Anonymous wrote:I really don't get why people think two income earners in a household with kids is not really worth it. I have one child in a licensed in-home daycare for a total of $13,800/year. [For those who think in-home care is "substandard," there's a reputable center even closer to my house that I could send my daughter to (yes, they have openings) for $13k a year, so I'd actually save a bit.]

Since we both work, we're each "paying" $7.5k a year to keep our full time jobs. It's a no brainer that this is financially worthwhile. Even if you wanted to attribute all of the childcare costs to the mother, you could say I "pay" $13k/year to keep my full time job, health insurance for my family, life insurance for us, retirement and a modest pension. Do you know how little I'd have to make for this to not be financially worthwhile? Even if I made that little, I would be eligible for childcare subsidies through my city, my work, and my state + low-income housing + food stamps. All of that would probably still make it worthwhile for me to stay in the work force, contribute to social security, etc.

The vast majority of people staying home with their children and out of the workforce are not doing it to save money. They are doing it because they feel it is the right thing to do, it's what they want to do, or they feel their children need them available and present all day, everyday. But I don't see the point of pretending there's a "two income trap." The numbers just don't add up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get why people think two income earners in a household with kids is not really worth it. I have one child in a licensed in-home daycare for a total of $13,800/year. [For those who think in-home care is "substandard," there's a reputable center even closer to my house that I could send my daughter to (yes, they have openings) for $13k a year, so I'd actually save a bit.]

Since we both work, we're each "paying" $7.5k a year to keep our full time jobs. It's a no brainer that this is financially worthwhile. Even if you wanted to attribute all of the childcare costs to the mother, you could say I "pay" $13k/year to keep my full time job, health insurance for my family, life insurance for us, retirement and a modest pension. Do you know how little I'd have to make for this to not be financially worthwhile? Even if I made that little, I would be eligible for childcare subsidies through my city, my work, and my state + low-income housing + food stamps. All of that would probably still make it worthwhile for me to stay in the work force, contribute to social security, etc.

The vast majority of people staying home with their children and out of the workforce are not doing it to save money. They are doing it because they feel it is the right thing to do, it's what they want to do, or they feel their children need them available and present all day, everyday. But I don't see the point of pretending there's a "two income trap." The numbers just don't add up.

It gets a little more complicated if you have two kids, so let's say $26K per year in your situation (5K of which is pretax). You also need to factor in the wage differential between the higher paid earner and the lower paid earner. For example, if one makes $100K and the other makes $35K, you're actually losing money by working. I think the value comes from (1) ability to have continuous insurance if higher earning spouse loses job and (2) ability to stay in the workforce and gain experience/skills which will hopefully translate to higher earnings relative to what you would make had you stayed at home and re-entered the workforce once kids are in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband makes $160k and I stay at home with two small kids. These threads always surprise me because at $160k we do pretty darn good! Rent a townhouse for $2300/month, aggressively paying off both cars so we spend $1000/month on that, $131/month insurance for both cars. $280/month for preschool, around $200/month for power and gas, $400 for cable/internet/cell phones. We have a house in another state but the mortgage is covered by a renter so we don't make money on that but we aren't in the red either (this year at least). In a normal 2 paycheck month we net around $8500 and very very rarely do we feel pinched unless a few major expenses come up at once (property taxes, new tires for cars, medical bills, things like that). I mean we aren't wealthy by any means but I feel we do much better than "survive."

Part of why it is easier for you is that you have $160k from a single earner; if you worked had had to pay for daycare (and commuting costs, etc), it would easily be another $2500/month out the door.

Also, while the $2300 rent on townhouse is reasonable now, if you tried to buy that townhouse you are probably looking at $3000 out of pocket. But you are now bearing the risk of rising rents and inflation in the DC area.

+1

Maybe when we have President Warren we'll have some changes happen...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get why people think two income earners in a household with kids is not really worth it. I have one child in a licensed in-home daycare for a total of $13,800/year. [For those who think in-home care is "substandard," there's a reputable center even closer to my house that I could send my daughter to (yes, they have openings) for $13k a year, so I'd actually save a bit.]

Since we both work, we're each "paying" $7.5k a year to keep our full time jobs. It's a no brainer that this is financially worthwhile. Even if you wanted to attribute all of the childcare costs to the mother, you could say I "pay" $13k/year to keep my full time job, health insurance for my family, life insurance for us, retirement and a modest pension. Do you know how little I'd have to make for this to not be financially worthwhile? Even if I made that little, I would be eligible for childcare subsidies through my city, my work, and my state + low-income housing + food stamps. All of that would probably still make it worthwhile for me to stay in the work force, contribute to social security, etc.

The vast majority of people staying home with their children and out of the workforce are not doing it to save money. They are doing it because they feel it is the right thing to do, it's what they want to do, or they feel their children need them available and present all day, everyday. But I don't see the point of pretending there's a "two income trap." The numbers just don't add up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband makes $160k and I stay at home with two small kids. These threads always surprise me because at $160k we do pretty darn good! Rent a townhouse for $2300/month, aggressively paying off both cars so we spend $1000/month on that, $131/month insurance for both cars. $280/month for preschool, around $200/month for power and gas, $400 for cable/internet/cell phones. We have a house in another state but the mortgage is covered by a renter so we don't make money on that but we aren't in the red either (this year at least). In a normal 2 paycheck month we net around $8500 and very very rarely do we feel pinched unless a few major expenses come up at once (property taxes, new tires for cars, medical bills, things like that). I mean we aren't wealthy by any means but I feel we do much better than "survive."

Part of why it is easier for you is that you have $160k from a single earner; if you worked had had to pay for daycare (and commuting costs, etc), it would easily be another $2500/month out the door.

Also, while the $2300 rent on townhouse is reasonable now, if you tried to buy that townhouse you are probably looking at $3000 out of pocket. But you are now bearing the risk of rising rents and inflation in the DC area.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband makes $160k and I stay at home with two small kids. These threads always surprise me because at $160k we do pretty darn good! Rent a townhouse for $2300/month, aggressively paying off both cars so we spend $1000/month on that, $131/month insurance for both cars. $280/month for preschool, around $200/month for power and gas, $400 for cable/internet/cell phones. We have a house in another state but the mortgage is covered by a renter so we don't make money on that but we aren't in the red either (this year at least). In a normal 2 paycheck month we net around $8500 and very very rarely do we feel pinched unless a few major expenses come up at once (property taxes, new tires for cars, medical bills, things like that). I mean we aren't wealthy by any means but I feel we do much better than "survive."

Part of why it is easier for you is that you have $160k from a single earner; if you worked had had to pay for daycare (and commuting costs, etc), it would easily be another $2500/month out the door.

Also, while the $2300 rent on townhouse is reasonable now, if you tried to buy that townhouse you are probably looking at $3000 out of pocket. But you are now bearing the risk of rising rents and inflation in the DC area.

Anonymous wrote:My husband makes $160k and I stay at home with two small kids. These threads always surprise me because at $160k we do pretty darn good! Rent a townhouse for $2300/month, aggressively paying off both cars so we spend $1000/month on that, $131/month insurance for both cars. $280/month for preschool, around $200/month for power and gas, $400 for cable/internet/cell phones. We have a house in another state but the mortgage is covered by a renter so we don't make money on that but we aren't in the red either (this year at least). In a normal 2 paycheck month we net around $8500 and very very rarely do we feel pinched unless a few major expenses come up at once (property taxes, new tires for cars, medical bills, things like that). I mean we aren't wealthy by any means but I feel we do much better than "survive."

Anonymous wrote:Op, I understand what you are saying but the way you have phrased your question is offensive. If you can't figure out how to "survive" on $200k when there are thousands of low-wage workers raising children on a fraction of that amount, then you have serious problems.

Anonymous wrote:Friends of our family have been renting the same house in close-in Montgomery County for 30-plus years. The amount of money they left on the table by never buying is staggering.

I can't imagine a still-standing home in MoCo that isn't worth substantially more than it was 30 years ago. Or 20.