9 ms·
It's the price they pay for taking on a mortgage payment that can't be met on a single income.
by phd514 10y ago
It's the price they pay for taking on a mortgage payment that can't be met on a single income.
- linkregister 10y agoI think that argument makes sense anywhere other than the Bay Area. CAP theorem for the Bay Area: Commute, Affordable, Protected (from crime). Choose two.
- phd514 10y agoSure, but living in the Bay Area, is a choice, too. And certainly a valid application of the CAP theorem. ;)
- linkregister 10y agoWell wouldn't that obviate one from working at NVidia? Sure, we could sidestep the CAP theorem by moving to Montana and living off the land. What does this have to do with TFA?
- vonmoltke 10y agoThey have a significant presence in Austin.
- Shebanator 10y agoI think its more like 'Choose one'
- tobz 10y agoOr the price they pay to take on any housing at all that doesn't put them multiple hours away from their job... :o
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- esaym 10y agoI was kinda thinking the same thing but kept my mouth shut. My wife stays at home and I mostly work from home. We aren't rich, but are doing alright.
- phd514 10y agoSame here. I used to live in NYC, but planned for a significant lifestyle change (move, job, etc.) with kids because I didn't want (and couldn't afford) to pay someone else to watch them.
- cookiecaper 10y agoLikewise. This is very important. It takes the full-time efforts of both a mother and a father to raise a child. The father should be out winning the bread so the mother can provide the children the attention and care that they desperately need. The benefits of forgoing some luxuries so that a family can be raised by a single breadwinner are so self-evident that it's insanity to willingly choose to do it differently (recognizing that some have it thrust upon them due to accidents or the choices of others).
- c0nducktr 10y agoThe price the child pays for not being born into a wealthier family, right?