Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The nuclear family isn't working

mattbell.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#41

Post by notch656a »

sheepybloke wrote: post #38
spywaregorilla wrote: post #12

The most interesting piece here for me was that parents aren't having as many kids as they want: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/11/birth-rates... I also wonder at what salary level does it make more sense for a breadwinner household over a dual income household. Childcare is expensive, and likely scales with your standard of living. I net of increased tax rates, child care costs, and time spent navigat…

This was actually something my wife and I are talking about as we think about having kids. In most of the jobs she's been working, we would be paying more than what she would be making in childcare if she wanted to continue working. At that point, it makes more sense for her to be a stay at home mom. I definitely feel lucky though that we can just live off my salary and that it's even an option for us.

I wish you the best and I'm sure you have a great marriage, but something to note for others is that there is a hidden potential cost many don't think about when deciding if the mom will be stay at home: you may be responsible for a sizeable alimony in the event of divorce as a result of the court deciding the wife sacrificed her career on your behalf for the family.

It could be the difference between having enough to pay child support and your own expenses, and ending up with a felony charge and losing your property+passport+freedom+licenses because paying both alimony and child support (now higher because of higher income differential) can be insurmountable for some after going through a divorce. If you're a high income earner it's basically the kiss of death at any chance of ever changing your career (or taking a break), even if you psychologically burnt out on it.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#42

Post by sliken »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #12

The most interesting piece here for me was that parents aren't having as many kids as they want: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/11/birth-rates... I also wonder at what salary level does it make more sense for a breadwinner household over a dual income household. Childcare is expensive, and likely scales with your standard of living. I net of increased tax rates, child care costs, and time spent navigat…

That's highly situational dependent. But from the studies I've seen the need for a second car and price of child care are the biggest factors. It's easy to forget how much cars can cost these days. Parking at home, Parking at work, car payments, registration, insurance, maintenance, time/travel for oil changes, etc.

The range I've seen is on the order of $30k-$60k.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#43

Post by sneak »

alar44 wrote: post #17
gleenn wrote: post #15

Something which my parents have a hard time grasping: we're at one of the first times in American history where children are doing less off financially then there parents. My parents met in the 70's where my dad was making a killing as a professional. He easily purchased a large house and got married and had two kids. Even with a FAANG job, I struggle to find any reasonable place to continue my career in a place wher…

I just can't have any sympathy for people who move to the most expensive places in the world and complain they're expensive. Get a different job elsewhere and you'll live like a fucking king if you have FAANG chops. Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA.

> Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA.

Not really, if you care for arts or culture. The cheap places are car-centric cultural wastelands.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#44

Post by sneak »

notch656a wrote: post #23
gleenn wrote: post #15

Something which my parents have a hard time grasping: we're at one of the first times in American history where children are doing less off financially then there parents. My parents met in the 70's where my dad was making a killing as a professional. He easily purchased a large house and got married and had two kids. Even with a FAANG job, I struggle to find any reasonable place to continue my career in a place wher…

If you want a wife and kids working remote and a cheap place to live go to the third world (Philippines is good) and find somebody who wants a half-white kid and will sponsor your residence visa. You can live on like 5% of your salary and you're not going to have trouble starting family or finding a wife. Please don't pick the first bar girl you meet, maybe volunteer in a rural area or something. Bring on the hate HN…

Leaving the United States for somewhere better and cheaper while continuing your US-based software consultancy is a tried and true arbitrage strategy. It worked out great for me in my 20s.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#46

Post by cudgy »

sneak wrote: post #43
alar44 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't have any sympathy for people who move to the most expensive places in the world and complain they're expensive. Get a different job elsewhere and you'll live like a fucking king if you have FAANG chops. Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA.

> Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA. Not really, if you care for arts or culture. The cheap places are car-centric cultural wastelands.

If the culture consists of people with a short-sighted mentality such as this, is it a culture worth living amongst?

Do you really think that art only exists in the biggest cities like SF, NYC, and LA? Where do you think most of those artists came from? BTW, the only non-car-centric city is NYC, but all large cities have older, usually midtown neighborhoods that are full of sidewalks, bus routes, nearby groceries, restaurants, bars and even (shocker) artistic venues.

Get out more and have an open mind; you would be pleasantly shocked at what is available out there.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#47

Post by cudgy »

DonnyV wrote: post #28

Some good ideas in this article but you lost me at ... "Rising healthcare costs are due to misaligned incentives between patients, doctors, pharma companies, and insurance companies that make healthcare spending inefficient and often ineffective, as well as an overly burdensome FDA approval process that increases the cost of drug development, makes it easier for pharma companies to price-gouge, and encourages corrupt…

Agree on the healthcare solution. Disagree on the popular opinion on HN that housing is a shortage issue due to zoning rules. Perhaps this is the case in pockets of certain cities like SF, but this is not a problem in the majority of areas. The primary issue is the central bank easy monetary policy fueling speculation in real estate (and stocks) relative to other asset classes, particularly bonds which have been unattractive for decades.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#48

Post by cudgy »

biomcgary wrote: post #33
EddieDante wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, if family farms, businesses, and trades were still viable corporations would have to pay more to lure people into working for them.

Absolutely! "In the 16 years from 1998 to 2014, the small business share of GDP fell from 48.0% to 43.5%." - https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

Perhaps this is due to Walmart and Amazon killing small merchants? Would be interesting to know what sectors of small businesses were affected the most or if it was systemic across all sectors.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#49

Post by sneak »

cudgy wrote: post #46
sneak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA. Not really, if you care for arts or culture. The cheap places are car-centric cultural wastelands.

If the culture consists of people with a short-sighted mentality such as this, is it a culture worth living amongst? Do you really think that art only exists in the biggest cities like SF, NYC, and LA? Where do you think most of those artists came from? BTW, the only non-car-centric city is NYC, but all large cities have older, usually midtown neighborhoods that are full of sidewalks, bus routes, nearby groceries, re…

Your comment seems to make some incorrect assumptions about me.

Could you perhaps name a specific cheap place in the USA that you believe is not a car-centric cultural wasteland?

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#50

Post by cudgy »

sneak wrote: post #49
cudgy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the culture consists of people with a short-sighted mentality such as this, is it a culture worth living amongst? Do you really think that art only exists in the biggest cities like SF, NYC, and LA? Where do you think most of those artists came from? BTW, the only non-car-centric city is NYC, but all large cities have older, usually midtown neighborhoods that are full of sidewalks, bus routes, nearby groceries, re…

Your comment seems to make some incorrect assumptions about me. Could you perhaps name a specific cheap place in the USA that you believe is not a car-centric cultural wasteland?

I already did. Certain downtown and midtown areas in towns and cities all across the country. Mainly you want a place with the necessities nearby like groceries, a few decent restaurants, a gym, and possibly a store that sells general items like a hardware store. This covers 80-90% of the need for a car. Take uber, a ride share, or reimburse a neighbor for the few times you need further transport. Many suburban areas of cities have areas like this too. Stay away from newly developed suburban areas though as they are indeed car wastelands.
Post reply on HN