Seriously, it is.
For it seems to me that children are viewed not as sentient human beings that have just as much entitlement to life and fair treatment as the rest of us, but rather pieces of furniture that go well with the SUV that we have for our own selfish desires.
And the minute a marriage becomes "inconvenient" the knee-jerk solution is divorce.
No, no, forget about the kid. No, "what, that kid? Why it's just a piece of furniture. It doesn't have feelings or emotions. Besides, our mutual hatred for each other and desire to get furthest away from one another supersedes than that child's "feelings" and psychological well-being if it has any. Why, there should be no ramifications for bringing in another life into this world if it inconveniences us in the slightest."
And again, though I hate children, I don't like to see them suffer. For like dogs, I deem them largely innocent and better than the average human. Thus when I am king I will make it illegal to divorce until all the children you brought into the world are 18 and mature enough to understand the concept of divorce. And there will be a severe divorce tax. Like half your freaking net worth. And I'm not just talking about the guys. I'm a true believer in equality. Women will pay too. I will force people to realize that if they brought another human into the world, then that human, no matter much you desire to treat it like a disposable addition to the drapes, is a human with emotions, feelings and thoughts that is just as entitled to humane treatment as the rest of us.
I will also enforce another thing. Somebody, be it the husband or the wife is staying home to take care of that kid. I don't care if it's unconventional. I don't care if it's old fashioned. I damn right don't care if it's dictatorial. You brought a human being into this world under the pretense you "love it" ergo one of you, by golly, be it the husband or the wife is going to stay at home and raise it. And if you dare outsource that child's upbringing to a nanny or day care center, I hope you enjoy your long lonely years in a nursing home, because that kid is not going to come visit you, and nor should s/he.
In any case what tripped this tirade is these charts I found and I forget where. It showed me something I already suspected to be true. That when neither of the parents decide to stay at home and take care of the kid, it's not like they're saving money or coming out ahead. They still have to spend just as much money on "childcare," as well as pay more in taxes because the default babysitter in most cases is the government.
So look, seriously. I am an evil, nazi, facist, racist, Republican, sexist, evil, capitalist and overall general poopy person. I don't like kids and have been known to trip old people. But do you think maybe one of you might want to stay home and take care of the kid instead of having the government do it for you? I mean, seriously, you brought the kid into this world for a reason, right? Presumably to love it and cherish it? Can you perhaps set the freaking laptop down and instead of just slave away to pay the extra taxes and child care costs to pay somebody else to do it for you, maybe do it yourself? Or heck, maybe just for the kid's psychological health "feign" like you care more about the kid than your career. I don't know, as I am not a father, but it would seem to me (despite my obvious hatred for children and of course being evil incarnate) it would seem a posh lifestyle to have my wife work whilst I play with junior and teach him how to make farting noises with his armpit, spit cherry pits with the pressurized tongue technique and how to make slingshots.
Then again, what do I know. I'm just some dumb economist that refuses to conform, doesn't adhere to group think and has the slightest audacity to concoct the occasional independent thought. You know, crazy thoughts, like children are humans too.
Your chart says that child care costs only $10,000. If one person stays at home, they will lose more than that, thereby lowering their standard of living.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that there are people who value their furniture higher than their kids. But it is possible for both parents to go to work and love their child, if they'd only try hard enough. He/She could work part-time. Don't forget that children are at school half the day, so schools already do some "child care".
Capt.
ReplyDeleteWhile I largely agree with you, I did notice two things.
One is (as you mentioned) the TAXES going up by 10%
What is really interesting though is to adjust your figures for inflation.
I went to the handy inflation calculator
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
and put in $38,700 for 1972 and asked what it would be worth in 2005.
I got this
What cost $38,700 in 1972 would cost $186,104.61 in 2005.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1972,
they would cost you $38700 and $8321.19 respectively.
Using a different site http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
I find
In 1972, $67,800.00 from 2005 is worth:
$14,528.57 using the Consumer Price Index
$18,101.80 using the GDP deflator
$13,896.30 using the value of consumer bundle
$15,091.11 using the unskilled wage
$9,533.11 using the nominal GDP per capita
$6,752.25 using the relative share of GDP
So you have a flaw in your comparison. If you adjust for inflation you need to be bringing $186,104.61 into the house today to equal the purchasing power that $38,700 brought home back in 1972.
Now unless Daddy is a big time attorney or doctor, you are going to need two incomes to make that sort of money, legally.
This may explain why most of the stay at home moms I know are married to doctors and lawyers.
Interesting post, largly I agree, though being an Engineer, not an Economist I didn't have the correct numbers to put to the solution that "felt right". My wife and I are fortunate to be able to have her stay at home with the young ones, and next year when the youngest goes off to school, she will likely be able to get a part time/education job. Without the second income, it is a bit "tight" at times, but I did do the math when we decided she would stay home with our first, the additional tax and daycare expenses came to more than what she brought home. So, moving jobs got me a raise, and that's that :-) So overall, I agree completely with your post.... At least until the kids make it to full time schooling. At that point the cost of daycare, as long as there is a flexable schedule on one or both of the jobs drops to the point of making the second income a better thing than not, at least in some cases...
ReplyDeletei'll tax sex
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking about issuing tax credits to guys who get vasectomies or something.
ReplyDeleteAh children, those little demons everyone loves :) I never intend to have one, but if I do, I will most definitely take a big role in raising and educating it. I think a lot of people just have kids because it's just a selfish thing in that people want their genes to get passed on; the idea of just dying and not passing on any lineage un-nerves a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that's all they want to pass on, is the genes; the majority seem dis-interested in producing a productive member of society.
One problem with these days is it's difficult to raise a child on a single income, so both parents have to work. I've read one cause of this is the school system; since bureaucrats choose where your kid goes to school, people compete to move into good neighborhoods, which drives up property prices, etc...
As for taxes, I'd rescind the gas tax and implement a junk food tax, on cookies, cakes, candies, donuts, etc...we could pay for universal healthcare, SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and whatever else easily then :D
OK, I'm no economist, but I will point out one small thing: not only are you dealing with lost wages if one person stays home, but the years that you do stay home get factored in as big fat ZEROES when your Social Security is being calculated. So if I stay home, I'm not just losing my immediate wages. I'm also losing part of my retirement income, which might come in handy if my husband predeceases me. Also, if my husband is suddenly laid off and I've been out of the workforce for ten years, it's going to be a lot harder for me to pick up and get a job that will support us and our kids.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with you that it makes sense for one parent to stay at home, and I think most people don't do a realistic cost-benefit analysis before they decide to pack Junior off to day care. But I do think there are other considerations that need to be factored in.
I am also an engineer and my wife stays home with our infant daughter. It makes zero sense for my wife to work because the extra taxes and daycare would offset or nearly offset the extra income. Not to mention her expenses would go up as she would drive more than she does now if she had a job (other than being mommy). Given that here biochemistry degree doesn't allow her to earn much more than an assistant manager at Arby's, we'd probably lose money if she worked.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't directly mention this in your article, but did you notice that the single income family actually has more discretionary dollars. That's actual dollars, not a percentage of their income.