3 ms·
For Phoenix[0] it shows $44 for 1 adult 1 child, but $42 for 2 adults 1 child with 1 adult working. Is this because of a child tax credit or something? [0]: ht
by skulk 8mo ago
For Phoenix[0] it shows $44 for 1 adult 1 child, but $42 for 2 adults 1 child with 1 adult working. Is this because of a child tax credit or something?
[0]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/38060 https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/38060
- ahussain 8mo agoI was wondering this too. I assume it’s because child care costs are lower when one parent isn’t working(?)
- lelandbatey 8mo agoNo, it's because their model puts dollar values on the labor contributed by non-working adults w/r/t raising children. So in that case, it could be that 1adult1child is slightly higher because of the need to pay for childcare, while the food/insurance/clothing etc of the additional adult in 2adult1child is offset by the fact that the non-working adult will conduct childcare and thus that expense goes away.
- skulk 8mo agoright. kind of obvious in hindsight.
- matuszeg 8mo agoBut then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?
- Jtsummers 8mo ago> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same. From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.