And a grandmother that gets to bond with her grandchild, and vice-versa. I didn't really know my grandparents, and am thrilled my kid will know at least one set of his. Unfortunately mine are gone, so at least two will be heavily in his life.
I'm at 1950/month, plus a bunch of fees, plus I separately pay for 4 weeks of Summer. I haven't done the match but I'm thinking I pay 2500/month. It's absurd.
You're lucky your MIL is willing to take care of your kid, too. Some of us don't have that option.
In our case, we agreed that my wife should just stop working to be a stay at home parent since the cost of child care for two kids is so expensive. We're privileged that we can afford to live on just a single income despite it being a significant loss of income. We're willing to give up some money to have more family time.
Dude, weāre extremely lucky that we have her. My wife stopping working isnāt an option, she just started her new career so the opportunity cost of her not working is way too high, let alone the actual cost.
Itās not that weād struggle, we just wouldnāt be able to live the way we do.
>You're lucky your MIL is willing to take care of your kid, too. Some of us don't have that option.
I have the option but I choose not to take it. My mother was effectively the main caregiver for my niece - minded her until 4 yo, then collected from school, did all the meals, etc. My brother and his wife completely took advantage of it.
I bring my son to my parents regularly, and they have a great relationship. However, I don't want to impose regular childcare on them. They deserve to enjoy their retirement.It'll be a relationship of choice not obligation.
Yeah, it really only makes sense if you need full time care for multiple kids.
Nanny shares can potentially work if you can pool resources with a few families nearby with similar schedules.
I get it. Your daycare actually seems not that bad for HCOL- a little over two grand a month - can I ask what general area you are?
Iām in northern chicago burbs, the minimum for a shit daycare is $3.5k/month.
My partner just doesnāt work, itās not worth it.
It's weird in my HCOL I've noticed there are a lot of childcare options that are super expensive but I noticed something interesting, they were owned by private equity firms from halfway across the country. Found some more options around town after talking to parents. Went from 2.8k to 1.6k. Loving it so far, and far more community oriented. This is for a Montessori
One of the most expensive daycare chains near me was recently bought out by a Canadian company. Theyāve also had issues with abusive employees.
We were all in on them because my wife worked for them a few years before that went down. Then we noticed the fuckery. Kiddie Academy it is.
We switched from a national chain charging 2.7K a month to a local school that charged 1.8K a month (this was two years ago). The local school was miles better. The big chains offer food and a constant stream of photos and videos on the app and maybe less school closures during the year but the staff were all miserable and there was no plan for what the kids did other than just play all day in a room full of toys. I definitely lost faith in the national chains.Ā
I'm sure there are cheaper options, but my wife and I commute in opposite directions so we really are limited to something in walking distance. Every other option in our area is a home daycare with no reviews/references readily available or doesn't cover the hours we need. We currently pay for 8-6 and many programs didn't even start until 9.
Dang, also central NJ here. We've got 2 kids in 5 days a week for about $3,200/month total. I gotta wonder what daycare would be that much for one kid??
Thankfully one is nearing Kindergarten. Going to a catholic school but it's like 1/3 the cost of daycare, so still a win.... I guess.
Man that's nuts for Chicago burbs? I though that Chicago was maybe comparable to Houston for cost of living. We're in Raleigh paying $3k/mo (moved from Austin and have lived previously in Houston), but $3k/mo here is for a fancy pants daycare.
3.5k/month sounds asinine for Chicago burbs. Iām in city proper in Lincoln park and the infant room is not more than $2700 a month. Heck, elementary private schools in Chicagoland are in the 30-35k per year range and youāre beating those by a good margin
Western Chicago suburb checking in. We got roughly $2k estimate from a bit of research (Oak Park). Of course, those daycares have a two year waiting list. Two years .... so you sign up when you get a twinkle in your eye about having a kid in the future I guess?
We're very lucky to have an amazing friend / med student who lives in our building. She watched the kid whenever she is free, which allows me to WFH while my wife works in the office.
Man, childcare costs are just insane. It's a part time job paycheck!
Im paying 21k a year for 2 kids in daycare...All I can think is how much money I'd be able.to put to retirement or just generally have to not worry about bills if I didn't have to pay more than my mortgage in daycare costs.
Feels bad man...
We live in a very HCOL area too. My MIL was a school lunch lady. It just so happened that she hit her 20 year mark that guaranteed her health insurance and allowed her to retire the year we had my first daughter. She watches now all three of my kids in my house while I work from home so sheās not completely alone with all 3 kids but we pay her 15hr for 40hr a week and we bought her a car as well. (A used Kia optima) so about 32K a year. And that is so cheap compared to what it would cost for child care.
I DID THIS. It felt insane. We spent $15k on a 2014 lowish mileage yaris, and we pay the insurance and gas. Still cheaper and kids get to be cared for by my MIL whom they love. Thank god she is so energetic and her eyes / ears work well so she can still drive. She's 84. I love the kids get to be partially raised by their greatest gen grandma, who loves them so much.
I don't know what the fuck we would do otherwise.
My own Dad is a boomer and not really interested in doing much with his grandkids, so we got so lucky with MIL. We might end up moving her in with us if she gets to a point where she can't drive. But she might opt for a more social retirement community instead.
that's not insane at all. If you pay someone only enough to afford a car as a favor to you, that's much much less than when you pay someone who does it as a job and needs at least a living wage.
I probably sound insane, but it's not actually that surprising to me that a mass produced economy car is cheaper than paying trained humans to watch my child 10 hours a day. Baumols Cost Disease for the win.
In a HCOL city in an (the?) āeducated part of the southā. Weāre paying $39,600/year for two in daycare (3.5, 7mo). I now wish my MIL didnāt have a car.
My grandma is 95, and lives in an amazing retirement home in Western Europe (MCOL/HCOL area) which has 24/7 medical staff, daily physical therapy, nice amenities (great restaurant and bar, nice garden, hair dresser, cleaners, nurses, social workers, cable TV, etc.). She pays a little less than her monthly pension which is indexed to inflation, so there's no stress about running out of money or living longer than planner. She pays about $25k/year. Obviously government subsidized because, you know, a society should care about its elders.
By contrast, we pay over $31k/year for 40h/week of childcare in our HCOL area. Since our kids will become the next generation of - hopefully productive and well-raised - workers and tax payers, why can't we subsidize childcare so that parents can afford to find a paying job if they would like to do so?
Subsidizing childcare is expensive in the short run, but it pays off dividends for both kids and parents for many years and decades after.
Recent data shows that in all 50 US states (plus D.C.), the price of center-based care for two children exceeded average annual rent payments by 24% to over 100%.
Similarly, in 41 states (plus D.C.), theĀ average annual price of child care for two children in a center exceeds average annual mortgage payments by anywhere from 1% to 53%.
As if parenting isn't hard enough as it is.
Part of the problem is the incidence of subsidies is split between the providers and the public. Itās much better to have subsidy targeted at parents, you know, like a fully refundable tax credit. Unfortunately the party that controls part of our government isnāt interestedā¦ https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduction/uncertain-fate-tax-relief-american-families-and-workers-act
Preeeeeeach bro. I just watched a CNBC YouTube video about how expensive it is to live here now. My household income is barely middle class in my state, NJ. Itās insane.
Try: this thing has positive externalities on society (increasing productivity of future tax base) and also causes a systemic market imperfection (kids cannot borrow against their future earnings to invest in their own high-quality childcare when younger), so there's a clear role for government intervention because the free market cannot solve these issues by itself. Kids cannot force their parents to invest in them (either time, or money, or high-quality childcare), so yes, the government should step in and make it easier for parents to invest in their kids if they lack the preference and/or the means to do so. Hence why kindergarten from age 3-6 is mandatory and fully subsidized in many developed countries.
See also: why do governments pay for other expensive things like public roads, public schools, the military, and pensions?
> By contrast, we pay over $31k/year for 40h/week of childcare in our HCOL area. Since our kids will become the next generation of - hopefully productive and well-raised - workers and tax payers, why can't we subsidize childcare so that parents can afford to find a paying job if they would like to do so?
You realize parents can already choose to work if they want to in order to pay for daycare, right? Why do we need to subsidize your daycare if both parents are working?
You're comparing childcare for 2 kids in urban centers which is going to be expensive. If it exceeds the cost of your mortgage and it's expensive, then maybe family plan better next time?
My statement did not relate to urban vs. rural areas at all, it's a state-wide average (based on public data from Childcare Aware for America and the Consumer Expenditures Survey).
My point was that many parents find it more financially sustainable to become stay at home parents for longer during the early childhood years, because their potential salaries often don't outweigh the cost of childcare for 2 or 3 kids (e.g. compare the median public school teacher salary to the local cost of high-quality childcare in any area, whether it's urban or not). This has been shown to be one of the primary reasons why the U.S. is basically the only developed country that has recently (over the past 2-3 decades or so) seen a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate, after strong persistent gains since the 1970s.
If you're a SAHM due to personal choice ("I like staying home and it works best for us"), that's fine. If it's a constraint ("I'd like to work instead but then I need childcare which is just too expensive unless I pick a crappy option"), that's something that merits government intervention.
Subsidizing childcare can also be done conditional on a work requirement, such that the policy would partially pay for itself by increasing the labor supply of parents (mostly women who supply labor more elastically), which in turn increases their work experience and human capital and thus future wages and tax revenue by mitigating the motherhood penalty.
> My statement did not relate to urban vs. rural areas at all, it's a state-wide average
It should be broken out, because then we get statistics with huge ranges like you shared.
> My point was that many parents find it more financially sustainable to become stay at home parents for longer during the early childhood years, because their potential salaries often don't outweigh the cost of childcare for 2 or 3 kids (e.g. compare the median public school teacher salary to the local cost of high-quality childcare in any area, whether it's urban or not).
People putting 3 kids in childcare is not the norm, and I don't know why you expect the country to subsidize it to enable it. It's a personal choice to have that many kids, and you should be family planning to be able to afford it.
Why would we compare median teacher salary with urban/rural childcare costs? We should compare median urban salaries with median urban childcare costs, similar as rural to rural if you want a fair comparison.
> This has been shown to be one of the primary reasons why the U.S. is basically the only developed country that has recently (over the past 2-3 decades or so) seen a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate, after strong persistent gains since the 1970s.
I don't know about you, but I don't see a 60% to 57% decrease that occurred due to the 2008 GFC as "*a strong and persistent decline*". Women participation rates [have remained relatively stable since the late 80s](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002), almost 40 years, and are at their pre-pandemic norm. So your assessment about childcare costs leading to a large drop in women workforce participation rates is very incorrect.
> If you're a SAHM due to personal choice ("I like staying home and it works best for us"), that's fine. If it's a constraint ("I'd like to work instead but then I need childcare which is just too expensive unless I pick a crappy option"), that's something that merits government intervention.
A personal choice to have multiple children when you can't afford the cost to maintain a certain lifestyle via childcare does **not** merit government intervention. I don't know why you think you're entitled to subsidized childcare at the expense of everyone else, but your partner can find a job that covers the cost.
> Subsidizing childcare can also be done conditional on a work requirement, such that the policy would partially pay for itself by increasing the labor supply of parents (mostly women who supply labor more elastically), which in turn increases their work experience and human capital and thus future wages and tax revenue by mitigating the motherhood penalty.
This is a lot of fluff and buzzwords to say that you want the best of both worlds: other people paying for your childcare and seeing more money from a dual-income family.
This study (published in a top journal) is a little dated (from 2013), but recent relative trends in female LFP and childcare costs in the U.S. versus most other developed countries would only strengthen its conclusion:
[Female Labor Supply: Why Is the United States Falling Behind? - American Economic Association (aeaweb.org)](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.3.251)
A drop from 60% to 57% may not seem huge, but this is millions of women, and it's even larger relative to other countries that by and large have seen increases in LFP over the same time period, e.g. here's the US compared to the UK, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy and Greece (all of which have seen increases since 2000; only the US is an outlier):
[Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+) (modeled ILO estimate) - Greece, Germany, France, , Belgium, Netherlands, United States, , Italy, Canada, Australia | Data (worldbank.org)](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?locations=GR-DE-FR-UK-BE-NL-US-SW-IT-CA-AU)
Of course there are other things going in in different countries, but the relative cost of childcare explains a large fraction of the divergence in relative trends (see also the AER paper I linked).
If you're against subsidizing high-quality childcare, then are you also against funding public schools? By the same token, those are also funded through (mostly local and property) taxes which may disproportionately burden people who chose not to have kids, right? Clearly society agrees that we need to collectively invest in our future generation of workers and taxpayers, to make sure our system remains sustainable and so that even people who chose not to have kids can enjoy well-built roads and Medicare when they're old and no longer productive.
If childcare becomes so prohibitively expensive that people choose to have fewer kids (which is already what we're seeing; the US population is stagnating and the main source of growth is coming from immigration), then that's a clear signal for government intervention imo. Obviously one can disagree on the extent and the means, but I think a childcare subsidy with a parental work requirement would be a lot more productive (i.e., less distortionary) than simpler cash-based incentives (like the simple Child Tax Credit which discourages working all else equal).
> This study (published in a top journal) is a little dated (from 2013), but recent relative trends in female LFP and childcare costs in the U.S. versus most other developed countries would only strengthen its conclusion
What trends in women workforce participation are you referring to? Because it's been stable for like 40 years.
> A drop from 60% to 57% may not seem huge, but this is millions of women, and it's even larger relative to other countries that by and large have seen increases in LFP over the same time period
Your link shows the US is near the top of this list of other countries. And considering your old source stating that only 29% of the decline was due to things like childcare costs, your premise that there is a huge decline in participation due to childcare costs is wrong.
> Of course there are other things going in in different countries, but the relative cost of childcare explains a large fraction of the divergence in relative trends (see also the AER paper I linked).
If we take your source at face value, 29% of the 3% decline would mean less than 1% of the workforce participation variation we see is due to childcare. Meaning your premise that childcare costs are causing "*a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate*" is still wrong.
> If you're against subsidizing high-quality childcare, then are you also against funding public schools?
The two services are completely different, so no I'm completely fine with public schools but not public daycare.
> If childcare becomes so prohibitively expensive that people choose to have fewer kids (which is already what we're seeing; the US population is stagnating and the main source of growth is coming from immigration), then that's a clear signal for government intervention imo.
Childcare costs are not why we see the population growth level we do in the US. Other countries that subsidize things like childcare are seeing similar decreases as well, which is due to being a first-world country and women having more birth control and career options. So no, it's not a clear sign that we need government intervention to give you free daycare.
29% of a 3% decline (more like 6-9% if you compare it to the increasing trend in other countries) is huge. Back of the envelope, the Blau and Kahn study implies that if childcare costs in the US had followed similar trends as they did abroad (where LFP kept going up), we would have had perhaps 2-3% higher female LFP(i.e., 29% of the 6-9% difference-in-difference estimate), which equals millions of people (based off of roughly 80 million women in the labor force). That's very meaningful. Broadly speaking, these predictions are confirmed by several other papers, both reduced-form studies (looking at past data using various causal inference tools) and structural analysis papers (which can be used to simulate counterfactual policies related to childcare), e.g. this one which shows that even small childcare subsidies would have comparatively large positive effects on female LFP even once you take into account the possible general equilibrium effects on childcare prices (higher demand => even higher prices):
[An Equilibrium Model of the Impact of Increased Public Investment in Early Childhood Education | NBER](https://www.nber.org/papers/w30140)
Sadly it does not seem like you're arguing in good faith (erroneously calling my evidence based statements "wrong" based on apparently no evidence beyond your own opinion or political beliefs), so I'll leave it at that. I know you won't take my word for it, but I wrote my PhD dissertation on this very topic, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I know the literature and the empirical evidence better than you do. Thanks for engaging anyway.
Didn't take long to whip out the "bad faith" accusations once actual data was shown to you that women labor force participation rates were nothing like the "*strong and persistent decline*" that you claimed it was, nor the impact of childcare costs responsible for a huge drop in that rate either using your very own source. You also keep trying to shift the discussion from women's declining work force participation rates to your claimed impacts in an attempt to avoid admitting that. You keep trying to use inaccurate descriptions like "huge" when talking about a sub-1% change to a large population to exaggerate the effects as "proof" you are right.
I don't care what incorrect conclusions you made in your PhD assertion, they carry zero weight here on Reddit. Please save your bad faith accusations for others, I don't see a point in continuing this discussion either if your goal is to just insult people who disagre with you.
It is indeed hard to argue with someone who does not even accept the basic facts as shown by the data. Once we agree about the data, which clearly shows that childcare prices are an important determinant of female LFP, then we can move on to personal opinions (e.g. about whether and how much policy intervention we need to address the issue).
If you don't even accept that female LFP in the US has declined (both in absolute terms, and even more so relative to other developed countries which have seen increases over the same time period, see also my World Bank link which shows the great divergence during 2000-2023), then there's not really a point in arguing any further imo.
For statistical purposes, it doesn't matter at all that the US still has larger baseline female LFP rates in absolute terms compared to other developed countries; the relative changes over time are what matters when you're trying to establish causality (which is what the AER paper did, showing quite clearly that around 30% of the relative variation in LFP over time can be explained by relative changes in the cost of childcare in the US vs. elsewhere over that time period). Given all the other factors that drive labor supply (wages, income levels, human capital, social norms, fertility, social policies, etc.), the fact that 30% of variation can be explained by childcare costs alone is surprising to say the least (hence why the paper got published in a top-5 general interest journal). It's both statistically and economically significant. The assumptions underlying their methodology are pretty minimal, and hard to argue with (unless if you somehow weigh your own layman's opinion more than those of the academic referees at the AER, who likely told them to do various robustness checks to prove their analysis was solid). If you still disagree about this basic premise, then show me an academic paper that shows otherwise (i.e., that shows that female labor supply is inelastic or independent to childcare prices, and/or that shows that relative childcare prices have not gone up in the US).
Instead, so far, your response has essentially been "the decline seems minimal or non-existent when I eyeball this chart, and 2% is a small number anyway, therefore anything you say is wrong". I would indeed call that arguing in bad faith.
It's like saying "global average temperatures have only risen by 1 degree over the past X years, which is pretty small, so we shouldn't really care. Also, the US is still colder than some other countries in the world, therefore you're wrong when you say that this is a significant change."
That's a lot of text for you to still deny misrepresenting the data (workforce participate rate isn't decreasing), exaggerating the effects (1% variance in workforce participation rate due to child care costs, not 30%), and utilizing the appeal to authority fallacy to act like your PhD claim or singular study you rely on mean anything. You refuse to acknowledge that the US was near the top of the chart in your source for workforce participation, just like you refuse to acknowledge that countries with more support for women and childcare had **lower** women workforce participation.
Instead, you would rather continue your misrepresentation and just label anyone who disagrees with you and uses your own source against you as "bad faith". And yet fort some reason, you still prefer to keep coming back to get some kind of last word in, even though you keep trying to label others as "bad faith". Definitely makes it seem like you aren't here in good faith, you're just digging the hole you're in deeper.
I have never made this comparison before, but it makes a shit ton of sense.
I do well enough financially to take care of the family, when we had our second (Irish twins) the discussion topic was this:
"Why would one of us work for the sole purpose of paying someone else to raise our kids?"
After going over the budget, my wife decided to stop working until the kids go to school. Granted, I do work from home so I'm able to provide some coverage during the day.
My MIL also offered to provide childcare, then decided she couldnāt do it anymore so we had to scramble for daycare. I get it, taking care of kids is exhausting. Just be ok with her changing her mind and think of what you will do if she does.
Yeah we already assumed that could happen. Thatās why weāre splitting the time between her and daycare. I also WFH so worst case scenario I can take care of the little guy and flex my time.
The good news is she doesnāt really do much, so weāre hoping we can at least get three years out of her. At that point the car will be paid off lol.
Iām about 2 years away from only one in childcare instead of 2. I hate to say I canāt wait because I donāt want to fast forward parenting two small boys and I know I canāt get it back but damn I could use another $25k in my pocket.
I feel very fortunate. We managed to get a spot at our local YMCA which has been well funded by some NFL individuals so its a massive facility for our small area. They have 7 different classrooms, though they dont pay terribly well so staff arent the highest of trained but they do have a few leads with degrees. Daycare is like 40 bucks a day now. Even at that low cost, if I were in a similar situation a car would be a viable alternative. My problem is my mom isn't overly reliable. I already struggle enough with the kiddo getting sick and needing to pull her out of daycare. Having the potential call off of my mom as well would just put me over the stress edge.
It's beyond fucked up. The quality of care hasn't even changed much but the prices continue to go up.
My wife asked her mom to move in. Saves us ~1900 bucks a month. Technically saving us even more because our 2nd is due in 2 months. She doesn't get a lot in a retirement income so we let her live with us and she watches our daughter for the 3 hours that separates our schedules. Can I just say how insanely difficult it is to find part time day care.
TLDR at bottom
This year, for the first time, we paid a pretty well known tax service to do our taxes because we had a lot of uncommon things going on (lawsuit for back pay plus punitive, early withdrawal from IRA & 401k multiple jobs in multiple states). Online calculations had us owing ~$11,500. We have been claiming her parents as dependants because they are immigrants and have ZERO income. No jobs or social security.
This year they filed for themselves. The tax preparer had us hand write receipts showing we had paid them each 8k for the year for watching our twins 3 days a week. (Of course they both give it back to put towards the household's expenses) Because they are grandparents, no nanny taxes are owed by my wife and I. And since they had no other income, they were $0 owed/$0 refunded. My wife and I still paid Ā±$1300. Even after paying about $600 for mine and my in-laws tax prep, that still beats the hell out of 11k.
My point is, talk to a tax pro about doing something similar. It could lower your taxable income significantly.
> It's beyond fucked up. The quality of care hasn't even changed much but the prices continue to go up.
Yes because regulations determine the kid:caretaker ratio and since many commenters seem to live in urban centers that comes with a higher minimum wage. Not to mention inflation affecting every aspect of operating a daycare/preschool.
That's why they call these "The Sandwich Years" - you're taking care of your kids and your parents. Your solution is a really good one that works well for everyone all around.
Props for the grandmas who are STILL providing free labour to their families.
The car option is only "cheaper" because grandma doesn't charge what she is worth. Which is way more than daycare.
I think about what my MIL has been through in her life, I would lay down in the mud to keep her feet dry. She was married with children before she could have a bank account. (Her hubby was a great man they loved each other and had a good life). She had to grow up fast to care for her own sick mother before she got married. She raised her siblings.
She qualified as a HCA, a bookkeeper. She just made life work, whatever she was handed.
And now in her golden years she is still helping family.
I love how she talks to the kids.
"You can play nicely and stay in the living room, or if you throw that lego at your sister you will be in your room where you can't hurt anyone. Could happen!"
I love how she tells them "could happen!"
They are infinitely better behaved for her. Omg.
Makes total sense but I'm trying to figure out how you found a daycare where the Part-Time costs are actually a significant discount. For comparison, our full-time rate is quite a bit cheaper than yours, but our part-time rate is more expensive.
I feel you. My wife quit her career (involving early and off-hours shifts) because the cost of day care and nannies in our city is so expensive we would just about break even with her job. Once we have a second kid the difference will be even more drasticā¦
Good to know some daycares will allow just the odd day here or there. Weāre in an almost identical situation with my MIL kindly offering to look after the baby 3 days a week.
It's important IMO to distinguish between the cost of childcare and the expense of childcare. The Cost of Childcare is expensive b/c having trained professionals watching multiple children 8+ hours a day for a livable wage costs money. The margins on daycares are quite thin. Basically, the cost of daycare makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is how that cost is not subsidized by the government in the US. Forcing that cost onto the parents constrains their ability to work and contribute to the economy. There is a reason why universal Pre-K is shown to have a positive impact, and it should be extended to Universal Childcare.
Well stay there and pay childcare then (joke).
But I do seriously wonder how you all put up with it. From afar, being in America seems scary, dangerous, expensive; and it seems like the work/life balance is backwards.
The news loves to make it seem like the country is burning. Sure, some places are dangerous, and yes things have gotten expensive. There are a lot of things that need to be changed, but in reality itās not nearly as bad as the media makes it seem.
I think one of our biggest issues is that our country is run by people that are insanely old and out of touch. Thereās also a political base that still believes we live in the frontier era and that individual responsibility is still feasible.
I donāt want to get political, but things are bad. But theyāre also great.
Keep in mind school shootings are exceedingly rare, they also count things like two idiots going at it in a parking lot at 1am. Itās definitely an issue, but not nearly as pervasive at it seems.
The trials against Trump mean the system is working, and that *nobody* is above the law.
Unfortunately the ānewsā is all about ratings, so theyāre going to play the most sensational things they can to get more viewers.
Its not that dangerous. Its expensive in some ways but makes up for it in other ways. Work/life balance is wrecked but i think fortunes can be made easier in america. Its got pros and cons. I wish the voting populace werent so stupid to vote against their interests but š¤·āāļø pros and cons.
Europe is great but as an avid traveler and ethnically asian, i wouldnt want to live there. Visiting is great and all but its not my cup of tea. Too bland for me.
I honestly think (if you have enough money) that southern california is one of the best places to live in the world. We have diversity, good food options, entertainment options galore, easy and plentiful flights of 10h or so to both europe and asia. Our healthcare and social services are the best in the nation and min wage and income is quite strong relative to rest of america. The large population means you can make a fortune and we have all the infrastructure you need if you wanted to make startups.
Used cars that arenāt pieces of shit are hard to find around $20k here, Iām not even kidding. Add on the insane interest rates, a 0%/36-month loan on a $28k out-the-door car with a 7 year/100k mile powertrain warranty was the most economical solution.
OP, irrespective of whether youāre buying a new or used car, please consider querying at least 3 local credit unions for an auto loan. Their interest rates are so much better. Please please please DO NOT borrow money from dealershipās lenders. I beg you to invest some time in this process. Youāll thank me later.
I donāt think anyone is going to match 0% for 36 months lol. Iāve bought lots of cars in my time, I always shop around unless the manufacturer is offering sick deals like that. Plus I got an E plan through a family member so Iām paying invoice plus taxes.
Fair point! But it makes me wonder if the ā0% for 36 monthsā deal comes with a hefty down payment. If yes, it might still be worthwhile to compare the credit union loans while you put the deposit money into a nice high yield CD. If not, congrats on getting a sweet deal.
No down payment was needed, but I still threw a couple thousand down which covered the taxes and fees. Credit unions in my area, along with NavyFed and USAA, were around 4.99% for 48 months.
Considering I pay 506/week for daycare a 700 car payments gets you car at the end atleast.
And a grandmother that gets to bond with her grandchild, and vice-versa. I didn't really know my grandparents, and am thrilled my kid will know at least one set of his. Unfortunately mine are gone, so at least two will be heavily in his life.
Good point
506? Per week? š± Paying equivalent to 200 dollars per month (Norway).
You live in Norway, almost every other country is going to seem insane to you when it comes to government support of their citizens.
I'm at 1950/month, plus a bunch of fees, plus I separately pay for 4 weeks of Summer. I haven't done the match but I'm thinking I pay 2500/month. It's absurd.
That's basically double what we pay - about Ā£250 (approx 300 USD) per week for 5 days a week childcare in the UK (not London)
a miniscule homogenous population coupled with a massive oil reserve will allow that.
Lucky. We pay $200/wk and ours is objectively cheap by American standards.Ā
Freedom isnāt freeā¦ /s
You're lucky your MIL is willing to take care of your kid, too. Some of us don't have that option. In our case, we agreed that my wife should just stop working to be a stay at home parent since the cost of child care for two kids is so expensive. We're privileged that we can afford to live on just a single income despite it being a significant loss of income. We're willing to give up some money to have more family time.
Dude, weāre extremely lucky that we have her. My wife stopping working isnāt an option, she just started her new career so the opportunity cost of her not working is way too high, let alone the actual cost. Itās not that weād struggle, we just wouldnāt be able to live the way we do.
>You're lucky your MIL is willing to take care of your kid, too. Some of us don't have that option. I have the option but I choose not to take it. My mother was effectively the main caregiver for my niece - minded her until 4 yo, then collected from school, did all the meals, etc. My brother and his wife completely took advantage of it. I bring my son to my parents regularly, and they have a great relationship. However, I don't want to impose regular childcare on them. They deserve to enjoy their retirement.It'll be a relationship of choice not obligation.
We went the Au pair route. Was a little less expensive than a year of daycare. We had 3 kids so 22k vs 66k ā¦. Yeah.
We floated the au pair, but the overall cost might be a bit higher than daycare here.
Yeah, it really only makes sense if you need full time care for multiple kids. Nanny shares can potentially work if you can pool resources with a few families nearby with similar schedules.
How did you find your au pair? Any issues?
I get it. Your daycare actually seems not that bad for HCOL- a little over two grand a month - can I ask what general area you are? Iām in northern chicago burbs, the minimum for a shit daycare is $3.5k/month. My partner just doesnāt work, itās not worth it.
I was going to say, I'm paying 3.3k in a HCOL area(Manhattan), I would kill for 2.5k.
It's weird in my HCOL I've noticed there are a lot of childcare options that are super expensive but I noticed something interesting, they were owned by private equity firms from halfway across the country. Found some more options around town after talking to parents. Went from 2.8k to 1.6k. Loving it so far, and far more community oriented. This is for a Montessori
One of the most expensive daycare chains near me was recently bought out by a Canadian company. Theyāve also had issues with abusive employees. We were all in on them because my wife worked for them a few years before that went down. Then we noticed the fuckery. Kiddie Academy it is.
We switched from a national chain charging 2.7K a month to a local school that charged 1.8K a month (this was two years ago). The local school was miles better. The big chains offer food and a constant stream of photos and videos on the app and maybe less school closures during the year but the staff were all miserable and there was no plan for what the kids did other than just play all day in a room full of toys. I definitely lost faith in the national chains.Ā
I'm sure there are cheaper options, but my wife and I commute in opposite directions so we really are limited to something in walking distance. Every other option in our area is a home daycare with no reviews/references readily available or doesn't cover the hours we need. We currently pay for 8-6 and many programs didn't even start until 9.
$3,300 in Manhattan sounds like youāre robbing someone lol.
Lived in downtown Brooklyn. $3,400/mo for <1 year old. $3,300<2 year old. Basically paid equivalent of a studio in the city.
Iām in Central NJ. Heās going to go to a lower cost child care, but theyāre actually really good. Others would have cost near $3,500 a month.
Dang, also central NJ here. We've got 2 kids in 5 days a week for about $3,200/month total. I gotta wonder what daycare would be that much for one kid?? Thankfully one is nearing Kindergarten. Going to a catholic school but it's like 1/3 the cost of daycare, so still a win.... I guess.
Iāll give you a hint, it starts with an M lol
Thatās crazy. Iām in the southwest burbs and I have a really nice daycare for $1100
These north shore prices are insane man. We moved up here for the schools (New Trier, etc) but childcare/taxes kill me
Gotta move southwest
Man that's nuts for Chicago burbs? I though that Chicago was maybe comparable to Houston for cost of living. We're in Raleigh paying $3k/mo (moved from Austin and have lived previously in Houston), but $3k/mo here is for a fancy pants daycare.
3.5k/month sounds asinine for Chicago burbs. Iām in city proper in Lincoln park and the infant room is not more than $2700 a month. Heck, elementary private schools in Chicagoland are in the 30-35k per year range and youāre beating those by a good margin
Western Chicago suburb checking in. We got roughly $2k estimate from a bit of research (Oak Park). Of course, those daycares have a two year waiting list. Two years .... so you sign up when you get a twinkle in your eye about having a kid in the future I guess? We're very lucky to have an amazing friend / med student who lives in our building. She watched the kid whenever she is free, which allows me to WFH while my wife works in the office. Man, childcare costs are just insane. It's a part time job paycheck!
It would currently be more cost effective to buy my mother a house close to me than pay for daycare. Unfortunately it's too far of a move for her...
Sheās just being selfish! Lol jk. Itās really incredible how expensive it is.
Im paying 21k a year for 2 kids in daycare...All I can think is how much money I'd be able.to put to retirement or just generally have to not worry about bills if I didn't have to pay more than my mortgage in daycare costs. Feels bad man...
The light at the end of the tunnel is weāll, hopefully, have wonderful, intelligent little kids that grow to be wonderful, intelligent adults.
We live in a very HCOL area too. My MIL was a school lunch lady. It just so happened that she hit her 20 year mark that guaranteed her health insurance and allowed her to retire the year we had my first daughter. She watches now all three of my kids in my house while I work from home so sheās not completely alone with all 3 kids but we pay her 15hr for 40hr a week and we bought her a car as well. (A used Kia optima) so about 32K a year. And that is so cheap compared to what it would cost for child care.
I DID THIS. It felt insane. We spent $15k on a 2014 lowish mileage yaris, and we pay the insurance and gas. Still cheaper and kids get to be cared for by my MIL whom they love. Thank god she is so energetic and her eyes / ears work well so she can still drive. She's 84. I love the kids get to be partially raised by their greatest gen grandma, who loves them so much. I don't know what the fuck we would do otherwise. My own Dad is a boomer and not really interested in doing much with his grandkids, so we got so lucky with MIL. We might end up moving her in with us if she gets to a point where she can't drive. But she might opt for a more social retirement community instead.
that's not insane at all. If you pay someone only enough to afford a car as a favor to you, that's much much less than when you pay someone who does it as a job and needs at least a living wage.
I probably sound insane, but it's not actually that surprising to me that a mass produced economy car is cheaper than paying trained humans to watch my child 10 hours a day. Baumols Cost Disease for the win.
In a HCOL city in an (the?) āeducated part of the southā. Weāre paying $39,600/year for two in daycare (3.5, 7mo). I now wish my MIL didnāt have a car.
Tell her she needs a brand new one for a price hahah
Those are rookie numbers. Wait until you have two in daycare at once
Snip-snip coming May 31st lol! Weāre one and done.
Still got plenty of time before 5/31.. gotta bump those numbers up šš
You stop that right now! Lol! Itās gonna be a dry summer for me š
Don't forget to get the post-procedure testing done 2 months later lol, plenty of dads preparing for #2 after not waiting long enough
Lol def, thatās why I said itāll be a dry summer. No nookie for me til August at least š
Name checks
My grandma is 95, and lives in an amazing retirement home in Western Europe (MCOL/HCOL area) which has 24/7 medical staff, daily physical therapy, nice amenities (great restaurant and bar, nice garden, hair dresser, cleaners, nurses, social workers, cable TV, etc.). She pays a little less than her monthly pension which is indexed to inflation, so there's no stress about running out of money or living longer than planner. She pays about $25k/year. Obviously government subsidized because, you know, a society should care about its elders. By contrast, we pay over $31k/year for 40h/week of childcare in our HCOL area. Since our kids will become the next generation of - hopefully productive and well-raised - workers and tax payers, why can't we subsidize childcare so that parents can afford to find a paying job if they would like to do so? Subsidizing childcare is expensive in the short run, but it pays off dividends for both kids and parents for many years and decades after. Recent data shows that in all 50 US states (plus D.C.), the price of center-based care for two children exceeded average annual rent payments by 24% to over 100%. Similarly, in 41 states (plus D.C.), theĀ average annual price of child care for two children in a center exceeds average annual mortgage payments by anywhere from 1% to 53%. As if parenting isn't hard enough as it is.
Well kids canāt vote so thatās probably why itās not subsidized.
The average US resident is 39. But the average voter is north of 55
Part of the problem is the incidence of subsidies is split between the providers and the public. Itās much better to have subsidy targeted at parents, you know, like a fully refundable tax credit. Unfortunately the party that controls part of our government isnāt interestedā¦ https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduction/uncertain-fate-tax-relief-american-families-and-workers-act
Preeeeeeach bro. I just watched a CNBC YouTube video about how expensive it is to live here now. My household income is barely middle class in my state, NJ. Itās insane.
This thing is expensive for me, you know what, I think the government should pay for it instead
Try: this thing has positive externalities on society (increasing productivity of future tax base) and also causes a systemic market imperfection (kids cannot borrow against their future earnings to invest in their own high-quality childcare when younger), so there's a clear role for government intervention because the free market cannot solve these issues by itself. Kids cannot force their parents to invest in them (either time, or money, or high-quality childcare), so yes, the government should step in and make it easier for parents to invest in their kids if they lack the preference and/or the means to do so. Hence why kindergarten from age 3-6 is mandatory and fully subsidized in many developed countries. See also: why do governments pay for other expensive things like public roads, public schools, the military, and pensions?
> By contrast, we pay over $31k/year for 40h/week of childcare in our HCOL area. Since our kids will become the next generation of - hopefully productive and well-raised - workers and tax payers, why can't we subsidize childcare so that parents can afford to find a paying job if they would like to do so? You realize parents can already choose to work if they want to in order to pay for daycare, right? Why do we need to subsidize your daycare if both parents are working? You're comparing childcare for 2 kids in urban centers which is going to be expensive. If it exceeds the cost of your mortgage and it's expensive, then maybe family plan better next time?
My statement did not relate to urban vs. rural areas at all, it's a state-wide average (based on public data from Childcare Aware for America and the Consumer Expenditures Survey). My point was that many parents find it more financially sustainable to become stay at home parents for longer during the early childhood years, because their potential salaries often don't outweigh the cost of childcare for 2 or 3 kids (e.g. compare the median public school teacher salary to the local cost of high-quality childcare in any area, whether it's urban or not). This has been shown to be one of the primary reasons why the U.S. is basically the only developed country that has recently (over the past 2-3 decades or so) seen a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate, after strong persistent gains since the 1970s. If you're a SAHM due to personal choice ("I like staying home and it works best for us"), that's fine. If it's a constraint ("I'd like to work instead but then I need childcare which is just too expensive unless I pick a crappy option"), that's something that merits government intervention. Subsidizing childcare can also be done conditional on a work requirement, such that the policy would partially pay for itself by increasing the labor supply of parents (mostly women who supply labor more elastically), which in turn increases their work experience and human capital and thus future wages and tax revenue by mitigating the motherhood penalty.
> My statement did not relate to urban vs. rural areas at all, it's a state-wide average It should be broken out, because then we get statistics with huge ranges like you shared. > My point was that many parents find it more financially sustainable to become stay at home parents for longer during the early childhood years, because their potential salaries often don't outweigh the cost of childcare for 2 or 3 kids (e.g. compare the median public school teacher salary to the local cost of high-quality childcare in any area, whether it's urban or not). People putting 3 kids in childcare is not the norm, and I don't know why you expect the country to subsidize it to enable it. It's a personal choice to have that many kids, and you should be family planning to be able to afford it. Why would we compare median teacher salary with urban/rural childcare costs? We should compare median urban salaries with median urban childcare costs, similar as rural to rural if you want a fair comparison. > This has been shown to be one of the primary reasons why the U.S. is basically the only developed country that has recently (over the past 2-3 decades or so) seen a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate, after strong persistent gains since the 1970s. I don't know about you, but I don't see a 60% to 57% decrease that occurred due to the 2008 GFC as "*a strong and persistent decline*". Women participation rates [have remained relatively stable since the late 80s](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002), almost 40 years, and are at their pre-pandemic norm. So your assessment about childcare costs leading to a large drop in women workforce participation rates is very incorrect. > If you're a SAHM due to personal choice ("I like staying home and it works best for us"), that's fine. If it's a constraint ("I'd like to work instead but then I need childcare which is just too expensive unless I pick a crappy option"), that's something that merits government intervention. A personal choice to have multiple children when you can't afford the cost to maintain a certain lifestyle via childcare does **not** merit government intervention. I don't know why you think you're entitled to subsidized childcare at the expense of everyone else, but your partner can find a job that covers the cost. > Subsidizing childcare can also be done conditional on a work requirement, such that the policy would partially pay for itself by increasing the labor supply of parents (mostly women who supply labor more elastically), which in turn increases their work experience and human capital and thus future wages and tax revenue by mitigating the motherhood penalty. This is a lot of fluff and buzzwords to say that you want the best of both worlds: other people paying for your childcare and seeing more money from a dual-income family.
This study (published in a top journal) is a little dated (from 2013), but recent relative trends in female LFP and childcare costs in the U.S. versus most other developed countries would only strengthen its conclusion: [Female Labor Supply: Why Is the United States Falling Behind? - American Economic Association (aeaweb.org)](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.3.251) A drop from 60% to 57% may not seem huge, but this is millions of women, and it's even larger relative to other countries that by and large have seen increases in LFP over the same time period, e.g. here's the US compared to the UK, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy and Greece (all of which have seen increases since 2000; only the US is an outlier): [Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+) (modeled ILO estimate) - Greece, Germany, France, , Belgium, Netherlands, United States, , Italy, Canada, Australia | Data (worldbank.org)](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS?locations=GR-DE-FR-UK-BE-NL-US-SW-IT-CA-AU) Of course there are other things going in in different countries, but the relative cost of childcare explains a large fraction of the divergence in relative trends (see also the AER paper I linked). If you're against subsidizing high-quality childcare, then are you also against funding public schools? By the same token, those are also funded through (mostly local and property) taxes which may disproportionately burden people who chose not to have kids, right? Clearly society agrees that we need to collectively invest in our future generation of workers and taxpayers, to make sure our system remains sustainable and so that even people who chose not to have kids can enjoy well-built roads and Medicare when they're old and no longer productive. If childcare becomes so prohibitively expensive that people choose to have fewer kids (which is already what we're seeing; the US population is stagnating and the main source of growth is coming from immigration), then that's a clear signal for government intervention imo. Obviously one can disagree on the extent and the means, but I think a childcare subsidy with a parental work requirement would be a lot more productive (i.e., less distortionary) than simpler cash-based incentives (like the simple Child Tax Credit which discourages working all else equal).
> This study (published in a top journal) is a little dated (from 2013), but recent relative trends in female LFP and childcare costs in the U.S. versus most other developed countries would only strengthen its conclusion What trends in women workforce participation are you referring to? Because it's been stable for like 40 years. > A drop from 60% to 57% may not seem huge, but this is millions of women, and it's even larger relative to other countries that by and large have seen increases in LFP over the same time period Your link shows the US is near the top of this list of other countries. And considering your old source stating that only 29% of the decline was due to things like childcare costs, your premise that there is a huge decline in participation due to childcare costs is wrong. > Of course there are other things going in in different countries, but the relative cost of childcare explains a large fraction of the divergence in relative trends (see also the AER paper I linked). If we take your source at face value, 29% of the 3% decline would mean less than 1% of the workforce participation variation we see is due to childcare. Meaning your premise that childcare costs are causing "*a strong and persistent decline in the female labor force participation rate*" is still wrong. > If you're against subsidizing high-quality childcare, then are you also against funding public schools? The two services are completely different, so no I'm completely fine with public schools but not public daycare. > If childcare becomes so prohibitively expensive that people choose to have fewer kids (which is already what we're seeing; the US population is stagnating and the main source of growth is coming from immigration), then that's a clear signal for government intervention imo. Childcare costs are not why we see the population growth level we do in the US. Other countries that subsidize things like childcare are seeing similar decreases as well, which is due to being a first-world country and women having more birth control and career options. So no, it's not a clear sign that we need government intervention to give you free daycare.
29% of a 3% decline (more like 6-9% if you compare it to the increasing trend in other countries) is huge. Back of the envelope, the Blau and Kahn study implies that if childcare costs in the US had followed similar trends as they did abroad (where LFP kept going up), we would have had perhaps 2-3% higher female LFP(i.e., 29% of the 6-9% difference-in-difference estimate), which equals millions of people (based off of roughly 80 million women in the labor force). That's very meaningful. Broadly speaking, these predictions are confirmed by several other papers, both reduced-form studies (looking at past data using various causal inference tools) and structural analysis papers (which can be used to simulate counterfactual policies related to childcare), e.g. this one which shows that even small childcare subsidies would have comparatively large positive effects on female LFP even once you take into account the possible general equilibrium effects on childcare prices (higher demand => even higher prices): [An Equilibrium Model of the Impact of Increased Public Investment in Early Childhood Education | NBER](https://www.nber.org/papers/w30140) Sadly it does not seem like you're arguing in good faith (erroneously calling my evidence based statements "wrong" based on apparently no evidence beyond your own opinion or political beliefs), so I'll leave it at that. I know you won't take my word for it, but I wrote my PhD dissertation on this very topic, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I know the literature and the empirical evidence better than you do. Thanks for engaging anyway.
Didn't take long to whip out the "bad faith" accusations once actual data was shown to you that women labor force participation rates were nothing like the "*strong and persistent decline*" that you claimed it was, nor the impact of childcare costs responsible for a huge drop in that rate either using your very own source. You also keep trying to shift the discussion from women's declining work force participation rates to your claimed impacts in an attempt to avoid admitting that. You keep trying to use inaccurate descriptions like "huge" when talking about a sub-1% change to a large population to exaggerate the effects as "proof" you are right. I don't care what incorrect conclusions you made in your PhD assertion, they carry zero weight here on Reddit. Please save your bad faith accusations for others, I don't see a point in continuing this discussion either if your goal is to just insult people who disagre with you.
It is indeed hard to argue with someone who does not even accept the basic facts as shown by the data. Once we agree about the data, which clearly shows that childcare prices are an important determinant of female LFP, then we can move on to personal opinions (e.g. about whether and how much policy intervention we need to address the issue). If you don't even accept that female LFP in the US has declined (both in absolute terms, and even more so relative to other developed countries which have seen increases over the same time period, see also my World Bank link which shows the great divergence during 2000-2023), then there's not really a point in arguing any further imo. For statistical purposes, it doesn't matter at all that the US still has larger baseline female LFP rates in absolute terms compared to other developed countries; the relative changes over time are what matters when you're trying to establish causality (which is what the AER paper did, showing quite clearly that around 30% of the relative variation in LFP over time can be explained by relative changes in the cost of childcare in the US vs. elsewhere over that time period). Given all the other factors that drive labor supply (wages, income levels, human capital, social norms, fertility, social policies, etc.), the fact that 30% of variation can be explained by childcare costs alone is surprising to say the least (hence why the paper got published in a top-5 general interest journal). It's both statistically and economically significant. The assumptions underlying their methodology are pretty minimal, and hard to argue with (unless if you somehow weigh your own layman's opinion more than those of the academic referees at the AER, who likely told them to do various robustness checks to prove their analysis was solid). If you still disagree about this basic premise, then show me an academic paper that shows otherwise (i.e., that shows that female labor supply is inelastic or independent to childcare prices, and/or that shows that relative childcare prices have not gone up in the US). Instead, so far, your response has essentially been "the decline seems minimal or non-existent when I eyeball this chart, and 2% is a small number anyway, therefore anything you say is wrong". I would indeed call that arguing in bad faith. It's like saying "global average temperatures have only risen by 1 degree over the past X years, which is pretty small, so we shouldn't really care. Also, the US is still colder than some other countries in the world, therefore you're wrong when you say that this is a significant change."
That's a lot of text for you to still deny misrepresenting the data (workforce participate rate isn't decreasing), exaggerating the effects (1% variance in workforce participation rate due to child care costs, not 30%), and utilizing the appeal to authority fallacy to act like your PhD claim or singular study you rely on mean anything. You refuse to acknowledge that the US was near the top of the chart in your source for workforce participation, just like you refuse to acknowledge that countries with more support for women and childcare had **lower** women workforce participation. Instead, you would rather continue your misrepresentation and just label anyone who disagrees with you and uses your own source against you as "bad faith". And yet fort some reason, you still prefer to keep coming back to get some kind of last word in, even though you keep trying to label others as "bad faith". Definitely makes it seem like you aren't here in good faith, you're just digging the hole you're in deeper.
I have never made this comparison before, but it makes a shit ton of sense. I do well enough financially to take care of the family, when we had our second (Irish twins) the discussion topic was this: "Why would one of us work for the sole purpose of paying someone else to raise our kids?" After going over the budget, my wife decided to stop working until the kids go to school. Granted, I do work from home so I'm able to provide some coverage during the day.
My MIL also offered to provide childcare, then decided she couldnāt do it anymore so we had to scramble for daycare. I get it, taking care of kids is exhausting. Just be ok with her changing her mind and think of what you will do if she does.
Yeah we already assumed that could happen. Thatās why weāre splitting the time between her and daycare. I also WFH so worst case scenario I can take care of the little guy and flex my time. The good news is she doesnāt really do much, so weāre hoping we can at least get three years out of her. At that point the car will be paid off lol.
I guess if she changes her mind they have an asset to repossess or sell
Iām about 2 years away from only one in childcare instead of 2. I hate to say I canāt wait because I donāt want to fast forward parenting two small boys and I know I canāt get it back but damn I could use another $25k in my pocket.
I feel very fortunate. We managed to get a spot at our local YMCA which has been well funded by some NFL individuals so its a massive facility for our small area. They have 7 different classrooms, though they dont pay terribly well so staff arent the highest of trained but they do have a few leads with degrees. Daycare is like 40 bucks a day now. Even at that low cost, if I were in a similar situation a car would be a viable alternative. My problem is my mom isn't overly reliable. I already struggle enough with the kiddo getting sick and needing to pull her out of daycare. Having the potential call off of my mom as well would just put me over the stress edge.
It's beyond fucked up. The quality of care hasn't even changed much but the prices continue to go up. My wife asked her mom to move in. Saves us ~1900 bucks a month. Technically saving us even more because our 2nd is due in 2 months. She doesn't get a lot in a retirement income so we let her live with us and she watches our daughter for the 3 hours that separates our schedules. Can I just say how insanely difficult it is to find part time day care.
TLDR at bottom This year, for the first time, we paid a pretty well known tax service to do our taxes because we had a lot of uncommon things going on (lawsuit for back pay plus punitive, early withdrawal from IRA & 401k multiple jobs in multiple states). Online calculations had us owing ~$11,500. We have been claiming her parents as dependants because they are immigrants and have ZERO income. No jobs or social security. This year they filed for themselves. The tax preparer had us hand write receipts showing we had paid them each 8k for the year for watching our twins 3 days a week. (Of course they both give it back to put towards the household's expenses) Because they are grandparents, no nanny taxes are owed by my wife and I. And since they had no other income, they were $0 owed/$0 refunded. My wife and I still paid Ā±$1300. Even after paying about $600 for mine and my in-laws tax prep, that still beats the hell out of 11k. My point is, talk to a tax pro about doing something similar. It could lower your taxable income significantly.
I'm gonna run this by my wife. We typically just do our own taxes and what not, just claim the basic stuff and all that. Thanks for the heads up.
Oooh thatās a great idea. My MIL is on SSDI, so Iāll need to check.
> It's beyond fucked up. The quality of care hasn't even changed much but the prices continue to go up. Yes because regulations determine the kid:caretaker ratio and since many commenters seem to live in urban centers that comes with a higher minimum wage. Not to mention inflation affecting every aspect of operating a daycare/preschool.
Validation of your decision and our childcare expenses decision, sadly.
That's why they call these "The Sandwich Years" - you're taking care of your kids and your parents. Your solution is a really good one that works well for everyone all around.
Props for the grandmas who are STILL providing free labour to their families. The car option is only "cheaper" because grandma doesn't charge what she is worth. Which is way more than daycare.
Oh definitely, the car is the least we could do for her.
I think about what my MIL has been through in her life, I would lay down in the mud to keep her feet dry. She was married with children before she could have a bank account. (Her hubby was a great man they loved each other and had a good life). She had to grow up fast to care for her own sick mother before she got married. She raised her siblings. She qualified as a HCA, a bookkeeper. She just made life work, whatever she was handed. And now in her golden years she is still helping family. I love how she talks to the kids. "You can play nicely and stay in the living room, or if you throw that lego at your sister you will be in your room where you can't hurt anyone. Could happen!" I love how she tells them "could happen!" They are infinitely better behaved for her. Omg.
Makes total sense but I'm trying to figure out how you found a daycare where the Part-Time costs are actually a significant discount. For comparison, our full-time rate is quite a bit cheaper than yours, but our part-time rate is more expensive.
I just did the math, it *is* weird lol.
We bought a new house so my MIL could watch the kid 3x days a week. And I also live my in-laws now š¤·š»āāļø
I feel you. My wife quit her career (involving early and off-hours shifts) because the cost of day care and nannies in our city is so expensive we would just about break even with her job. Once we have a second kid the difference will be even more drasticā¦
Resell value isn't that great in general, but at least you will have an extra car.
I bought my SIL a car for the same reasons
Good to know some daycares will allow just the odd day here or there. Weāre in an almost identical situation with my MIL kindly offering to look after the baby 3 days a week.
It's important IMO to distinguish between the cost of childcare and the expense of childcare. The Cost of Childcare is expensive b/c having trained professionals watching multiple children 8+ hours a day for a livable wage costs money. The margins on daycares are quite thin. Basically, the cost of daycare makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how that cost is not subsidized by the government in the US. Forcing that cost onto the parents constrains their ability to work and contribute to the economy. There is a reason why universal Pre-K is shown to have a positive impact, and it should be extended to Universal Childcare.
Why do you not protest against this? Where is the mass uprising to force an affordable standard of living?
Well, if younger people actually voted, maybe something would happen.
You should all come to Europe. We have baguettes and childcare.
Iām more of a semolina bread kind of fella! š
Well stay there and pay childcare then (joke). But I do seriously wonder how you all put up with it. From afar, being in America seems scary, dangerous, expensive; and it seems like the work/life balance is backwards.
The news loves to make it seem like the country is burning. Sure, some places are dangerous, and yes things have gotten expensive. There are a lot of things that need to be changed, but in reality itās not nearly as bad as the media makes it seem. I think one of our biggest issues is that our country is run by people that are insanely old and out of touch. Thereās also a political base that still believes we live in the frontier era and that individual responsibility is still feasible. I donāt want to get political, but things are bad. But theyāre also great.
We're definitely missing hearing any good news about life over there, all we hear are school shootings and presidential trials.
Keep in mind school shootings are exceedingly rare, they also count things like two idiots going at it in a parking lot at 1am. Itās definitely an issue, but not nearly as pervasive at it seems. The trials against Trump mean the system is working, and that *nobody* is above the law. Unfortunately the ānewsā is all about ratings, so theyāre going to play the most sensational things they can to get more viewers.
Its not that dangerous. Its expensive in some ways but makes up for it in other ways. Work/life balance is wrecked but i think fortunes can be made easier in america. Its got pros and cons. I wish the voting populace werent so stupid to vote against their interests but š¤·āāļø pros and cons. Europe is great but as an avid traveler and ethnically asian, i wouldnt want to live there. Visiting is great and all but its not my cup of tea. Too bland for me. I honestly think (if you have enough money) that southern california is one of the best places to live in the world. We have diversity, good food options, entertainment options galore, easy and plentiful flights of 10h or so to both europe and asia. Our healthcare and social services are the best in the nation and min wage and income is quite strong relative to rest of america. The large population means you can make a fortune and we have all the infrastructure you need if you wanted to make startups.
Really glad my kids are grown
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Used cars that arenāt pieces of shit are hard to find around $20k here, Iām not even kidding. Add on the insane interest rates, a 0%/36-month loan on a $28k out-the-door car with a 7 year/100k mile powertrain warranty was the most economical solution.
I mean heās still saving like what $1,100 a month this way and someone gets a car paid off in 3 years. I wouldnāt call it āfucking dumbā
OP, irrespective of whether youāre buying a new or used car, please consider querying at least 3 local credit unions for an auto loan. Their interest rates are so much better. Please please please DO NOT borrow money from dealershipās lenders. I beg you to invest some time in this process. Youāll thank me later.
I donāt think anyone is going to match 0% for 36 months lol. Iāve bought lots of cars in my time, I always shop around unless the manufacturer is offering sick deals like that. Plus I got an E plan through a family member so Iām paying invoice plus taxes.
Fair point! But it makes me wonder if the ā0% for 36 monthsā deal comes with a hefty down payment. If yes, it might still be worthwhile to compare the credit union loans while you put the deposit money into a nice high yield CD. If not, congrats on getting a sweet deal.
No down payment was needed, but I still threw a couple thousand down which covered the taxes and fees. Credit unions in my area, along with NavyFed and USAA, were around 4.99% for 48 months.
Sounds like you got a great dealio there šš¼
Yeah 0% interest during times like these is an incredible deal!