex couples in marketing and advertising strategies, though to do so may be counter-productive when marketing to hetero couples at the same time.
There are many stereotypes and generalizations made about this group of people. For instance, some believe that marriages of working partners with no kids are happier because there are no children. This is not always the case, though having kids may certainly increase stress levels in marriages. There can also be disparity when one member of the couple wants children while the other does not. Different life goals can create problems just as difficult as those created when a couple does have children.
On top of that, marketing strategies toward same sex couples may be totally misplaced, since many same sex couples either already have, or would like to have children. There are also some distinctions to be made between DINKs by choice, DINKYs, and DINKs by circumstance. Some couples can’t have kids, are waiting a little bit longer before they have kids, while others deliberately choose not to have kids. These couples all represent very different types of people and marketing strategies may not be equally effective or applicable to all childless couples.
