I no longer believe in capitalism. At all.

[snoopy369]

I have my kid in a good daycare, and it's extremely expensive. But it's still less than my wife is earning, despite her being a post-doc making really not all that much (darned academic salaries!). A good daycare in Chicago (extremely expensive) is about $350 a week (depending on age). So your wife needs to take home more than $350 a week, which is about what a $10/hr job would earn ($400 minus taxes, but $5k of the daycare cost is exempt from taxes). So I guess if you think earning $10-$15 an hour is a high paying job, then sure, but most career-oriented people can make significantly more than that ($10/hr ~= $20k/year, which is not much). In Chicago, even the McDonalds employees make close to $10/hour, after all (probably more than that if they've got a few years' experience)...

Of course, if you have two children close together in age, then the math changes some (but not drastically - $40k/year is still not a "high paying job", just a decent one for a professional - less than most teachers make here, for example); but even then, once they're 6 they're no longer in day care (at most, after school care which is very cheap), so you need to consider the earnings after that point - you lose a lot by taking 5 or whatever years off, after all, and that probably more than offsets the daycare costs. And again, this is in Chicago, where daycare is on the extremely expensive end and wages are typically higher - I'd guess they track each other fairly closely (higher wage areas, more expensive daycare).

The other efficiency argument I was making is that it is literally more efficient to teach 12 kids than 1. Just like it's more efficient to do 12 of almost anything than to do just one of it. Further, you're teaching 12 kids, per year, every year, so the materials you buy for those kids get reused.

I won't argue the socialization, because if you're a homeschool proponent, you're never going to agree.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have my kid in a good daycare, and it's extremely expensive. But it's still less than my wife is earning, despite her being a post-doc making really not all that much (darned academic salaries!). A good daycare in Chicago (extremely expensive) is about $350 a week (depending on age). So your wife needs to take home more than $350 a week

She needs to make quite a bit more than that. She needs to make up her gas to get to and from work. She needs to make up for other household expenses that she incurs outside the home, additional purchases. Does she cook or do you eat out? Does she clean or do you guys hire a maid? What about the upkeep on a second car? Insurance? Stuff like that.

I'm telling you - do the math on all of it. And that's all before taxes come in. Remember, if you've got two earning, you're making significantly more and you're in a higher bracket.

The other efficiency argument I was making is that it is literally more efficient to teach 12 kids than 1. Just like it's more efficient to do 12 of almost anything than to do just one of it. Further, you're teaching 12 kids, per year, every year, so the materials you buy for those kids get reused.

I have years worth of custom teaching materials and lesson plans. For me to homeschool is trivial on the materials.

I won't argue the socialization, because if you're a homeschool proponent, you're never going to agree.

I'm a private school teacher. You're arguing socialization with someone who isn't ever going to agree with you because a big part of what they do is supplement formerly homeschooled kids who put their children in Catholic school as they get older. I'm telling you - the socialization argument is garbage. You've been fed lies. I believed as you did, but the evidence in front of me is pretty damning. Homeschooled children are further along. I can always tell who's been homeschooled, and who's coming in from the public schools. Night and day.

[snoopy369]

Ben, the difference here is that I have done the math, have a wife, and have a kid in daycare. Sure, my $10 an hour example is pushing things - but not by that much (and again, this is in Chicago, where $10 an hour is not much over minimum wage)

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, the difference here is that I have done the math, have a wife, and have a kid in daycare. Sure, my $10 an hour example is pushing things - but not by that much (and again, this is in Chicago, where $10 an hour is not much over minimum wage)

Then why do we come up with different answers for the same question? You say she needs to make just 350 a week to pay for 350 a week daycare? I say she needs twice whatever you're paying in daycare just to come out ahead. And the two working parent arrangement is still less efficient dollar for dollar.

Remember efficiency measures not just output - but also what you get for the effort you put in. If she's working, are you getting as much out as she's putting in?

Look, do the numbers. Run your current situation with you with her and your salary combined. You'll be out ahead every time when it is you with her and your salary. Equivalent income.

Edited for exorbitant costs. Glad I don't live in Chicago.

[giblets]

Seems like two income household is more efficient if
income potential(wife) > cost(daycare)

Even if you dismiss the value daycare adds - which is not insignificant; not only does your kid get socialized better earlier on, but he gets all the sicknesses at 1 and 2 instead of 5 and 6, missing a lot less school; and daycare, if you choose a good one, probably teaches your kid better than a stay at home mother does (as the daycare teacher doesn't have to cook, clean, etc., and has access to a lot of teaching materials that are much cheaper to obtain for 12 than for 1, as well as a degree in early childhood education that helps).

I'd always prefer a good daycare to raising my kid(s) at home. The difference is really telling when you look at kids in kindergarten or first grade. Even seeing kids coming into daycare at 1 year old (mine just entered the next older classroom, and a lot of kids seem to enter daycare at 1), there's a huge gap - in socialization, in learning, in being able to cope with new situations.

Don't forget that stay-at-home mothering is a massive tax dodge. Stay-at-home mothers are incredibly selfish.

[snoopy369]

Then why do we come up with different answers for the same question? You say she needs to make just 350 a week to pay for 350 a week daycare? I say she needs twice whatever you're paying in daycare just to come out ahead. And the two working parent arrangement is still less efficient dollar for dollar.

Remember efficiency measures not just output - but also what you get for the effort you put in. If she's working, are you getting as much out as she's putting in?

Look, do the numbers. Run your current situation with you with her and your salary combined. You'll be out ahead every time when it is you with her and your salary. Equivalent income.

Edited for exorbitant costs. Glad I don't live in Chicago.

You don't have to earn double, for heaven's sake. I have no idea where you get that idea from. Even then, $20/hour is still not "high earner" territory, whether you're in Texas or Chicago.

I might agree with $15/hour being around the cutoff, but that's still quite low for a professional, even as a starting salary. I don't disagree that if her choice is stay at home or work at McD's, sure, stay at home. But if it's being a working professional versus staying at home, it is economically more efficient to use daycare for one child, and usually two. Three is usually where it starts being fuzzy.

And I'm comparing the best daycare in the Chicagoland area (my opinion, but it's not unfounded) here. At home daycare is half that or less. Perhaps not as good educationally, but not an unreasonable option certainly.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I'm comparing the best daycare in the Chicagoland area (my opinion, but it's not unfounded) here. At home daycare is half that or less. Perhaps not as good educationally, but not an unreasonable option certainly.

I spent most of my younger years bouncing around 'cheaper' alternatives. I was happiest with the stay at home mom and going from school to staying with her and her children. That was a really good arrangement, and I was heartbroken when it ended. I hated bouncing around to parent for the day for years.

I'm going to stick by my numbers. When you run the additional costs of gas and the rest, it's about double whatever you're paying. I know it means considerable to have your wife contribute but you're killing each other. If you have to do it to get by, I understand 100 percent.

Even then, $20/hour is still not "high earner" territory, whether you're in Texas or Chicago.

20/hour is very, very good money for Texas.

[Sir Og]

Here is an explanation of Quantitative Easing, the expectations channel, and NGDP level targeting with animated .GIFs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernanke-vs-woodford-in-gif-form-2012-9

[Kidlicious]

Monetarists these days care about the money supply and the velocity thereof. M*V. Which is just another definition of GDP - but one that, in their view, is most instructive for determining optimal policy. They're also much more interested in expectations now.

If M*V is too low, you threaten to increase M until V increases. If M*V is too high, you threaten to keep decreasing M until V decreases. That's the basic monetarist story.

That's pretty reasonable actually.

[Jaguar]

[Kuciwalker]

Deflation is bad, Ben. Real bad. Nobody likes deflation. Not Keynes, not Krugman, not Mankiw, not Bernanke, not me. Not even Friedrich Hayek liked deflation.

Gonna call this out as wrong. Deflation is fine if accompanied by rapid RGDP growth (i.e. RGDP growth larger than the NGDP target rate). That sort of deflation just implies widespread (but NOT necessarily universal) productivity growth.

The problem with deflation is when it reflects a fall in the natural nominal wage. Nominal wages are sticky downwards -> nominal wages can't fall -> a fall in the natural nominal wage will instead result in a mix of deflation and unemployment. When deflation results from productivity gains natural nominal wages don't actually fall. (e.g. we do not see the wages of the engineers at Intel falling.)

At this point I'm quibbling though.

[Jaguar]

Yeah, yeah, addressed later on, see here:

Sector-specific deflation is fine, when we really genuinely have gotten better at making something. (For example, computers.)

Deflation across the board, even in stuff we haven't gotten better at - like live string quartet performances - is really bad.

[Aeson]

Even if you dismiss the value daycare adds - which is not insignificant; not only does your kid get socialized better earlier on, but he gets all the sicknesses at 1 and 2 instead of 5 and 6, missing a lot less school; and daycare, if you choose a good one, probably teaches your kid better than a stay at home mother does (as the daycare teacher doesn't have to cook, clean, etc., and has access to a lot of teaching materials that are much cheaper to obtain for 12 than for 1, as well as a degree in early childhood education that helps).

I'd always prefer a good daycare to raising my kid(s) at home. The difference is really telling when you look at kids in kindergarten or first grade. Even seeing kids coming into daycare at 1 year old (mine just entered the next older classroom, and a lot of kids seem to enter daycare at 1), there's a huge gap - in socialization, in learning, in being able to cope with new situations.

I don't agree daycare necessarily adds value outside of increasing family earnings. (It probably does in an unsafe/disconnected community, or when the parents can't be bothered.)

Any socialization that can happen at daycare can happen at home in a healthy community. Probably better socialization too, as it's going to be less structured and consistent. Throughout my childhood there was far more socializing outside of school than inside it, even though we usually lived in areas where there were few if any neighbors within walking distance. I also was one of the more socially accepted kids (accepted in every group) even though we moved around a lot.

The sickness one sounds suspiciously like having chicken pox parties. Most illnesses that are likely to affect the health of a student you can't pre-load into your child even if you wanted to. There's a different flu every year. You either have the immune system that will fight it off or you don't. I went until 5th grade before I missed a day of school IIRC. Then later I missed a lot of school due to health issues. Not to mention that a child which isn't being kept in a hermetically sealed box is going to be exposed to this stuff anyways.

Having lower child to teacher ratio is going to be more beneficial for learning. Especially when the teacher is the most likely person in the world to be dedicated to the task, and even more important with kids with non-normal (positive or negative) learning abilities. My parents instilled a love of learning (especially reading) in me before I ever went to kindergarten. They knew my abilities, and what I liked, and they specifically gave me things which would challenge me at something I enjoyed. Structured school environments for the most part tried to kill that love by treating me (and everyone else) as just another clone. I had a few teachers in school who recognized my abilities and a couple of them did a little to help promote them specifically. But the next year it's a new teacher and back to square one, often relearning what one of the previous teachers helped give me the chance to study ahead. My parents never forgot, never tried to hold me back from my potential.

The teaching materials that the average child of 1-5 needs are going to be present in just about any good home environment. Books of the proper reading level (for the child) and some toys with logical/creative implications. The proper reading level would be more likely for non-normal students to be found in the home (assuming caring parents). For instance, we had encyclopedias, dictionary/thesaurus, and fiction like Hardy Boys and the Narnia series which I loved to read, long before I ever got to classes that would give me access to that level of reading in the curriculum.

Also, spending time together helps build a healthy family bond. Any bond that developed between the daycare personnel and the child is almost surely far less important over the course of a child's life.

[Aeson]

Even if you dismiss the value daycare adds - which is not insignificant; not only does your kid get socialized better earlier on, but he gets all the sicknesses at 1 and 2 instead of 5 and 6, missing a lot less school; and daycare, if you choose a good one, probably teaches your kid better than a stay at home mother does (as the daycare teacher doesn't have to cook, clean, etc., and has access to a lot of teaching materials that are much cheaper to obtain for 12 than for 1, as well as a degree in early childhood education that helps).

I'd always prefer a good daycare to raising my kid(s) at home. The difference is really telling when you look at kids in kindergarten or first grade. Even seeing kids coming into daycare at 1 year old (mine just entered the next older classroom, and a lot of kids seem to enter daycare at 1), there's a huge gap - in socialization, in learning, in being able to cope with new situations.

I don't agree daycare necessarily adds value outside of increasing family earnings. (It probably does in an unsafe/disconnected community, or when the parents can't be bothered.)

Any socialization that can happen at daycare can happen at home in a healthy community. Probably better socialization too, as it's going to be less structured and consistent. Throughout my childhood there was far more socializing outside of school than inside it, even though we usually lived in areas where there were few if any neighbors within walking distance. I also was one of the more socially accepted kids (accepted in every group) even though we moved around a lot.

The sickness one sounds suspiciously like having chicken pox parties. Most illnesses that are likely to affect the health of a student you can't pre-load into your child even if you wanted to. There's a different flu every year. You either have the immune system that will fight it off or you don't. I went until 5th grade before I missed a day of school IIRC. Then later I missed a lot of school due to health issues. Not to mention that a child which isn't being kept in a hermetically sealed box is going to be exposed to this stuff anyways.

Having lower child to teacher ratio is going to be more beneficial for learning. Especially when the teacher is the most likely person in the world to be dedicated to the task, and even more important with kids with non-normal (positive or negative) learning abilities. My parents instilled a love of learning (especially reading) in me before I ever went to kindergarten. They knew my abilities, and what I liked, and they specifically gave me things which would challenge me at something I enjoyed. Structured school environments for the most part tried to kill that love by treating me (and everyone else) as just another clone. I had a few teachers in school who recognized my abilities and a couple of them did a little to help promote them specifically. But the next year it's a new teacher and back to square one, often relearning what one of the previous teachers helped give me the chance to study ahead. My parents never forgot, never tried to hold me back from my potential.

The teaching materials that the average child of 1-5 needs are going to be present in just about any good home environment. Books of the proper reading level (for the child) and some toys with logical/creative implications. The proper reading level would be more likely for non-normal students to be found in the home (assuming caring parents). For instance, we had encyclopedias, dictionary/thesaurus, and fiction like Hardy Boys and the Narnia series which I loved to read, long before I ever got to classes that would give me access to that level of reading in the curriculum.

Also, spending time together helps build a healthy family bond. Any bond that developed between the daycare personnel and the child is almost surely far less important over the course of a child's life.

[Jaguar]

Don't forget that stay-at-home mothering is a massive tax dodge. Stay-at-home mothers are incredibly selfish.

True. All non-market leisure activities are tax dodges.