Hacker News Reader

Comment by craig1f | Hacker News Reader

"Jobs for women are higher-paying and more satisfying than ever before, and that raises the opportunity cost of having large families"

This is not true. Depending on the wife for income prevents her from focusing on having a large family. Without the assistance of a grandparent or some expensive nanny, this tends to limit the number of children in the family to 2 or 3.

Also, women working has driven the price of houses up, so it's difficult to get by with one working parent now. Women have less of a choice to work now, and more of an obligation.

This doubling of eligible workers also drives down the salary of everyone, making men pull in less money, further forcing women to work whether they want to or not.

Not to mention how expensive large vans/suvs are to actually drive them around.

View on HN

"Jobs for women are higher-paying and more satisfying than ever before, and that raises the opportunity cost of having large families" This is not true. Depending on the wife for income prevents her from focusing on having a large family.

You claim to be disagreeing but I think you are agreeing with that comment. By referring to "opportunity cost", the author means precisely that when a woman works it is harder to have a large family. Not having a job is one opportunity cost of children.

I believe that craig1f is claiming that if most women did not work, wages would be higher for those women that do work (due to reduced labor supply), so increased labor participation for women has lowered the opportunity cost compared to a hypothetical world in which women work.

So back when being a stay at home mom was the norm, it was hard, but now that working moms are the norm, being a stay at home mom is easy? I don't think that checks out.

While being stay at home was the norm, around 33.9% of women in 1950 worked and it continued to go up. That is not completely negligible number. (The number for males was closer to 86.4%)

I think that things are hard for different reasons. Nothing will ever be easy. If you believe life will get to the point that it's easy, you've got things wrong.

"Not to mention how expensive large vans/suvs are to actually drive them around. "

Just driving is pretty expensive. Not owning a car saves loads. Unfortunately, it usually takes a lot of money to live somewhere that doesn't require one.

Also worth noting - my wife would be at home with the kid right now (I have a much higher income) except she has substantial student debt, so off to work she goes. This means paying for creche too.

We couldn't afford creche fees for two kids, and she can't afford not to work due to aforementioned debt.

Also we had a kid because we were approaching mid thirties and it was a now or never thing, but it would have been nice to get a home big enough for two kids (a 3 bed apartment, or a bigger 2 bedroom apartment, would suffice) but the numbers don't add up.

> Not owning a car saves loads. Unfortunately, it usually takes a lot of money to live somewhere that doesn't require one.

In America perhaps. Europeans seem to manage, generally on lower salaries than Americans...

Cheaper healthcare, education and available public transport (less need for car). That matters greatly. Also, not having much money seems to be less stigmatized and less criminalized then in America. There is some stigma, but there is less of "you are not rich therefore you are stupid" attitude.

We moved to europe. I actually doubled my salary but I only really managed to become a dev here,in the US I floundered. It was the depths of the great recession though.

Does your wife’s work actually offset the cost of childcare? I ask because you say your income is much higher than hers but you cannot afford a three bedroom apartment. This seems to imply that her income is quite low.

I know a number of families who ran the numbers and found out that the second income didn’t offset the cost of childcare. Or if it did, the excess income was so low as to be negligible. Don’t forget that there are tax implications to having a second income.

We've run the numbers thoroughly. 40% of her take home goes to childcare. 50% to student loans. Tbf getting in to debt for a degree in the humanities is generally a horrible idea but we all have dreams.

Also, to be honest, we could pay for a three bed apt. Afford is another question. Currently socking away cash to try to buy a house, but that affects ability to go somewhere more suitable for a family in the meantime.

If you drive down my friend's neighborhood in North Virginia, you see house after house of moms with law-degrees, math degrees, engineering degrees, most with Masters, who said "fuck working" after 5-10 years and decided to become stay-at-home. All with substantial student debt that they didn't work long enough to justify.

The number of women who WANT to work is a lot lower than everyone wants to admit. And when they see the option to leave the working world, many of them take it. So much education that just gets wasted when they realize that having a career is not nearly as fulfilling as they have been led to believe.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, my first thought would be "sweet, we can afford a third kid!"

Why do you assume they are full filled now or that they decision to stay at home was not pragmatical? Or not sacrifice for what they believe is best for children?

Some are fullfilled, some are not.

He/she is saying that this is the case for most women. Most women like to lead more balanced lives, and a part of that is getting an education, then working for some time, traveling, then taking care of the kids and yet more traveling. Most men like to work for most of their lives.

I don't think the education is wasted-- not if you view education as more than a means to employment. However, I agree that most women will take the opportunity to leave the working world when it becomes viable to do so.

You and the author are both suggesting that improvements in jobs for women raise the opportunity cost of having large families, yet you are framing it as a refutation.

Yeah, I read that wrong. Whoops

Note: I read the article wrong, and read "raises the opportunity cost" as "raises the opportunity".

I thought I was refuting the point, but in fact, agreed with the point.

Whoops!

Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke" describes this phenomenon pretty well

I have the feeling that even with a full-time housewife, having lots of children still goes hand-in-hand with multi-generation families living together. I can't reasonably imagine dealing with 6 kids without uncle/aunt/grandmother around too

The large families I know each have one full-time homemaker (Mom or Dad) and no other family nearby. They depend heavily on the older children to help out.

For instance, an 8-year-old can do laundry (except for carrying the basket), or vacuum, or prepare sandwiches for the entire family's lunches. A 12-year-old can change diapers, assist in the kitchen, or keep an eye on younger children of any age for an hour or two while Mom and Dad are a couple rooms away cooking or doing other chores. In some states, a 15-year-old can drive siblings to school; and in most a 17-year-old can drive them to other destinations.

One thing I've noticed is that the children in these families are much more mature, responsible, and independent than children of similar ages in 1-3 child families.

Also need to consider that taking a 4-5 year career gap to raise children to school going age just isn't an option for a lot of professions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com