5 ms·

They're not exiting the workforce. They're switching jobs -- moving into a field which is in high demand and in many cases pays more.

chacha102 3y ago
I agree - they are exercising the principle of opportunity cost. While most parents probably would make more than the $700 / month, the value might simply not be worth it. I remember a study that concluded that in reality, there is a cap on how much additional money improves your day-to-day life. And if a family is already past that on one income, why do you need two?
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > $700 / month That cant be right. I am in a LCOL area and its almost double that for 1 kid. And its one of the cheapest options. It says the average is 700 per household. Perhaps it counts households without kids?
  - PenguinCoder 3y ago
    Has to; from my own anecdotal experience. More than double that in a LCOL area here as well.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    The exact number doesn't really matter. The point is that the difference between the cost of childcare and what a parent may make as a second earner has a significant opportunity cost that may not make working outside the home a good deal.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Can’t put a price on those years. They're just incredibly precious. I can’t imagine people send their kids off to daycare because they want to. It’s just such a loss you can’t ever get back.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - userinanother 3y ago
    0-4 years kind of suck 5-10 though yeah those are gold
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      My two year old is awesome and says/does new funny things every single day. She's been a hoot since maybe 1-1.5. I'm super lucky to get to spend all day with her right now while on leave for my 1 month old. Being able to pop out of my room and see her during the day is also one of the best perks of remote work. She's only recently started to notice/take interest in other kids, and the other day we went to the park and the playground was empty, and she goes "Where's my friends? FRIENDS!!!!! My friends are hiding." She's also decided our cats' names are mama meowy and dada meowy (they're both male). The 1 month old is not so fun yet, granted.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Yeah, kids start to become significantly more fun once they can talk. Watching a child's personality emerge is probably one of the most rewarding parts of having kids.
    - Waterluvian 3y ago
      The countless hours of a little loaf of bread asleep on my tummy as I worked were some of the most priceless moments for me.
- userinanother 3y ago
  Seattle is 2200-2500 for young kids. That’s post tax money so add 30%+ to account for that. 70k a year is what you would pay at a private equity run child care facility
justrealist 3y ago
I'll preface this by saying my wife is a full-time parent for our two children so I am very supportive of full-time parenting, but from a raw economic perspective a 4-1 staffing ratio (at a daycare) or 10-1 at a preschool would be a lot more efficient as the current two children we have.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  Depends on whether the outcomes are the same. If it's just about keeping them alive, sure, but if more individualized attention and family bonding results in better adults (or better behaved/cheaper to educate students) down the line, there's a price for quality that needs to be accounted for.
  - qudat 3y ago
    Exactly. A child is a future contributor to the workforce. If outcomes are different then this is an investment. It’s an empirical question, to be sure, but it is theoretically possible the outcomes are different.
- userinanother 3y ago
  In theory yes but the 4-1 has lots of overhead plus extra facilities plus taxes. Is probably closer to 3:1 after overhead and 2.5:1 after transactional taxes
  - justrealist 3y ago
    I'll grant the overhead but the taxes are not a loss from a GDP perspective, that's just money shuffling, goods are still produced, services are still rendered. In-home daycare is also common too, and then there's not a ton of facility cost.
    - userinanother 3y ago
      I thought we were talking economic output. GDP isn’t a good metric to use when you compare work that generates no GDP output. Someone already mentioned that taking care of your own kid generates a net gdp loss of 1.x your income where x is the ammount you would pay to a child care facility.
aidenn0 3y ago
Yeah, after adjusting for taxes, my wife made more money than I did (in opportunity costs anyways) the years we had 4 kids at home.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  We came to a similar conclusion and my wife wanted to stay home with the kids. Her income, when taxed at our full marginal tax rate, would have otherwise been nearly completely consumed by childcare and other costs we could avoid if she worked on the household. So, we lost 5 years of her 401k contributions in exchange for her getting what she preferred, what the kids enjoyed, and a lot more meals at home as a family. That trade was well-worth it.
zeroCalories 3y ago
Yeah, it's not like these parents vanished into thin air. They are doing work that produces real value, we simply can't capture the output as a clean number in GDP or, maybe more importantly, tax dollars.

chacha102 3y ago

I agree - they are exercising the principle of opportunity cost. While most parents probably would make more than the $700 / month, the value might simply not be worth it. I remember a study that concluded that in reality, there is a cap on how much additional money improves your day-to-day life. And if a family is already past that on one income, why do you need two?

nonethewiser 3y ago
> $700 / month That cant be right. I am in a LCOL area and its almost double that for 1 kid. And its one of the cheapest options. It says the average is 700 per household. Perhaps it counts households without kids?
- PenguinCoder 3y ago
  Has to; from my own anecdotal experience. More than double that in a LCOL area here as well.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  The exact number doesn't really matter. The point is that the difference between the cost of childcare and what a parent may make as a second earner has a significant opportunity cost that may not make working outside the home a good deal.
Waterluvian 3y ago
Can’t put a price on those years. They're just incredibly precious. I can’t imagine people send their kids off to daycare because they want to. It’s just such a loss you can’t ever get back.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- userinanother 3y ago
  0-4 years kind of suck 5-10 though yeah those are gold
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    My two year old is awesome and says/does new funny things every single day. She's been a hoot since maybe 1-1.5. I'm super lucky to get to spend all day with her right now while on leave for my 1 month old. Being able to pop out of my room and see her during the day is also one of the best perks of remote work. She's only recently started to notice/take interest in other kids, and the other day we went to the park and the playground was empty, and she goes "Where's my friends? FRIENDS!!!!! My friends are hiding." She's also decided our cats' names are mama meowy and dada meowy (they're both male). The 1 month old is not so fun yet, granted.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Yeah, kids start to become significantly more fun once they can talk. Watching a child's personality emerge is probably one of the most rewarding parts of having kids.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    The countless hours of a little loaf of bread asleep on my tummy as I worked were some of the most priceless moments for me.
userinanother 3y ago
Seattle is 2200-2500 for young kids. That’s post tax money so add 30%+ to account for that. 70k a year is what you would pay at a private equity run child care facility

justrealist 3y ago

I'll preface this by saying my wife is a full-time parent for our two children so I am very supportive of full-time parenting, but from a raw economic perspective a 4-1 staffing ratio (at a daycare) or 10-1 at a preschool would be a lot more efficient as the current two children we have.

ndriscoll 3y ago
Depends on whether the outcomes are the same. If it's just about keeping them alive, sure, but if more individualized attention and family bonding results in better adults (or better behaved/cheaper to educate students) down the line, there's a price for quality that needs to be accounted for.
- qudat 3y ago
  Exactly. A child is a future contributor to the workforce. If outcomes are different then this is an investment. It’s an empirical question, to be sure, but it is theoretically possible the outcomes are different.
userinanother 3y ago
In theory yes but the 4-1 has lots of overhead plus extra facilities plus taxes. Is probably closer to 3:1 after overhead and 2.5:1 after transactional taxes
- justrealist 3y ago
  I'll grant the overhead but the taxes are not a loss from a GDP perspective, that's just money shuffling, goods are still produced, services are still rendered. In-home daycare is also common too, and then there's not a ton of facility cost.
  - userinanother 3y ago
    I thought we were talking economic output. GDP isn’t a good metric to use when you compare work that generates no GDP output. Someone already mentioned that taking care of your own kid generates a net gdp loss of 1.x your income where x is the ammount you would pay to a child care facility.

aidenn0 3y ago

Yeah, after adjusting for taxes, my wife made more money than I did (in opportunity costs anyways) the years we had 4 kids at home.

sokoloff 3y ago
We came to a similar conclusion and my wife wanted to stay home with the kids. Her income, when taxed at our full marginal tax rate, would have otherwise been nearly completely consumed by childcare and other costs we could avoid if she worked on the household. So, we lost 5 years of her 401k contributions in exchange for her getting what she preferred, what the kids enjoyed, and a lot more meals at home as a family. That trade was well-worth it.

zeroCalories 3y ago

Yeah, it's not like these parents vanished into thin air. They are doing work that produces real value, we simply can't capture the output as a clean number in GDP or, maybe more importantly, tax dollars.