No, it's because their model puts dollar values on the labor contributed by non-working adults w/r/t raising children. So in that case, it could be that 1adult1child is slightly higher because of the need to pay for childcare, while the food/insurance/clothing etc of the additional adult in 2adult1child is offset by the fact that the non-working adult will conduct childcare and thus that expense goes away.

▲

matuszeg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?

	▲	Jtsummers 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same. From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.

▲

skulk 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

right. kind of obvious in hindsight.