5 ms·

I’m always baffled when I read these comments from non-parents who describe parenting as the end of your life. Daycare isn’t prohibitively expensive for any of

I’m always baffled when I read these comments from non-parents who describe parenting as the end of your life. Daycare isn’t prohibitively expensive for any of us in tech careers. Anyone quitting a $150K+ job to avoid paying $20-30K for a good daycare for the few years before kids entire school isn’t doing it because it’s the optimal financial decision. You don’t stop having a career or earning money or having career advancement when you have kids.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I am a parent, but society wide data indicates people’s preferences/risk assessments/perceived cost-benefit ratios better than individuals’ opinion.
bradleyjg 5y ago
I agree that for high income people ($150k+ for the sake of argument) it’s not strictly speaking a good idea financially to drop out of the workforce to avoid child care expenses. However, given the way taxes on two earner families work it is a much cheaper decision then it looks like at first blush. Maybe this is a good thing. But it is a bit counterintuitive if you think of salary in pretax dollars.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I am not sure what you are referring to, but the tax penalty for dual similar income earning married filing joint tax filers was removed in the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act. https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-penalty/ https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-pen...
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    What’s the disposable income difference, in say California, between: 1) Spouse 1 grossing $250,000 a year, spouse 2 grossing $150,000 a year, $40,000 in childcare costs. and 2) Spouse 1 grossing $250,000 a year, spouse 2 grossing $0 a year, $0 in childcare costs?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Looks like $110k minus the taxes on $150k of additional income, which are probably ~40%, so $110k minus $60k = $50k more disposal income. I still do not see what taxes have to do with this, the $40k childcare cost is the only variable. Also, that is ignoring the far higher probability of being able to earn $150k and more for the woman in the years agree her kids are out of daycare, plus the benefit of the woman maintaining financial independence.
    - xenadu02 5y ago
      As lotsofpulp said you'd be ahead by at least 50k with both spouses working even accounting for taxes at 40% which is almost certainly on the high side. Total tax rate for federal+state on the extra 150k is likely less but it depends on the exact situation. In reality that's just pure cash. You'd be ahead even more in terms of saving for retirement which can also lower your tax basis. Benefits might also be better - some employers cover a greater percentage of the employee's premium so having the 150k spouse covered under a different plan could save money. There may be other benefits worth considering. Also childcare at 40k is overpriced even for SF. All day preschool is 20-30k unless you're trying to get them into a super exclusive preschool as a status thing. Once they start real school you only need to cover after school care for 10-15k. So net take home would be more like 50-90k depending.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  What are you even talking about? Two earner households are taxed pretty much just like two separate single earners
  - ip26 5y ago
    I don’t see how it changes the optimal choice, but there was previously a small penalty on joint filers with similar incomes.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Hence pretty much. Not something that would be consequential for this calculus.
ip26 5y ago
Yeah, at least in tech the cost angle seems essentially irrelevant. Kids aren’t cheap, but the necessary expenses (food, care, clothes) are small relative to an income of six figures. I wonder if young adults making 120k are hearing “kids are crazy expensive” from families living on 60k, and developing a somewhat warped perception.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  I live in SF and my coworkers with kids are paying roughly what I pay in rent for daycare alone. I'd guess that food, clothing, and healthcare are probably another 50% or more on top of that. Even with a FAANG salary, $30-50k per kid per year is a heck of a lot of money.
  - ip26 5y ago
    You can spend $20k on food, clothing, and healthcare for a kid, but pants for a preschooler are like $8 at Target, and they really don’t eat much at that size. I know the daycare in SF is crazy, and I sympathize (it’s not cheap for me either) but as others noted it’s only a few years, and you only pay for full time daycare in the first place if you have dual incomes.
    - xenadu02 5y ago
      Yeah daycare / preschool is 20-30k in SF but as you noted it is temporary. Once the kids reach K5 SFUSD is free (well paid for by taxes). A bigger problem is after school care. All the programs at SFUSD along with all the independent ones have long waitlists. Those of us in tech are fortunate: work hours are flexible so it isn't as much of a problem as it would be for many others. (For our part I aim to be ambitious at work which has paid off so far and my partner stays at home, but that is not easy or even possible for everyone in tech let alone those outside it)
watwut 5y ago
Daycare still requires you to pick up the kid and drive it there. And with culture of mandatory long hours, you can't really do it on time. Plus they get sick, they need to be driven to extracurriculars etc. Same with school later. You can't have kids 12 hours a day there.
- ip26 5y ago
  I’m not sure how to react to you referring to a child as “it”.
  - I-M-S 5y ago
    Two other languages I speak refer to noun "child" in neutral gender, so maybe English is the outlier here.
    - ip26 5y ago
      A fair point. “It” is neuter, not neutral, but I can understand “lost in translation”
      - watwut 5y ago
        Yeah, I am not a native speaker. It felt "natural" to say it. It was not meant as some kind of statement on the nature of children. It does not force me to pick gender, but even that was not conscious decision.
        ip26 5y ago
        “It”, being neuter, is usually reserved for inanimate objects and sometimes wild animals. Calling a living human, dog, or cat “it” is basically a slur.
bsder 5y ago
> I’m always baffled when I read these comments from non-parents who describe parenting as the end of your life. Because it is? Seriously, everything now revolves around your child--as it should. You can't "just stay jobless" for a year anymore. You won't take that project that makes you skip your children's play, sports, etc. You probably won't move very far (or at all) if you change jobs because your children are in school somewhere. You will stay in a job that may be suboptimal because uprooting your family is lots of effort. etc. And, this is doubly so for women. Women, in spite of everything, are still expected to be the primary child caretaker. How is this not the "end of your life"--especially if you are female?

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I am a parent, but society wide data indicates people’s preferences/risk assessments/perceived cost-benefit ratios better than individuals’ opinion.

bradleyjg 5y ago

I agree that for high income people ($150k+ for the sake of argument) it’s not strictly speaking a good idea financially to drop out of the workforce to avoid child care expenses. However, given the way taxes on two earner families work it is a much cheaper decision then it looks like at first blush. Maybe this is a good thing. But it is a bit counterintuitive if you think of salary in pretax dollars.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I am not sure what you are referring to, but the tax penalty for dual similar income earning married filing joint tax filers was removed in the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act. https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-penalty/ https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-pen...
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  What’s the disposable income difference, in say California, between: 1) Spouse 1 grossing $250,000 a year, spouse 2 grossing $150,000 a year, $40,000 in childcare costs. and 2) Spouse 1 grossing $250,000 a year, spouse 2 grossing $0 a year, $0 in childcare costs?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Looks like $110k minus the taxes on $150k of additional income, which are probably ~40%, so $110k minus $60k = $50k more disposal income. I still do not see what taxes have to do with this, the $40k childcare cost is the only variable. Also, that is ignoring the far higher probability of being able to earn $150k and more for the woman in the years agree her kids are out of daycare, plus the benefit of the woman maintaining financial independence.
  - xenadu02 5y ago
    As lotsofpulp said you'd be ahead by at least 50k with both spouses working even accounting for taxes at 40% which is almost certainly on the high side. Total tax rate for federal+state on the extra 150k is likely less but it depends on the exact situation. In reality that's just pure cash. You'd be ahead even more in terms of saving for retirement which can also lower your tax basis. Benefits might also be better - some employers cover a greater percentage of the employee's premium so having the 150k spouse covered under a different plan could save money. There may be other benefits worth considering. Also childcare at 40k is overpriced even for SF. All day preschool is 20-30k unless you're trying to get them into a super exclusive preschool as a status thing. Once they start real school you only need to cover after school care for 10-15k. So net take home would be more like 50-90k depending.
whimsicalism 5y ago
What are you even talking about? Two earner households are taxed pretty much just like two separate single earners
- ip26 5y ago
  I don’t see how it changes the optimal choice, but there was previously a small penalty on joint filers with similar incomes.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Hence pretty much. Not something that would be consequential for this calculus.

ip26 5y ago

Yeah, at least in tech the cost angle seems essentially irrelevant. Kids aren’t cheap, but the necessary expenses (food, care, clothes) are small relative to an income of six figures. I wonder if young adults making 120k are hearing “kids are crazy expensive” from families living on 60k, and developing a somewhat warped perception.

AlotOfReading 5y ago
I live in SF and my coworkers with kids are paying roughly what I pay in rent for daycare alone. I'd guess that food, clothing, and healthcare are probably another 50% or more on top of that. Even with a FAANG salary, $30-50k per kid per year is a heck of a lot of money.
- ip26 5y ago
  You can spend $20k on food, clothing, and healthcare for a kid, but pants for a preschooler are like $8 at Target, and they really don’t eat much at that size. I know the daycare in SF is crazy, and I sympathize (it’s not cheap for me either) but as others noted it’s only a few years, and you only pay for full time daycare in the first place if you have dual incomes.
  - xenadu02 5y ago
    Yeah daycare / preschool is 20-30k in SF but as you noted it is temporary. Once the kids reach K5 SFUSD is free (well paid for by taxes). A bigger problem is after school care. All the programs at SFUSD along with all the independent ones have long waitlists. Those of us in tech are fortunate: work hours are flexible so it isn't as much of a problem as it would be for many others. (For our part I aim to be ambitious at work which has paid off so far and my partner stays at home, but that is not easy or even possible for everyone in tech let alone those outside it)

watwut 5y ago

Daycare still requires you to pick up the kid and drive it there. And with culture of mandatory long hours, you can't really do it on time. Plus they get sick, they need to be driven to extracurriculars etc. Same with school later. You can't have kids 12 hours a day there.

ip26 5y ago
I’m not sure how to react to you referring to a child as “it”.
- I-M-S 5y ago
  Two other languages I speak refer to noun "child" in neutral gender, so maybe English is the outlier here.
  - ip26 5y ago
    A fair point. “It” is neuter, not neutral, but I can understand “lost in translation”
    - watwut 5y ago
      Yeah, I am not a native speaker. It felt "natural" to say it. It was not meant as some kind of statement on the nature of children. It does not force me to pick gender, but even that was not conscious decision.
      - ip26 5y ago
        “It”, being neuter, is usually reserved for inanimate objects and sometimes wild animals. Calling a living human, dog, or cat “it” is basically a slur.

bsder 5y ago

> I’m always baffled when I read these comments from non-parents who describe parenting as the end of your life. Because it is? Seriously, everything now revolves around your child--as it should. You can't "just stay jobless" for a year anymore. You won't take that project that makes you skip your children's play, sports, etc. You probably won't move very far (or at all) if you change jobs because your children are in school somewhere. You will stay in a job that may be suboptimal because uprooting your family is lots of effort. etc. And, this is doubly so for women. Women, in spite of everything, are still expected to be the primary child caretaker. How is this not the "end of your life"--especially if you are female?