Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
ParticipantKinda … sometimes …
But only if you really would’ve spent the money and couldn’t have cut corners
Participant[quote=CA renter]Imputed income is like savings. That’s very real money. Best of all, it’s tax-free.[/quote]
kind of. xecpt no one ever got rich off imputed income. and you dont get to pick a pretend number. it’s what you really really would have had to pay.
whcih is less th an the number we like to imagine.
i get imputed income of 1.50 everytime i iron a shirt. except.. there’s no way in hell im actually paying anyone that much money to iron my shirt. so did I “make” 1.50. kind of sort of.
but not really.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]care and such is important, but without money, the family is done. it’s over. it’s kind of sad, unromantic, seems harsh, but really, money is what it’s all about. not imputed income. like, actual money. the quality thereof, it’s nice. it’s extra.
but money. yes, money. that’s what makes a family go. or anyone, really. it’s a giant hungry machine that needs money thrown into it.
my dad told me this and i didnt beleive him but i now see it is true.[/quote]
And it’s every bit as true that without caretakers, the family is done.
And money is an artificial construct, though I would agree that it makes life a bit easier. Throughout history, many people around the world have lived without this same concept of money. A medium of exchange can exist without the bureaucracy and institutions that have grown up around it. The way it works now, those who control money flows (and it’s not the people who work) control everything.[/quote]
we can contract out caretaking but not moneymaking
Participantcare and such is important, but without money, the family is done. it’s over. it’s kind of sad, unromantic, seems harsh, but really, money is what it’s all about. not imputed income. like, actual money. the quality thereof, it’s nice. it’s extra.
but money. yes, money. that’s what makes a family go. or anyone, really. it’s a giant hungry machine that needs money thrown into it.
my dad told me this and i didnt beleive him but i now see it is true.
Participantone thing is cetain; hot girls will never go out of style.
Participantnot sure if our trajectory was odd but it seemed like the more we made the cheaper we got.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.[/quote]
Um…I’ve never said the costs were out of line, only that they were on the low end. A woman who makes $80K+/year (and that would likely be the lowest-earning spouse) is not likely to have her child in the Y’s preschool or after-school program. It also mentions the on-site and “home-based” (where kids are taken to a caregiver’s home) prices. I used the lowest rates. There is no mention of sibling discounts, so you’d have to look into that yourself.
As an example, one of my executive friends was paying over $65,000/year for childcare for four kids, and that was only for about 10-12 hours/day. That was just for childcare and *very* light housekeeping (no bathrooms, mopping, vacuuming, dusting…just picking up after kids, wiping down counters, doing a couple of loads of laundry a week, etc.).
Additionally, a person earning $80K would have much higher clothing, food, and other costs, including childcare (most people earning that much would not be able to pick up their kids by 6:00 p.m. every day, and they would probably have to arrange for morning care, as well). The tax hit would be much higher, as well. And if a person is earning $80K/year, and assuming that it’s the lower-earning spouse, it’s highly unlikely they would be driving a $20,000 car (all expenses included) for 8 or more years.
The link to the Y’s after-school program is in the original post. That’s where the ~$800/month comes from. I added no other costs for transporting them (if necessary) to after-school care; the cost is only for the after-school portion of childcare.
As for Head Start (and other similar programs), the income eligibility for a family of 5 is $51,005 or lower. A second income of $45,000 would make this family ineligible in almost all cases.
http://www.cdasandiego.com/SitePDFs/Nutrition/income%20guidelines.pdf
You can look up the different zip codes for the YMCA, but their prices don’t differ all that much based on location. Not enough to make it worthwhile for the second spouse to work outside of the home, and it would still be a negative income in most cases.
You’re really stretching with your examples of daily bus-riding, brown-bagging, PX-shopping, “choosing” an employer’s location, etc. Most college-educated mothers earning a decent income will not be doing any of those things. My numbers are on the VERY conservative side. The reality would prove my point even more.
And if you can’t see how these costs would reduce a person’s income by 70% or more (even though I painstakingly broke it down for you, showing how it can easily be NEGATIVE, even when using very conservative estimates), then I can’t help you.[/quote]
sure, negative in an early year or one year analysis. but over the course of a lifetime? no. not negative. working to get ahead monetarily might be a little costly on the front end, but once the kids re older, it’ll be a net positive. and with belt tightening, the negative impact early on can be mitigated
Participantif i answer the survey question honestly, i think there’s really no realistic way i wouldve married a woman who was not a relatively high wage earner wouldve been unacceptable.
not just for the money but for potential power imbalances…
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=kev374]
Drinking is fun, it relaxes stress and loosens you up. Stress is a killer as well so it’s got to wash out somehow.[/quote]I’m really interested in the loosening up part and how that works.
I just got my genome from 23andme. I’ve downloaded but not look at it yet. I just not have the addiction gene, whatever it is.
I think it’s a blessing for me because I stay fit, but I don’t get much pleasure from food and drink. Sure I appreciate good food, but 90% of it is OK. An invite to a restaurant doesn’t get me excited. I never feel that anything is “sooooo gooood” or “to die for.”[/quote]
here’s how it works. you start drinking. the world seems a much better place. you feel looser. you stop giving a shit.
Participanti fear this thread is like an argument between spouses over an unresolvable issue in which both sides have dug in their heels. it may never end…has there been a thread in existence since the beginning of the internet which never died out.
liek an eternal flame…
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.[/quote]
In my adittedly limited experience, the drive of a woman to stay home with her children is beyond intense and rational calculation. it is chemical, hormonal and almost crazed. i say that ina good way; i don’t think that’s a bad thing for her r for the kids. but guys cannot relate, because, well, we have no desire for it.
Participantkev’s ex needs a 90k signing bonus to pay off debt.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=scaredyclassic]Um. Facts?
Just cause someone answers a question a certain way don’t make it a fact.In fact I would say it is a fact that women say they want things other than what they claim or even think they want.
Hypothetically $ not important in my fantasy cosmopolitan questionnaire.
But what is reality on the ground?
Special snowflake white women seem less forthcoming than black respondents.[/quote]
Fact: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone things about a particular thing
It is a *fact* that women answered the survey the way they did.
It is your *opinion* that they are lying.
Not hard to understand.[/quote]
i think i get it. if something for instance were illegal or seen as immoral, and doctors were required to report it, and patients were asked if they did that, there would be a lot of answers to questions given. but not a lot of facts about reality. say for instance a doctor were required to report to the police anyone who was using narcotics and would be incarcerated. No one would ever tell their doctor they used drugs in response to that question. Under your scenario, that would be a “fact”, since they answered the question that way.
but that’s insane.
it’s not a fact.
it’s a data point of how people want to be eprceived in answering a question.
so if you ask people what sort of person they think they are, or what sort of values they think they hold or might aspire to hold, and the question is phrased such that answering it a certain way makes them feel that they are showing their worst selves, you may find that you do not gather a lot of truth, although you may gather a lot of “data” or “facts”, as you call “data”.
when I say fact, in connection to some psychological reality, i mean something connected to some sort of truth. not just its purported existence by people’s general claims of what they might want to say.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd]Can’t believe the difference between the top 10% and the remaining 90%. 75 drinks/wk – and they’re not dead? Makes you scared to drive.[/quote]
75 drinks a week is kind of high but really, just 2 bottles of wine a night which isn’t really all that much.[/quote]
Deleted. Was thinking workweek. Still , two bottles a night 7 days a week is a lot.[/quote]
i agree. it’s just, well, i can easily see doing that.
-
AuthorPosts
