|
Fascinating article in the Post. For DC, if annual COL for a two-earner couple is $77,100 - an extra 55%, or 42,100 is needed to cover the cost of one child. Daycare is a huge part of that of course. No wonder people aren't having kids.
https://wapo.st/45hfpUx Lots of interesting data in this article. |
| Then wife stays home |
| This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM. |
| Water is wet. |
That is long term hurting you, because their career and salary could grow over those 5-9 years, and then if they try to return to work after a decade at home options may be limited. |
| This is why women find it more difficult than men to climb the ladder in this country. |
Yeah, but even wetter than I thought. |
| Water's wet and the sky is blue. This is not new information. |
|
Feeding, clothing, a bed to sleep in do not cost much.
Daycare (or earnings hit), bigger house, activities, college, and setting them up is what costs $$$. A lot of that is keeping up with the Joneses. We take it for granted that it’s all “necessary”. Myself included. |
Wife? You mean parent. |
|
OP- I hear you. It's a problem- both the labor and expense of child rearing in the US with two working parents. Back when my DS was young there was no "work from home" or meaningful flexibility. It's a major reason why we delayed children and then had one child and stopped there.
Plenty of couples are choosing not to have children. Some couples have a SAHP (mostly women) and there's a high cost to that- career, how society views SAHMs, and being financially dependent on another person can be risky. |
There is a huge opportunity cost to the wife staying home - lost pay increases, lost seniority, lost employment opportunities after the kids are older. Those costs should be included in the analysis. |
No, I meant wife. |
| Most women won't earn more than men anyway so it truly makes more sense for them to stay home. |
|
Young children require stability of care, basic competence, and love — to grow up healthy. Which daycare provides all of that? |