As the mother of three and the grandmother of nine, kids are very expensive. My husband and I both worked at good paying jobs and our kids and their spouses all have good paying jobs except for one SAHM but her husband has a high paying job. For two families their child care expenses are insane but they make it work. I really don't know how they make it work but they do. Yes, we do help funding 529 plans and annual gifts and those gifts may well cover their child care costs. But in the absence of good paying jobs or family support having more than one or two children has to be very challenging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

My wife works, mostly from home. $275K in compensation for her.

Our childcare costs are $26K for Kid 1 daycare + $2.5K for aftercare for Kid 2 + $6K for summer camps for Kid 2 = $34,500 total

Or 12.5% of her gross income.

Totally worth it for us. Plus, my wife keeps her foot in work force, adds to our savings, can shelter $$$ in earnings from taxation (401K + deferred comp account), etc. Both of our mothers are divorced and had to provide for themselves, so we both learned the lessons of "a man is not a plan." I don't want to carry the street of being the sole breadwinner!

She has the ability to fully WFH. That typically means a very flexible job, with managers who support flexibility. Makes the job so much easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

I don’t think that “working” equates a “commitment to a career.” People can work part time, people can work jobs where they get up and walk out at 5 and not think about it until they return the next day, people can work remote, people can take a couple years off, etc. There are a lot of options. For me, maintaining basic family security (housing, food, stability in marriage) is paramount. You can get to that in a number of ways and dual income households is one of those ways. Growing up in a financially insecure home with parents who divorced (in large part due to financial strain) is not an experience I want to pass along to my children. So, it’s not a matter of commitment to raising children, it’s also a matter of protecting the children and family from all those other things.

Agreed. But you need a spouse who is 1000% on board with this. I gave up a well paying career in early 30s to SAHP. Why? Because I wanted to be home with the kids. Also knew my spouse had more potential for higher level career (I had no desire to be upper management, and wanted to stay in the technical path). But I knew that if anything ever happened, my spouse would support me and the kids, as they are a genuinely good person. 30+ years later still happily married, largely because spouse was free topuruse career without stress on the Homefront.

And I got the wonderful years with the kids without added stress of managing a FT job.

Also, the free PK3 and PK4 in DC is an absolute game changer for middle class net worth.

If you have two kids in DC, this is easily a total post-tax savings of $100K ($25K per year x 2 years x 2 kids).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

+1. Childcare was expensive when we were using it but not even close to my salary. We were still able to buy a house, update it, and contribute to 401ks while having little kids.

My neighbor is a SAHM. Her DH lost his job and has been unemployed for over a year. She hasn’t worked in 15 years and can’t find anything either. They have been living off of their retirement savings (that she’s never contributed to) and she hasn’t virtually no SS contributions. There is absolutely no way I would put myself and my children in that precarious position.

My wife made about 30k a year, less than 1/10 what I make. She was an international student when we met and in a field notorious for low paying yet very demanding work. For some families it really doesn't make sense to have the wife work.

It makes sense financially for the moment but it’s a gamble for the wife in the long-term. In marriages like these, about half of them stay together through the years (at least as far as I’ve seen) and it works out well. But it’s disastrous for the other half of marriages that end in divorce or the DH loses his job or random stuff like DH getting a brain tumor or ALS. The wife can’t do anything to help financially. Even if someone has a profession that lends itself to lower pay, you aren’t limited to working in the profession. And, in the event you want to stay in the low paying profession, 30k is better than nothing.

This is why I work part time. I’m too busy with my kids to work full time, but I need to keep my resume fresh.

I've been able to technically work full-time (low-hour requirement, though and I'm not pushing for career advancement right now), and I have a nanny for driving and household help, so I always have two hours in the evening for family dinners and homework and I do school drop-offs, so I don't feel like my kids are missing much. They have activities after school until I can go offline anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

My wife works, mostly from home. $275K in compensation for her.

Our childcare costs are $26K for Kid 1 daycare + $2.5K for aftercare for Kid 2 + $6K for summer camps for Kid 2 = $34,500 total

Or 12.5% of her gross income.

Totally worth it for us. Plus, my wife keeps her foot in work force, adds to our savings, can shelter $$$ in earnings from taxation (401K + deferred comp account), etc. Both of our mothers are divorced and had to provide for themselves, so we both learned the lessons of "a man is not a plan." I don't want to carry the street of being the sole breadwinner!

A lot of the smartest and most conscientious adults we know are choosing to stop at one kid. They make good money (HHI of $300K+ in DC or $150K+ in LCOL areas), but they just do not want the stress of two kids.

I get it. We make a lot more, but two kids just suck up so much of our time. We are now in the stage where the older kid and younger kid fight over the stupidest reasons. Spouse took our older kid on a trip last week and everything was so serene and easy. I totally forgot how much easier it is to just have one kid, even when solo parenting for a week.

I think a big part of the issue with having kids is that Millennials and Gen Z are really into fitness. If you have 2+ kids, you're not doing two hour work outs everyday and counting your macros (unless its part of your job as a Navy SEAL or fitness instructor). A lot of my friends who are really into fitness have zero kids or will only consider one kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

I don’t think that “working” equates a “commitment to a career.” People can work part time, people can work jobs where they get up and walk out at 5 and not think about it until they return the next day, people can work remote, people can take a couple years off, etc. There are a lot of options. For me, maintaining basic family security (housing, food, stability in marriage) is paramount. You can get to that in a number of ways and dual income households is one of those ways. Growing up in a financially insecure home with parents who divorced (in large part due to financial strain) is not an experience I want to pass along to my children. So, it’s not a matter of commitment to raising children, it’s also a matter of protecting the children and family from all those other things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

+1. Childcare was expensive when we were using it but not even close to my salary. We were still able to buy a house, update it, and contribute to 401ks while having little kids.

My neighbor is a SAHM. Her DH lost his job and has been unemployed for over a year. She hasn’t worked in 15 years and can’t find anything either. They have been living off of their retirement savings (that she’s never contributed to) and she hasn’t virtually no SS contributions. There is absolutely no way I would put myself and my children in that precarious position.

My wife made about 30k a year, less than 1/10 what I make. She was an international student when we met and in a field notorious for low paying yet very demanding work. For some families it really doesn't make sense to have the wife work.

It makes sense financially for the moment but it’s a gamble for the wife in the long-term. In marriages like these, about half of them stay together through the years (at least as far as I’ve seen) and it works out well. But it’s disastrous for the other half of marriages that end in divorce or the DH loses his job or random stuff like DH getting a brain tumor or ALS. The wife can’t do anything to help financially. Even if someone has a profession that lends itself to lower pay, you aren’t limited to working in the profession. And, in the event you want to stay in the low paying profession, 30k is better than nothing.

This is why I work part time. I’m too busy with my kids to work full time, but I need to keep my resume fresh.

Anonymous wrote:I went back to work when my kid was 6 months old. I worked 4 nights a week after my partner got home from his day job.
We did coop at age 3 for symbolic fee and then local public school.
DC was never sick, no expensive camps, aftercare, or classes.
My partner filed as HH and I filed single making way below $20k. I didn't really have tax expense after EI credit and saver's credit and I still don't. I was able to take lifetime learner's credit for years.
I was never going to have a career (long story). I invested 20-50% of my earnings into stock market and retired when the child finished elementary school. I received a finance degree when the child was few months old.
The biggest expense for the kid has been food, school PTA, few soccer camps, some travel in US and EU, and $200 a month for health insurance.
I think my kid is very cheap.

My kids were pretty cheap too.
I went back to work PT when youngest entered K which enabled me to pickup the kids afterschool. I gradually ramped up to full time by the time they entered high school.
They probably couldn't have gotten into the G&T programs, competitive middle schools and SHSAT high schools if I outsourced the parenting.
The biggest expenses were preschool, summer camps and activities.
Kids scored 1500+ on SAT, attending really great colleges without college consultant nor expensive test prep (they attended mommy prep which cost $0).

The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

+1. Childcare was expensive when we were using it but not even close to my salary. We were still able to buy a house, update it, and contribute to 401ks while having little kids.

My neighbor is a SAHM. Her DH lost his job and has been unemployed for over a year. She hasn’t worked in 15 years and can’t find anything either. They have been living off of their retirement savings (that she’s never contributed to) and she hasn’t virtually no SS contributions. There is absolutely no way I would put myself and my children in that precarious position.

My wife made about 30k a year, less than 1/10 what I make. She was an international student when we met and in a field notorious for low paying yet very demanding work. For some families it really doesn't make sense to have the wife work.

It makes sense financially for the moment but it’s a gamble for the wife in the long-term. In marriages like these, about half of them stay together through the years (at least as far as I’ve seen) and it works out well. But it’s disastrous for the other half of marriages that end in divorce or the DH loses his job or random stuff like DH getting a brain tumor or ALS. The wife can’t do anything to help financially. Even if someone has a profession that lends itself to lower pay, you aren’t limited to working in the profession. And, in the event you want to stay in the low paying profession, 30k is better than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

+1. Childcare was expensive when we were using it but not even close to my salary. We were still able to buy a house, update it, and contribute to 401ks while having little kids.

My neighbor is a SAHM. Her DH lost his job and has been unemployed for over a year. She hasn’t worked in 15 years and can’t find anything either. They have been living off of their retirement savings (that she’s never contributed to) and she hasn’t virtually no SS contributions. There is absolutely no way I would put myself and my children in that precarious position.

My wife made about 30k a year, less than 1/10 what I make. She was an international student when we met and in a field notorious for low paying yet very demanding work. For some families it really doesn't make sense to have the wife work.

I think you mean that it doesn't make sense for both parents to work. Some DWs, like me, earn more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

+1. Childcare was expensive when we were using it but not even close to my salary. We were still able to buy a house, update it, and contribute to 401ks while having little kids.

My neighbor is a SAHM. Her DH lost his job and has been unemployed for over a year. She hasn’t worked in 15 years and can’t find anything either. They have been living off of their retirement savings (that she’s never contributed to) and she hasn’t virtually no SS contributions. There is absolutely no way I would put myself and my children in that precarious position.

My wife made about 30k a year, less than 1/10 what I make. She was an international student when we met and in a field notorious for low paying yet very demanding work. For some families it really doesn't make sense to have the wife work.