Guesses - will government open by late Oct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

My wife negotiated her way into a half- time, no benefits work from home gig with her employer for the first six years of our kid's life, while married to a GS-12 (and her own full time salary was less.) Part time preschool and then kindergarten helped. But no daycare.

Was this any time during the last 10 years?

2007-2013, but why would that make a difference?

I am doing this now, started in 2019. We still don't pay for aftercare even though kid is in elementary. Greatly eases our scheduling challenges, is a better situation for me mentally, and helps DH keep a job he loves. We are nowhere near rich (HHI of 180k if I get bonuses which I usually do) but we are happy and have relatively little stress, and can pay all our bills and do what we want.

Oh, and we live in DC, though we live in a condo and can't afford to move. But we only have one child so it's okay. Sometimes there are tradeoffs, but we value a happy home life and two fulfilled parents with decent work-life balance over a house with a yard.

A condo is crippling financial decision. I’m sorry you had to make that choice. Hopefully no social assessment drama from power mad HOA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

This is simply untrue. First off, many SAHMs do it temporarily -- most I know did it somewhere between 3 and 8 years. Knowing it's temporary makes it easier to make the financial sacrifices. Second and relatedly, many families with a SAHM decide to do it because they want a certain quality and type of care for young kids, and the daycare options available to them don't offer it.

That was us. I couldn't deal with our daycare options. What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons). The other options was to make sacrifices so I could stay home and care for our baby the way I wanted to. So we did that. I have a graduate degree and a career, and I am back at work now that our kid is in school. But my DH is not a high earner (I actually make more at this point) and staying home absolutely cost me money since I wasn't a low-wage earner before.

We just prioritized quality of care over other things.

If you extrapolate out the lost income , lost appreciation, and lost career growth, the nanny would have been much cheaper.

[Anonymous]

am thinking January now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

My wife negotiated her way into a half- time, no benefits work from home gig with her employer for the first six years of our kid's life, while married to a GS-12 (and her own full time salary was less.) Part time preschool and then kindergarten helped. But no daycare.

Was this any time during the last 10 years?

2007-2013, but why would that make a difference?

I am doing this now, started in 2019. We still don't pay for aftercare even though kid is in elementary. Greatly eases our scheduling challenges, is a better situation for me mentally, and helps DH keep a job he loves. We are nowhere near rich (HHI of 180k if I get bonuses which I usually do) but we are happy and have relatively little stress, and can pay all our bills and do what we want.

That's nice! We have two jobs with a combined HHI of 180k. We also don't have a standalone house with a yard (and already live outside DC). So it is a bit harder to live on just one income.

It makes sense if you have enough to pay for your baseline needs and are trading off wants to get your time back. I just think a lot of people don't realize that others can't make the same choice because they'd have to cut into needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

This is simply untrue. First off, many SAHMs do it temporarily -- most I know did it somewhere between 3 and 8 years. Knowing it's temporary makes it easier to make the financial sacrifices. Second and relatedly, many families with a SAHM decide to do it because they want a certain quality and type of care for young kids, and the daycare options available to them don't offer it.

That was us. I couldn't deal with our daycare options. What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons). The other options was to make sacrifices so I could stay home and care for our baby the way I wanted to. So we did that. I have a graduate degree and a career, and I am back at work now that our kid is in school. But my DH is not a high earner (I actually make more at this point) and staying home absolutely cost me money since I wasn't a low-wage earner before.

We just prioritized quality of care over other things.

If you extrapolate out the lost income , lost appreciation, and lost career growth, the nanny would have been much cheaper.

You're still thinking this is a purely financial decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

My wife negotiated her way into a half- time, no benefits work from home gig with her employer for the first six years of our kid's life, while married to a GS-12 (and her own full time salary was less.) Part time preschool and then kindergarten helped. But no daycare.

Was this any time during the last 10 years?

2007-2013, but why would that make a difference?

Things have gotten exponentially more expensive around here since then! People say “buy further out and leave a spouse at home”. How far out exactly? West Virginia?

And then sell your only car!! Still in shock at that response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

This is simply untrue. First off, many SAHMs do it temporarily -- most I know did it somewhere between 3 and 8 years. Knowing it's temporary makes it easier to make the financial sacrifices. Second and relatedly, many families with a SAHM decide to do it because they want a certain quality and type of care for young kids, and the daycare options available to them don't offer it.

That was us. I couldn't deal with our daycare options. What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons). The other options was to make sacrifices so I could stay home and care for our baby the way I wanted to. So we did that. I have a graduate degree and a career, and I am back at work now that our kid is in school. But my DH is not a high earner (I actually make more at this point) and staying home absolutely cost me money since I wasn't a low-wage earner before.

We just prioritized quality of care over other things.

If you extrapolate out the lost income , lost appreciation, and lost career growth, the nanny would have been much cheaper.

You're still thinking this is a purely financial decision.

Your post alludes to the poor choices at your price point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:am thinking January now

What about January would make it happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:am thinking January now

What about January would make it happen?

It doesn’t matter. They would have rescinded spending anyways to make this the normal govt anyways.

[Anonymous]

I love that the tax extension deadline of Oct 15 just ended during govt shutdown. And hearing news about how many IRS employees have been furloughed and RIF'd. It's a wonder anyone would file taxes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

This is simply untrue. First off, many SAHMs do it temporarily -- most I know did it somewhere between 3 and 8 years. Knowing it's temporary makes it easier to make the financial sacrifices. Second and relatedly, many families with a SAHM decide to do it because they want a certain quality and type of care for young kids, and the daycare options available to them don't offer it.

That was us. I couldn't deal with our daycare options. What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons). The other options was to make sacrifices so I could stay home and care for our baby the way I wanted to. So we did that. I have a graduate degree and a career, and I am back at work now that our kid is in school. But my DH is not a high earner (I actually make more at this point) and staying home absolutely cost me money since I wasn't a low-wage earner before.

We just prioritized quality of care over other things.

If you extrapolate out the lost income , lost appreciation, and lost career growth, the nanny would have been much cheaper.

You're still thinking this is a purely financial decision.

Your post alludes to the poor choices at your price point.

Your post signifies your inability to differentiate posters, among other sad qualities.

[Anonymous]

Looks like the House won't be coming in before the end of the month, so they won't even be working on a budget. So I will guess not earlier than November 15th and if ATC decide to start sicking out around Thanksgiving, that might get some attention.

[Anonymous]

Shutdown will end mid January 2026

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not always. There are folks that do not take this path of day care… but it involves sacrifices.

There are really only two people choosing sahm- those who can’t make enough to pay for daycare so it’s more cost effective for them to stay home. And those married to rich spouses.

This is simply untrue. First off, many SAHMs do it temporarily -- most I know did it somewhere between 3 and 8 years. Knowing it's temporary makes it easier to make the financial sacrifices. Second and relatedly, many families with a SAHM decide to do it because they want a certain quality and type of care for young kids, and the daycare options available to them don't offer it.

That was us. I couldn't deal with our daycare options. What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons). The other options was to make sacrifices so I could stay home and care for our baby the way I wanted to. So we did that. I have a graduate degree and a career, and I am back at work now that our kid is in school. But my DH is not a high earner (I actually make more at this point) and staying home absolutely cost me money since I wasn't a low-wage earner before.

We just prioritized quality of care over other things.

If you extrapolate out the lost income , lost appreciation, and lost career growth, the nanny would have been much cheaper.

You're still thinking this is a purely financial decision.

Your post alludes to the poor choices at your price point.

Your post signifies your inability to differentiate posters, among other sad qualities.

The PP I replied to said this:

“ What we could afford was depressing to me. I wanted my child to have more 1:1 attention with a really loving, nurturing caregiver. We couldn't afford the better daycares that offered that and we couldn't make a nanny share work either (for both money and logistical reasons).”

You did not identify as a DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open enrollment for ACA plans began yesterday in Idaho.

One couple got notice that their monthly premium next year would jump from $51 to $2,232 as subsidies expire.

25,000 Idahoans are expected to be priced out of coverage.

This is what's at stake.

+1. That’s $186/month, which is still a fraction of what most Americans pay for healthcare.

The premium with subsidy is too low. $51/month for a couple? They would pay $370/month as a couple for Medicare part B only. They will pay more if they want part D drug coverage under Medicare.

$51/month under ACA does not seem reasonable and that costs taxpayers a lot of money. Reform is defnitely needed.