5 ms·

It’s hard to do unless one parent is comfortable with, capable of, and willing to spend years facilitating homeschooling (property near good schools is expensiv

It’s hard to do unless one parent is comfortable with, capable of, and willing to spend years facilitating homeschooling (property near good schools is expensive). Then it’s still incredibly expensive in lost wages (and greater income insecurity/risk, which is even worse in the US due to how healthcare and retirement works, plus it probably ties the other partner to secure corporate jobs for healthcare if nothing else, and so limits upside available from riskier moves) compared with other options, unless you have several kids and the stay-at-home parent had fairly low earning potential.

guidoism 6y ago
I have to disagree with you on several points: 1. Schools are ranked by test scores mostly, which is 99% dependent on the education and income of the parents. Even then housing near schools with excellent test scores isn't expensive except in the most expensive cities in the US. 2. I totally agree about the healthcare system though it has become a lot better since ACA. Healthcare is still disgustingly expensive but at least you can still get it and if you have a normal middle income in a family with a couple kids then healthcare is essentially free. 3. Requiring two incomes is much riskier than just one. Of course living from one income and saving the other is the best, but most people don't do that, and it's harder to do if you are both working since it costs so much money to work. Not working is cheaper. Take a look at Elizabeth Warren’s book, The Two-Income Trap. It explains this paradox much better than I could.
- pantaloony 6y ago
  1. Unless all the stuff about how important peers are to future success is BS then it’s still a very good thing to have your kid in good schools, even if the schools are mostly good because of who’s there rather than instruction quality. 2. Yeah ACA definitely helps, but it certainly seems like yet another program with aid cutoffs far too low, leading to a largish doldrums income zone of paying a lot for “coverage” with no subsidy, but still having enormous risk exposure and high copays discouraging normal care. Maybe some day our HC system will not suck. 3. A society with normalized single-worker households might spend less, but one operates on the norms and market(s) one finds oneself in. And anyway even income covering 90% of expenses (with things like savings and retirement temporarily cut to zero) is better than income covering 0% of expenses, so I still think two incomes is more secure even if earnings are very unequal or expenses are higher than they would be with one income. [edit] oh I should add to #1 that in my cheap city if you use bad schools as the baseline, OK-school areas are about 1.5-2x the price for a similar house, and good-school areas are another 25-30% above the OK-schools price. Not considering the city proper, since housing prices there are weird and anyone with money and a house there doesn’t send their kids to those public schools, ever.
catalogia 6y ago
One parent staying at home is not synonymous with homeschooling, and there are certainly parts of the country where affordable housing and reasonably average public schools coexist.

guidoism 6y ago

I have to disagree with you on several points: 1. Schools are ranked by test scores mostly, which is 99% dependent on the education and income of the parents. Even then housing near schools with excellent test scores isn't expensive except in the most expensive cities in the US. 2. I totally agree about the healthcare system though it has become a lot better since ACA. Healthcare is still disgustingly expensive but at least you can still get it and if you have a normal middle income in a family with a couple kids then healthcare is essentially free. 3. Requiring two incomes is much riskier than just one. Of course living from one income and saving the other is the best, but most people don't do that, and it's harder to do if you are both working since it costs so much money to work. Not working is cheaper. Take a look at Elizabeth Warren’s book, The Two-Income Trap. It explains this paradox much better than I could.

pantaloony 6y ago
1. Unless all the stuff about how important peers are to future success is BS then it’s still a very good thing to have your kid in good schools, even if the schools are mostly good because of who’s there rather than instruction quality. 2. Yeah ACA definitely helps, but it certainly seems like yet another program with aid cutoffs far too low, leading to a largish doldrums income zone of paying a lot for “coverage” with no subsidy, but still having enormous risk exposure and high copays discouraging normal care. Maybe some day our HC system will not suck. 3. A society with normalized single-worker households might spend less, but one operates on the norms and market(s) one finds oneself in. And anyway even income covering 90% of expenses (with things like savings and retirement temporarily cut to zero) is better than income covering 0% of expenses, so I still think two incomes is more secure even if earnings are very unequal or expenses are higher than they would be with one income. [edit] oh I should add to #1 that in my cheap city if you use bad schools as the baseline, OK-school areas are about 1.5-2x the price for a similar house, and good-school areas are another 25-30% above the OK-schools price. Not considering the city proper, since housing prices there are weird and anyone with money and a house there doesn’t send their kids to those public schools, ever.

catalogia 6y ago

One parent staying at home is not synonymous with homeschooling, and there are certainly parts of the country where affordable housing and reasonably average public schools coexist.