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."

You don't own, you don't save for college for the kids, and what are you doing for yourself as a SAHM for retirement? Households with income totalling less than $200K, with kids, are almost always way short on house equity, retirement and college savings.

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."

You don't own, you don't save for college for the kids, and what are you doing for yourself as a SAHM for retirement? Households with income totalling less than $200K, with kids, are almost always way short on house equity, retirement and college savings.

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:

Anonymous wrote:I find these posts so hilarious. We are a family of four "surviving" in DC quite happily on less than $100,000. I should point out that I stay home so we don't pay for daycare, which I know is very expensive.

Another family of four here "surviving" on less than $90k, and I feel rich/count ourselves lucky!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A SAH parent can also save the household a lot of money in forgoing expenses like takeout/delivery meals, cleaning service, and all the other that often end up getting outsourced when you have 2 parents working full-time.

really? we still ate out when I SAH.
I was also still getting dh's closed dry cleaned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is though, that families in such lower income brackets use different kinds of childcare than those in higher income brackets. I have friends with the husband making 50k, the wife making 5k a year with her part time gigs. They have two kids and they just pay a neighbor $20/day when they need childcare and otherwise stagger their schedules so they don't need it often. It's not licensed childcare, I'm sure plenty of DCUMers would call this "subpar" but it's what a lot of people do, maybe even most people do. That, or they live near family. Honestly, it's a luxury that we're able to afford to live out here on our own and make enough to support ourselves, pay for back up care when our regular is out, etc. Many don't have that luxury and stay closer to home. Assuming that a family making less than half of what we make would consider the same childcare options we do is just not realistic, so we shouldn't really be taking about a family making $60k deciding whether they can afford $26k in childcare expenses every year - they wouldn't even be in the market for that kind of care.

Right, but the changing childcare cost also continues up the income scale from where you are, not just down, which partially answers your original question. We pay about as much in childcare for one child as it sounds like you'll be paying for two. So if we have another, our childcare costs will be similar to my spouse's after tax income. It still makes economic sense sense for my spouse to work, both for the reasons other posters said and because we'd still send the kids to at least a part day pre-school if one of us didn't work, so our childcare costs would not be zero. But its true that 100% of my spouse's income will go to childcare costs.

Anonymous wrote:A SAH parent can also save the household a lot of money in forgoing expenses like takeout/delivery meals, cleaning service, and all the other that often end up getting outsourced when you have 2 parents working full-time.

Anonymous wrote:The thing is though, that families in such lower income brackets use different kinds of childcare than those in higher income brackets. I have friends with the husband making 50k, the wife making 5k a year with her part time gigs. They have two kids and they just pay a neighbor $20/day when they need childcare and otherwise stagger their schedules so they don't need it often. It's not licensed childcare, I'm sure plenty of DCUMers would call this "subpar" but it's what a lot of people do, maybe even most people do. That, or they live near family. Honestly, it's a luxury that we're able to afford to live out here on our own and make enough to support ourselves, pay for back up care when our regular is out, etc. Many don't have that luxury and stay closer to home. Assuming that a family making less than half of what we make would consider the same childcare options we do is just not realistic, so we shouldn't really be taking about a family making $60k deciding whether they can afford $26k in childcare expenses every year - they wouldn't even be in the market for that kind of care.

That, or they live near family. Honestly, it's a luxury that we're able to afford to live out here on our own and make enough to support ourselves, pay for back up care when our regular is out, etc. Many don't have that luxury and stay closer to home. Assuming that a family making less than half of what we make would consider the same childcare options we do is just not realistic, so we shouldn't really be taking about a family making $60k deciding whether they can afford $26k in childcare expenses every year - they wouldn't even be in the market for that kind of care.

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: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.

Not to mention the lost income potential--often when you stay home for several years, you lose ground that you never get back.

Anonymous wrote:I find these posts so hilarious. We are a family of four "surviving" in DC quite happily on less than $100,000. I should point out that I stay home so we don't pay for daycare, which I know is very expensive.