3 ms·
>My contention would be: It's pretty rare for both person A and person B to be able to earn so much under the second configuration so as to break even with the
by intopieces 8y ago
>My contention would be: It's pretty rare for both person A and person B to be able to earn so much under the second configuration so as to break even with the first configuration (as measured by hosehold disposable income, i.e. after taxes and everything).
This depends on your timescale. If you look at the tax returns of years 0-5, your contention will look spot on. If you compare the tax returns of two couples -- with double income in all years vs single income for years 0-5, you may find that in the long run, given the sacrifice involved in taking a career break for 5 years, it is in the favor of the couple to shell out in big in those 5 years.
- mantas 8y agoThat applies in very few careers. Many careers are reverse hockey stick and go flat soon. Loosing 5 years means you get to the same spot 5 years later. You loose only the difference for few years. Don't forget working also adds extra costs for commute, professional clothes, food at workplace etc. And then you got certain joys in raising kid on your own. Which can be translated into monetary scheme too - how much you have to earn extra to compensate for that by buying all sorts of shit (be it things or experiences)?
- larrik 8y agoThat's only one kid, though. If you have 3 or 4 kids, the difference isn't close anymore.
- intopieces 8y agoHaving 3 or 4 kids in Japan is exceedingly rare; the average family size is 2.4 [0] [0]https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=083db34f40f94a55a266ac114c7fddc9 https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=083db34f40f94a55a26...