I'm not usually one for controversy or instigating debate, but today's Theory of Knowledge seminar was intriguing enough that I'm going to "break character" and... well, actually post for a change.
The focus of the presentation was on the major shifts in women's roles throughout history, with an emphasis on pre-Christian times, the 1950s, and the present. Essentially, they marked the changes from women as essential components of spirituality to bringers of original sin to housewives to their mass incorporation into the workforce. They actually did an excellent job and mentioned both the positive and the negative effects of each of these roles. What struck me as curious, however, was that these young women simply could not comprehend how the feminist movement has negatively affected womens rights.
Yes, women in the United States now have the right to work as (mostly) equals to their male counterparts. And yet the obligation to do so - whether because the two-parent income is needed or there is a need to "prove one's self" - has largely negated most women's right to not work outisde the home. Tax cuts for children are a third of what they were in the 1950s and it is now illegal for a man's wage to be higher than a woman's of the same position and, thus, it is far more difficult for him to provide enough income for his wife to stay home.
It is simply dismaying to me because, while I would like to work professionally for a few years, I would also like to be a stay-at-home mom until my children are in school and then take up a part-time job or volunteer work during school-hours. But the prospects of that are so slim. Yes, it is doable and I know my fiance will put every effort into making it so when the time comes, but I don't believe it should be so difficult for a mother or a wife to be "only that" if she and her husband so choose (Or why a woman cannot easilly provide for the family while her husband stays home if that is what they desire).
I'm not that saying women's wages should be cut and that all women should stay home and be housewives, but I am saying that it should be far less "impossible" than it seems to be. The tax breaks once given to married couples and parents of the 1950s should be restored. Wages should be proportionally increased for those who are the sole providers for their families. I understand that this latter change would greatly muddle tax returns and probably increase both fraud and the number of audits conducted, etc. I also understand that it would seem "unfair" to those who are not the sole providers for their families and yet... What else is to be done? My husband should not have to work overtime and for more than the average number of years simply because I choose to be a wife and mother first and a working professional last.
(Some of what prompted this discussion may also be found here, in a Newsweek article that also sparked a two-page article in the Washington Post.)
[ March 09, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think impossible may be stretching things a bit.
There are a fair number of mothers and housewives on this board that do make it work.
Granted, very serious financial decisions have to be made and adhered to, but that's like anything else in life.
-Trevor
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m not quite seeing how any of what you’ve said indicates that the feminist movement has negatively impacted women’s rights.
Care to clarify?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
(Wow, ToK! It's been ages!)
Another angle you might consider is how American lifestyles have changed since the 1950's. You say that it's seemingly impossible for a two-parent household to afford a stay-at-home parent nowadays, but what exactly does that mean? Does such a family feel a need to buy a brand new car every two years? Did they buy a house that was more than they could really afford, because mortgage rates were low? Do they spend $200 a month to get every possible TV channel, and give their kids debit cards and cell phones?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My husband should not have to work overtime and for more than the average number of years simply because I choose to be a wife and mother first and a working professional last."
Prove it.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
The only real reason I see for NEEDING two incomes for one household is if the family is not living at or below the means of a one income household.
In other words, my husband works outside the home and I stay home with our children. We drive older vehicles (but we have three), live in a nice but not exceptional, big but not huge home, eat out less often than we could, etc. so that we don't NEED the extra income.
He doesn't make that much money either. Yes, it's well above minimum wage, but it's not so high that we don't get a fair amount of EIC on our tax return either.
I think it's more a matter of priorities than necessity. At least where I live, in my own mind. JMO.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*thoughtfully*
there is an inequality that is still very present - it just remains a bit touchy to say it, I think -
When I was a rather sarcastic younger person, I remember remarking to mom that "women's lib" was "just great" - imagine eye-rolling teen - that "now women not only got to do all the housework, all the childcare, all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, mending, etc., they also all got to work 40 hours or more a week outside the home, too."
I think - for as sarcastic as I was at that age - time has borne that teen observation out. The theory behind equal rights for both genders is lovely - the reality needs a bit more work in many cases.
I'm not saying that one gender should stay at home and work, as being more suited or fit by virtue of what sex they are. But we have sadly undervalued the crucial importance of "homemaking" - and all the value that solid, healthy homes bring to individuals, and communities.
Society has changed - and individuals struggle with how to make that work.
/.02
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I'm a stay-at-home mom, and several people have made some excellant points. Yes, my husband earns a very nice salary, which makes it possible for me to stay home. However, we make extremely responsible financial decisions, and I can definately see us making less money but still affording me to be at home.
Society tells you that you have to have things that you don't need. It's up to each family to decide. What's more important - new cars, vacations, and lots of material items, or having a parent home for the children? When people tell me they can't afford to stay home, I assume (unless the husband makes minimum wage) that decisions have put them in that position. Maybe that's past decisions, like racking up a lot of credit card debt, or maybe that's current decisions, like being unwilling to cut out things. However, that's just my opinion.
Good topic, Pixie. I'll be interested to see what comes out of this.
space opera
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm not saying that one gender should stay at home and work, as being more suited or fit by virtue of what sex they are. But we have sadly undervalued the crucial importance of "homemaking" - and all the value that solid, healthy homes bring to individuals, and communities.
It's not that we undervalue it. It's that, at the end of the day, homemaking won't help you pay for your DSL connection or your big-screen TV. So unless you factor in those intangible benefits, and unless those intangible benefits are worth something to you, you'll feel deprived compared to your neighbors.
In Christy's case, she works primarily because she would go absolutely bat-s**t crazy not working. It's not that she doesn't like spending time with Sophie; it's that she needs other forms of structure and meaning in her day, in addition to motherhood. (It took a little while for her to find a good balance, though; she's pared down to four days a week at the lab.) Of course, it helps that we otherwise divvy up the chores equally.
[ March 09, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
TM - Impossible was in quotation marks for a reason.
dkw - The main idea was that the feminist movement not only allowed women to enter to workforce but compelled them to do so. They weren't "fulfilling their potential" or didn't hold themselves as equal to men if they didn't work in a professional setting. I didn't so much mean that women today have lost the right to stay at home as that there is an increasing sense of obligations to themselves and their families not to.
zeugma - what you mentioned is the main bulk of the article I linked to. And why Trevor is right in saying that many women here do make it work because they have choices along the way that have allowed them to do so.
The main idea, I think, is that the stay-at-home parent or spouse is now in the vast minority of people and faces difficulties that are peculiar to their situation and, in my eyes, unnecessary?
Edit to say my computer's being slow and that I grealy agree with both Opera's and Tom's last posts.
[ March 09, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I didn't so much mean that women today have lost the right to stay at home as that there is an increasing sense of obligations to themselves and their families not to."
You may as well ask why more men aren't deciding to stay at home, Pix. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Why should you have more of a right to make that choice?
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Tom, I said "...Or why a woman cannot easilly provide for the family while her husband stays home if that is what they desire" in my first post .
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I've only read the first post so forgive me...
There are two solutions, either stay at home motherhood will become an artifact of the priviledged and professional classes. Or some will trim back on lifestyle extras in order to make it happen. But working mothers have always been a fact of life for the working poor.
I work part time. We haven't done a good job of trimming the extras and avoiding debt. I wish I could go back and undo that, but wishes ain't fishes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tax cuts for children are a third of what they were in the 1950s and it is now illegal for a man's wage to be higher than a woman's of the same position and, thus, it is far more difficult for him to provide enough income for his wife to stay home.
You lost me here. How has this forced wages to be lower? The point was that someone doing the same job should get the same wage, it shouldn't have impacted the amount of the wage across the board. Are you saying that men's salaries have come down? Can you back that up?
You also have to factor in the difference in family structure that has evolved over the last 100 years. We've also moved away from the farm, moved away from extended families and grandparents living in the home, helping with kids. Divorce is more common, and so are single parent homes. Feminism is not the only social change to affect the family.
[ March 09, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry, I still don’t buy it. Couples have the right to have one partner stay home. Or have both partners work. It’s up to each couple to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each option and make a decision. The idea that you should be able to have the advantages of both and the disadvantages of neither, and the fact that you can't is somehow “the feminists” fault is just silly.
[ March 09, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As other posters have noted, it only becomes impossible if you desire things outside your financial reality.
There are very real and tangible benefits from staying at home versus working - these benefits don't, however, come in the form of a DSL connection or tax breaks.
As a break from the status quo, the feminists needed to create a sense of pull in the other direction.
As the void begins to fill, the pull will stop and may even see a swing the other way - in fact, contemporary American society may begin to accept the notion of "Mr. Moms" as normal and routine. Particularly with the increase of information and knowledge workers making it a fairly level playing field, possibly giving the edge to women in some respects.
-Trevor
Edit: Or I'm still missing the point completely and you can disregard the entire monologue above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My point, Pix, is that feminism isn't to blame if you aren't seeing a corresponding number of fathers staying home. Since fewer and fewer people are staying home, period, the problem is likely one of increasing lifestyle costs, not a devaluation of "women's work."
Now, whether paying the typical lifestyle cost is necessary is of course an entirely separate discussion. I'd wager that this board is full of contrary examples, but also that those examples are minorities in the world at large.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I do find it ridiculous that my husband has to work more than full-time to make ends meet and wants to see his family, and so can afford neither the time nor the money to finish his degree right now, and yet barely makes enough for us to live off-- in fact had to switch to a career he doesn't really enjoy, with very little security, because he couldn't make it work any other way-- without a degree. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The bizarre necessity of a college degree in the modern workplace is indeed one of my greatest frustrations, insofar as it means abso-frickin-lutely nothing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, just to point out: "feminists" in this day and age have largely moved on to lesbian rights and stuff like that, while statistically, women still make less than men do in comparable jobs in many fields. I think true women's rights should have more to do with a woman's right to choose to work or to stay home, and options to make either easier.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Dkw, it's nobody's "fault" in my opinion, I just think certain changes were taken to the extreme and that that particular movement - or the radical side thereof if you will - was a bit of a catalyst for that.
That and I'd like to apologize for all the confusion - I tend to simplify my thoughts to only the very essentials and that doesn't really seem to work for others very well. One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially "out of the norm" or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so. The other, as I mentioned above, was just that any social change can and will have negative when taken to extremes. ... And that's all, folks.
Edit: kq said it better: "I think true women's rights should have more to do with a woman's right to choose to work or to stay home, and options to make either easier." exactly =).
[ March 09, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The cry for degrees is the reason you have so many diploma mills cropping up all over the bloody place.
And it's not because the degree makes you a better person - it's people with degrees trying to justify their positions by valuing other people with degrees.
Although I will grant, there are a few exceptions here and there.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially 'out of the norm' or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so."
The larger issue, then, is whether it should be possible for someone making an average income to support a spouse and, say, two children. And in what lifestyle.
But the instant you ask that question, you realize it's unanswerable.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Great topic, Other-Pixie!
It took me a long time to realize that 'equal rights' weren't the panecea we were promised. Yes, I can be anything I want to be, but we HAVE sacrificed along the way.
Millions of children are being raised by strangers because women feel they can't stay at home for all the reasons mentioned by others above.
Those of us without children pay a price as well. Who does the cooking, cleaning, shopping, and laundry when we come home from our 45+ hour work week? By and large it's us. Women (in general) have a higher standard of cleanliness, diet and hygene than the (average) man and if we don't clean it, cook it or launder it, it will stay filthy, raw or smelly.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I can't buy this either. Every couple has a choice. And for some couples, maybe the choice should have been to put off having children until they were more financially stable.
"Yet as mothers many women face "choices" on the order of: You can continue to pursue your professional dreams at the cost of abandoning your children to long hours of inadequate child care. Or: You can stay at home with your baby and live in a state of virtual, crazy-making isolation because you can't afford a nanny, because there is no such thing as part-time day care, and because your husband doesn't come home until 8:30 at night."
See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. They make either option sound just terrible. Let's see, if you work your child is in inadequate child care. If you stay home you go crazy because your husband works till late in the evening. Wow, we should all just give up and stop having kids!
space opera
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I suggest a cantract of cohabitation with another couple who both want to work, you raise both sets of children and everbody pools income. Of course you will need to pull the blinds!
BC
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd also like to point out that minimum wage has not been raised to match the inflation index, and the inflation index is faulty anyway because it's still tied to food prices even though food prices haven't risen nearly as drastically as housing prices.
I'd also appreciate it if we could refer to the women-must-have-a-career-or-they're-oppressed feminists as feminist extremists or just whackos. They do not and never did represent all feminists. Many feminists just wanted equal treatment (gasp!) along with the possibility of choosing their own lives, including the choice to stay home.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:One main concept was that it should not be so financially difficult or socially "out of the norm" or even irresponsible of a spouse of either gender to stay at home should they choose to do so.
Well, if all you care about is whether or not you're "in the norm" of society, then sure, bucking the trend of consumerism and choosing to prioritize a stay-at-home parent rather than a new boat and a timeshare in Tahoe is going to seem unappealing to you. In reality, though, it's up to the individual family to decide what they want, not society, and it's certainly not "impossible" either way.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote: In Christy's case, she works primarily because she would go absolutely bat-s**t crazy not working.
And I think that's an absolutely valid reason for working outside the home. Again, it's about priorities. If working outside the home for (however much time per week) simply makes for a better parent, great!
It's when I hear people whine "We can't afford for one of us to stay home" while they eat out every other day, live in exclusive communities, and dress themselves and their kids in expensive designer clothes that I get just a tad befuddled.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Bean Counter, we've actually talked about that...
quote: And for some couples, maybe the choice should have been to put off having children until they were more financially stable.
This felt like a slap in the face to me. We decided to get married when we did and to not put off having children because we believe in the right to personal revelation from God and believe we have recieved it in this matter. Insurance refusing to cover my pregnancy deepened our financial problems. I can't judge others so quickly, having been in this position myself.
[ March 09, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
kq, I am certain that Space Opera was not intending to offend you. This is a touchy topic of conversation, and it's going to hit on people's nerves one way or another. If we can all try to remain objective and simply discuss this like the academic topic it is, rather than a personal attack on someone, it might not degrade into an inevitable flame war quite so quickly.
I, for one, would like to see where this train of thought leads.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know she wasn't. I just felt I needed to respond, and hope I wasn't offensive in my response.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
kq, my thought was certainly not intended to offend you. In fact, due to being busy reading the article, I hadn't even seen your previous post. I think your family made the choices you made because they're right for you, and it sounds like you're choices were well thought-out.
But I do feel that some couples need to put off having children. Heck, I would put myself in that category. My first child came with no planning whatsoever, and my ex and I were certainly not in a financial position to start a family. Things got better over time, but it was certainly a struggle that I wouldn't want to re-live.
On the other hand, when I remarried, I married a man who had put education and financial responsibility before having a family. As a result, our lives have been much easier (not that they're a total piece of cake!) We put off adding to our family (we started with 2 kiddos) until we were certain we were in a good financial place. Does that make more sense?
space opera
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It is much more nicely worded. Thank you. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kq, If you were in debt up to your eyeballs because you had purchased a flat screen TV, and then decided to have a kid, and then whined about your finances, I'd be inclined to be judgemental. As I judged a friend of mine who bought his fiance a really crappy engagement ring, (the side gems were so loose they wobbled...) a week after he'd bought himself a big screen TV. But I don't think you were that irresponsible. Financial problems happen to responsible people too, unfortunately.
AJ
[ March 09, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Tom, do you think that there are some jobs that do require a college degree? For example, should a degree in physics be required or at least strongly encouraged to do research at a particle accelerator? I agree that for many careers, on-the-job training is perfectly fine, but I guess I think that the things I am learning now are important enough that I would be a little worried about someone trying to do bioengineering without a degree in engineering.
I can sympathize with your frustration, Pixie. I'd love to split income-earning and child-raising with my hypothetical husband, but the way work is generally structured, doing part-time means fewer benefits such as health insurance. And I think the feminist movement, which is one of the reasons I can be a female engineer without being criticized or looked down upon, was mostly beneficial. Feminism does have its downsides (I am bothered by the anti-male sentiments I occasionally encounter) but I don't think that forcing women into the workplace was one of them. I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
"I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman." May I ask why and in what context? I'm not entirely sure I understood your meaning.
That and I'm just plain curious. Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This is an interesting topic to weigh in on.
My wife stays home with our daughters, and to do so we removed about $75K income from our yearly budget. This means that we are forced to assign the appropriate value to everything that we want from a material point of view. Not to say that we do without, but I would almost argue that having less money in our over-materialistic society is a blessing. The additional assessment of "Do I want this enough to sacrifice something else?" eliminates what easily could become blatant excess.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pixie it is because Engineering is one of the last bastions of ultra conservative male domination in a professional setting. Engineers are all by their nature conservative, because to take risks means something could go wrong that could hurt people.
It isn't so much in academia, but out in the professional world it is only beginning to change. And compared to most other professions it has changed far less with regards to gender attitudes, because there are so many fewer women. Even now, an engineering class with 33% women is a rarity, though more common in certain engineering disciplines than others. There are more women in environmental and chemical engineering than proportionally in other fields.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, do you think that there are some jobs that do require a college degree? For example, should a degree in physics be required or at least strongly encouraged to do research at a particle accelerator? I agree that for many careers, on-the-job training is perfectly fine, but I guess I think that the things I am learning now are important enough that I would be a little worried about someone trying to do bioengineering without a degree in engineering."
No, not really. That said, there are some jobs that might require so much training to be qualified for certification that they might as well require college -- or an equivalent certification.
The use of college to replace apprenticeship is one of the most troubling elements of modern education.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:"I certainly feel like the bias is still towards the stay-at-home-mom rather than the career woman." May I ask why and in what context? I'm not entirely sure I understood your meaning.
What I mean is that it's still considered normal for the woman to stay home and the man to work, particularly when there are children. If my hypothetical husband stays home with the hypothetical kids while I work, people would at least think it somewhat odd, even if they don't disapprove. Additionally, it is still the woman's place to do the housework. I have gotten the impression from people that they think if the house is messy, then it is the woman who is at fault, even if both the man and woman work.
Granted, girls get the same sort of career guidance as boys do these days, which I suppose might push them into the workforce rather than encouraging them to stay home with their children. But honestly, I don't see this as any different than not really exposing boys to the idea of staying at home. Maybe it would be best to remind both sexes of this possibility when talking about what they want to do when they grow up.
Edit to add: The problem I see with apprenticeship is that it forces people to choose a career earlier. Maybe that's beneficial in some cases, but frequently people discover in college that they are not good at something or don't like it as much as they originally thought. I suppose you could have a more flexible system that allows people to change apprenticeships easily, or have a few years where the apprentice dabbles in a broader field to get an idea of what they want to do. Also, I'm not sure that apprenticeships are a good way to transmit theoretical knowledge, even if they're a better way to transmit techniques.
[ March 09, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I realize that the conversation has moved on, but I have to comment on this:
quote: I also understand that it would seem "unfair" to those who are not the sole providers for their families and yet...
As a single, working person, it would not seem "unfair" to me to be paid less than my co-workers who happened to have a family to support. It would seem unfair. No quotation marks. Perhaps even unfair. Particularly if those co-workers were also choosing to purchase flat screen TVs and spend $100 a month on cable. And since there is no way to legislate what people do with their money, there can also be no way of saying one person or group of people needs more of it than another for doing the same work.
As it happens, I am lucky enough to have a job that would allow me to support a stay-at-home spouse and a child if I wanted to. I would have to live a lot differently than I do now, as far as eating out and buying "toys," but if I had a family I would be happy to do that to allow my spouse to stay at home and raise children, if that is something he would find fulfilling and we agreed together would be the best choice for our family.
I do not have a husband and do not intend to have children, so the point is moot. But I agree with the people who have been saying that it's a lot more realistic than you seem to think, and a lot of it depends on the choices your family makes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(It would be more realistic if our income hit the $30,000 a year mark. Or even $25,000. For us, it's not financially feasable for me to work with a child, even if I wanted to.)
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
I'm only 21, still in college, and have no prospects of getting married and starting a family anytime soon. So any opinion I have on this subject isn't coming from any kind of experience, just so you know.
It seems to me that balancing a career and a family while making ends meet is about choices, priorities, and sacrifices (as many people have brought up.) (The Incredibles, anyone?) You can't have it all - a huge house, designer clothes, electronic gizmos, ten children, and time to play with all of them. You have to decide what's most important to you, and give up the things that aren't as important.
This subject has reminded me that choices I make now will affect the choices I will have later in life. I hope someday I do get married and have kids, but in the meantime, I can prepare for it by becoming as financially stable as I can.
I'm also reminded of another movie. (Yes, everything reminds me of movies.) Mona Lisa Smile, which I thought was an incredibly boring movie, but relates somewhat to this topic. Remember when Julia Stiles applied and got into college? Harvard, was it? I can't remember. Anyway, she doesn't go, and instead marries that guy and becomes a housewife. Julia Roberts is all mad because she is in the mindset that a woman who settles down to raise a family isn't living up to her potential. But Julia Stiles tells her that it was her choice. Getting married was of greater value to her than going to college. So Julia Roberts shouldn't be mad about it.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
As a single mother and sole breadwinner for my family, I need to echo ElJay's comments about fairness. Yes, I "need" more money than my single, childless, (or married, two income household) co-workers, but I do not believe for a minute that I should get any more than they.
I actually have both perspectives on this issue, since I was a SAHM for nearly 20 years in my past life. We absolutely had to make sacrifices that many of our family members and neighbors didn't choose to make. In 18 years, we went on one real "vacation". My children wore a lot of hand-me-downs and off brand clothing. We never had cable TV, went to first run movies or took the family out to dinner.
But we were very cognizant of the fact that, although we were never "poor" (at least after we got out of the military), we had less "things" than others because of the choices that we willingly made. Our children understood that too, and never really gave us much grief about it. They recognized, even at an early age, what an advantage it was for me to be home and available to them all day.
Of course, when I was divorced and had to enter the work force for the first time at nearly 40, it was a big adjustment for all of us. And for the first time in my life, I started to doubt the wisdom of staying home for all of those years (although that was mostly selfishness rearing its ugly head).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I hear the selfishness; I go through that sometimes, too. As much as I love my daughter and wouldn't trade her for anything in the world, or the time I have with her, for that matter, I look at my brother- and sister-in-law, who each have a Bachelor's (my brother-in-law is actually in the process of going for his Master's), and each also have a $40,000+ a year income (each! That combines to more than $80,000 a year before taxes, which is a staggering amount to us), they have two cars, one paid off and the other mostly paid off, they have a house with a beautiful kitchen and 5 bedrooms (most of which are not actually used as bedrooms) and a huge backyard in a nice area, eat out a lot and Amy never has to choose between new clothes or a toy for the dog and something she needs-- and all this because they prioritized degrees and work over kids, at least for now. It's kind of a look at what our life could have been if we'd decided not to have kids right away.
But whenever I start to get jealous, I think of what we have, and I'm content. We have enough to eat, my family has been exceedingly generous and our daughter has more than enough clothes and toys and books, we have a place to live that is actually very nice, we have a car that works, and a very, very small amount of wiggle room in our budget-- enough to pay for Netflix and DSL. We have a beautiful, bright, sunny little girl in our lives, we have more love for her than we could ever have imagined, and so I'm okay with our choices. We never want for things we really need. But yes, it's hard sometimes when I can't do something I really want because it's just not something we can afford.
Again, all priorities. We've chosen the worry and joy of parenthood over material things, and that's okay for us. I just always hope I'm not widowed with three young children at an early age, like my mother-in-law was. Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Edit to say I really liked both of the last two posts .
I'd also like to add that I don't in any way support having uneven wages for the same positions. I do still think that changes need to be made, but I also know that I have no bloody idea what they should be. The ones I mentioned are simply what my teacher mentioned as possible, though clearly not at all practical.
That and I'm rather glad the focus here has become that of choices. During the seminar emphasis was given to the idea that being a SAHM or SAHD was somehow incomprehensible socially. I played devil's advocate over that one but the excuse that financial difficulties made staying at home impossible particularly intrigued me and I thought the people here would run with the idea.
And this is a bit of a tangent but, on a whole, I think too few people today realize that a lifestyle is a series of choices and that the elimination of any options because they are "impossible" is what makes them so. I'm glad that that is not the case here so much as it is elsewhere.
[ March 09, 2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Blaming feminism for providing options is a red herring. Staying home with the kids has always been a luxury, and as someone above pointed out, two spouses working has always been part of the life of the working poor.
I agree with Eljay and dkw absolutely. It is defnitley possible to live on one income, depending on the choices you make. It would be grossly unfair to pay me, as a single woman, less than a man simply because he chosen to take on dependents. I think it'd be nice to get married and have kids someday, and when I do, I think I'd like to do what Christy is doing. Not only do I need something outside to work on, but I don't like being vulnerable, and there's nothing more vulnerable than being unable to take care of yourself and those that depend on you.
I don't think the world owes anyone a comfortable life. I agree that minimum wage should be tied more closely with true inflation, but choosing to stay home with the kids doesn't earn anyone extra life points. Do you see what I mean? If you want to stay at home with your kids, or if you want to work, or do both, or chuck it all, whatever you choose, it has to be worth it instrinsictly, because the world won't give out a reward and will probably not notice. You have to create the life that you want.
[ March 09, 2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm something along those lines. The "working poor" used to have to have their children work too right along with the adults. Now we have child labor laws that prevent it of course. But it many 2nd-3rd world countries it is still a reality.
AJ
Kat, is "chuch" a word?
[ March 09, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would like to point out again what I said above: for many people, both parents working doesn't make sense financially. I couldn't afford childcare with what I would make if I worked outside the home. Was that addressed in your seminar?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree with kq on that point as well. I have a friend who would love to work outside the home even part time, for similar reasons to Christy. But with two small children, and a husband in the military on an unpredictable schedule, she would hurt the family because paying for child care would drain more money than she could earn with part time work. She *has* a college degree, but no where to use it in her current situation.
AJ
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
No, we ran out of time towards the ends of the period but it was mentioned in the article I linked to at the bottom of the first post . I know that any article of that nature is going to be biased, but I appreciated that it at least offered the perspectives of people with different versions of the same problem. That and this discussion and the article aren't really on the same material if anyone's wondering. The article centers on the stresses of today's perfectionist "Supermoms" and the fact that they do have the choice let things like babysitters and TVs and soccercoaches simply be "enough". I simply grabbed onto a few scattered sentences on SAHMs and ran with the idea of choices.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
kq, I think you've got a good way of looking at things. I think that everyone has a "someone else" they can look at and compare themselves to and wonder how things might have been different. And I don't think that stops when you have a certain amount of money or things, either.
Do they not have a childcare voucher program in your community? I'm not implying that you want to (or should) take advantage of it, but it was my lifesaver when I was on my own with two little ones. Basically the vouchers paid for all of their daycare. I imagine it helps out tons of both married and unmarried parents with lower incomes.
space opera
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I read that article before. And the "supermom" stuff sounds like mothers that have totally lost all perspective and common sense. They micromanage their kids so much that they don't just let the kids be kids. It's sad that it's a nationwide epidemic.
Lol, I read articles like that, and then I think of my own mother. Who, when she was sure we weren't going to kill ourselves for any length of time, would lock herself in the bathroom and read romance novels. Hey, they might have been drivel, but even in spite of being a homeschooling, stay at home mom, she took some time for herself and her sanity. She's also extremely laid back and rarely stresses out, over circumstances beyond her control or housekeeping disasters. An excellent counterpoint to my father, who did tend to be more of a perfectionist and stress more. I take after my father, but I know that should I ever have kids, I'm going to have to take a page from my Mother's book or I will go crazy. (Thankfully Steve is more laid back and keeps me sane so we would have the counterbalance. As a result though, we both agree he'd be the better one to stay home with kids if we ever had them. He's a better cook too!)
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: Do they not have a childcare voucher program in your community? I'm not implying that you want to (or should) take advantage of it, but it was my lifesaver when I was on my own with two little ones. Basically the vouchers paid for all of their daycare. I imagine it helps out tons of both married and unmarried parents with lower incomes.
I've never heard of such a thing. If it's through the state, I'm betting that's 'cause they don't have it. If it's a community thing, then no, they don't that I've heard of. I have considered doing daycare (what I have experience in, and I also enjoy it) somewhere that provides free or discounted childcare for your own child, but the only place I've found so far that has such a program and would hire me (since I have lots of experience, skills, and recommendations, but again, no degree) doesn't take kids until they're 18 months old. Now, Ems is fast approaching that mark, but even so, with Jeff working unpredictable and very long hours and being a one-car family, not to mention our strong beliefs about me staying home if at all possible, we're going to go on as we are for as long as we can manage. Besides, by then, I might be pregnant again; we're discussing it, anyway. And with the uncertainty of what will happen in the next year (we may move out to CA, for instance), definitely going to wait on me working. But that sounds awesome. Where did it exist that you used it, and through what agency?
[ March 09, 2005, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was a bit worried the way this thread started, to be honest, but I have really liked the points made in here since then. I have had very similar conversations with both groups of women and groups of mixed sex ( men and women, not gender-confused... ), and usually this type of discussion turns ugly fast.
Sometimes it is the fault of the men, sometimes it is the women, but it is rare to find a discussion like this where people keep their cool.
I have a problem with the idea that feminism has hurt women, because now women have the right to make choices similar to the choices that men have had for years. That doesn't mean that those choices are without consequences though...there is only so much time in a day, and if both parents choose to work outside the home 50 hours a week, then their isn't a lot of time left over for kids. If a parent chooses to do their own child care, then that comes at a cost, and that isn't just measured in money terms. Often times it may mean a smaller home, or fewer vacations, or sharing a car.
In the past men often didn't have the "right" to send more time with their families, because at the time they HAD to work more than one job to made ends meet....so there wasn't enough time in the day to spend time with the kids.
In the past there wasn't a choice for women, not really. Now they have the right to choose....and the responsibility to assume the costs of their choices.
That, at least to me, is a significant improvement for most of us, not just women.
Kwea
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I believe it was a state-wide program, but that each county only had a certain number of funds for the program. The first year I applied there was a waiting list, but then we received the vouchers because another county had extra funds that they transferred to the county I lived in. It was in Indiana. It wasn't run through the usual aid agency but a different one - I wish I could recall the name!
It was truly a great program. You had to prove your income and that you worked or were a student, of course, but once you were approved you could go to any daycare that accepted vouchers (and almost all of them did). Because of it I was able to get my daughter into the best daycare in our county to the tune of almost $200 per week. And the people were so nice, something in my experience that is almost unheard of in aid programs. I was able to receive free daycare not only for the hours I was in class, but also for any hours out of class that I needed to study without kids. If not for that program I wouldn't have been able to go to school. (Until I married Mr. Opera I worked every other weekend at a hospital second shift while the kids were with their dad. Between that and WIC and medicaid we just squeaked by. I made $40 too much for food stamps!)
I think programs like this are so important because they enable people to work or complete an education. The qualifying standards financially were actually quite reasonable, unlike many other aid programs.
space opera
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow, I really, really wish that existed here; it would enable me to get a child care certification, so I would at least have more options and would worry less about what would happen if my husband died. (Yes, that's one of the big worries in my life.)
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:We decided to get married when we did and to not put off having children because we believe in the right to personal revelation from God and believe we have recieved it in this matter. Insurance refusing to cover my pregnancy deepened our financial problems. I can't judge others so quickly, having been in this position myself.
Which is totally fine... but does the government have a responsibility to accomodate you?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:does the government have a responsibility to accomodate you?
When did she ever suggest that they did?
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
kq, have you looked into this? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow, that's very interesting. Thanks, I didn't know that existed! However, there are no care providers for infants remotely in my area that accept the subsidies.
And I never said that the government needed to accept, accomodate, or otherwise do anything about my choice-- other than what they do for other families with our income, I would hope they didn't. Again, the "unfair" thing. Texas is very good about not requiring that both parents work to recieve aid or anything, but we try not to use state aid anyway. (The only thing we do accept state aid for is health care for Emma; she's on Medicaid, and I was on for my pregnancy. I have my pride, but I refuse to let my child go without adequate healthcare, or subject her to me getting inadequate prenatal care, simply because we can't afford insurance.)
(That said, EIC and the child tax credit do help. )
[ March 09, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: When did she ever suggest that they did?
But saying that there should be greater tax credits for children or that your wages should be based on your family size is asking the government to support you.
On the subject of feminism, I think there is validity to the change in confinement that a lot of people have alluded to, and that is the trap of consumerism. As long as feminism measures its success in women having the same material gains as their male counterparts, they are upholding the capitalist machine. I know feminism doesn't mean to do this. Feminism is not some council of illuminati that operate out of the Space needle.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pixie, The economic stuff you're talking about is just that, economic stuff. Real wages have been in a decline since, I think the late 70s. In the same time frrame, average debt has been increasing, percentage consumer spending has gone up, and the distributions of wealth has become more uneven. If you want to talk about economic obstacles to being a stay at home parent, then talk about economic obstacles. Blaming them on feminism is just bizarre.
Social context is a bit different, but even then, I'd suggest that the problem lies more in people being so alienated from themselves that what society tells them seems like an insurmountable obstacle.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Mothertree, I wasn't the one who suggested that, and I don't agree with it. It wasn't me, I swear!
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I am glad you have a beautiful family, kq, but I'm having huge trouble understanding your choices. I suppose that is because I've never been in love and never made such huge choices based solely on a 'personal revelation'. The path you and your husband chose to take, with both good and bad consequences, just blows my mind. I can't stop trying to wrap my mind around it. I guess I'd make a terrible Mormon. '
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Feminism is not some council of illuminati that operate out of the Space needle.
Where do you operate out of?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Theca, the choices that kq and her husband made were theirs, and were certainly influenced by their beliefs, I'm sure, but you do NOT have to be married and have children before you are 21 in order to be a Mormon. Not even to be a good Mormon. That's like saying you have to be a doctor or a banker in order to be Jewish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course you don't!
It's also ok to be a lawyer or CPA. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I don't know why I don't like jokes like that. I think it's because they rely on stereotypes. I don't mean the jewish ones, but I think jokes like that are only funny in the "It's so true." sense, and when it comes to Mormon steretypes, they are NOT so true. They just aren't - there are too many exceptions. When the exceptions outnumber the rule four to one, the stereotypes stop being sometimes useful. Not to be all Sean Penn, but I've known too many peole who thought the didn't belong at church or else there was something wrong with them because they didn't get married afte their sophomore year of college. It's just not true - half of BYU students graduate umarried. And that's BYU!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I feel for you, Katie, but I think Theca is talking about the making huge life decisions based solely on personal revelation part. Yeah, it's hard, Theca, but we both feel that we've made the right choices on this one.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Do not feel for me - I wasn't talking about me. I've always been very sure that whatever I was doing was the right thing to do and the people who got married at nineteen were crazy and lacked imagination.
I don't talk in code - I mean it, I've known peole who thought that and it always irritated me. I wasn't one of them.
[ March 10, 2005, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would also like to point out that I don't think that people who are members of the Church and are married and choose not to have kids right away are disregarding the teachings of the Prophets or something. We read the counsel that's available (which isn't too much, considering that it's a very big choice and we'd have loved for there to be more), we talked to our bishops, we prayed, we talked to each other, we prayed some more, and we came to the conclusion that we, personally, would regret it if we didn't try to have kids right away. If the Lord saw fit to bless us with a little one, we would accept the miracle and its impact on our lives. We didn't really expect it to happen that fast, and we didn't expect me to be on bedrest for part of the pregnancy, and then showing by the time I was allowed up and around, so no one would hire me. But we accept things as they are, and are happy with our choice. We know it was right for us, but we would never presume to think we know what is best for others. In fact, as I said, I often find myself envying those without kids a little, both for their material stability and for that "alone time" they get together, while we get maybe one date a month, if we're lucky, and half the time that falls through and we bring the baby on the date with us. But as I said, we are content that we did the right thing for us.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Katie, I meant I felt for you being always the person that people ignore when they think of the Church. I've seen it happen, and it's not often malicious, but it's not always benign, either. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Gosh, now I'm just rambling. I suppose I should go to bed. But I'll be away from my computer for four days! I don't know if I'll live! Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
ketchupqueen, I think it's the pity in general that's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm sorry - I should go to bed too. I don't mind not fitting the stereotype, if only because I dislike stereotypes on principle. Becoming an archetype would be an anathema.
In other words, it isn't that I think that the archetypal Mormon should be me instead of you or one of the other LDS moms, but that I think we should eliminate all characteristics of an archetype that are not essential to being Mormon. Christian, yes. No alcohol, yes. Believes in BoM, yes. Married in early twenties and five kids by 30, nope. Does that make sense?
[ March 10, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
LadyJane, I agree. I'm another non-stereotype, married at 35 to a Muslim, and I've been on the receiving end of open pity for marrying outside of the church. Whatever. We're all welcome, regardless of all that other external stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel we believe in.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that my family could live on the $$ I bring in alone if we lived forty miles closer to Washington DC. The cost of housing alone would make it impossible.
I'll give you an example: currently, we own a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath home on a quarter acre lot. We pay about $1700/month on our mortgage. (Three years ago, this would have been exorbitant. Now, this is considered a good deal) A friend of mine lives in Alexandria, which is just outside DC, in a 3 bedroom townhouse. He pays twice what we pay-- a lot less bang for his buck.
We do watch our finances carefully, because we think its important that a parent stays home with our young children. No cable, no broadband internet, used cars, used TV's, and careful shopping. I don't know that I'd call those sacrifices, though; there's not much on cable that interests us; we use the internet for Hatrack and email, and nothing else; a used car is a better deal than a new one; and careful shopping is just smart-- everyone should do it.
I have not noticed a bias against SAHM's, except on television. But then again, I belong to a culture that encourages stay at home parenting. . .
It's a pity that the equal rights movement did not move both ways-- but for there to be equal rights for men, that would necessitate a great change of cultural standards. Men would have to start believing that it is their right to have and care for children. Honestly, women had it easy to get their rights equalized-- it just took some reason and some legislation. Men will have to stand against years of cultural inertia to get themselves recognized as good caretakers of children.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I suddenly have a strong urge to visit my mom.
(((Hatrack mothers)))
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It's the personal revelation part I have trouble with, yes. And how you can KNOW it is a real revelation.
My family is very traditional, btw. My mom was a SAHM, we lived very frugally on my dad's income and spent a lot of time together doing things that don't cost money. We always seemed to have more money than all my dad's coworkers, who made more money but weren't as thrifty as we were. We usually had enough money to go on vacation to see relatives at least once a year. The coworkers with the fancy cars and big houses and expensive toys for the kiddies were always out of money at the end of the month and struggling hard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think that my family could live on the $$ I bring in alone if we lived forty miles closer to Washington DC. The cost of housing alone would make it impossible.
This is a very good point. In our area, extravagant mortgages don't get you fancy houses. They get you an extra two hours or more with your family, unless you're lucky enough to find a job near your house.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Did y'all ever read The Millionaire Next Door? Great financial book. It talks about what the characteristics of millionaires are, and, basically, it is people who live on 80% of their income. One of the facts it mentioned was that many (most?) high income households have a net worth that is far below what it should be, considering the age of the earners and their income, but that's because they spend everything.
For instance, choosing where to live makes a huge difference, because a ritzier neighborhood not only brings a larger mortgage payment, but it costs more to live the same lifestyle as your neighbors (cars, clothes, country club fees, theatre season tickets, private school), so you spend more in general. The ironic part is that most (many) of the neighbors will also be spending more than they should in order to keep up the lifestyle. *thinks* I could survive on much less than what I make now, but I'd have to give up traveling and stop eating out so much. Clearly, I'd have to make cooking my new hobby.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: Great topic, Other-Pixie!
Umm...Pixie!=Pixiest?? I'm confused.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I was really surprised, when Mark and I went shopping for our first house a few months ago, how much everyone pressured us to buy something more expensive. The realtors, obviously, but even the banks we talked to were telling us that we could easily afford something twice what we ended up getting. That just blows my mind. Right now we're spending 25% of our income on housing costs, including utilities. It's a tiny townhouse, sure, but it meets our needs and then some, and it frees us up to spend money on, say, online animation schools. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: unless you're lucky enough to find a job near your house.
Our local government is convinced that the region doesn't want industry. What the region wants is . . . MORE STRIP MALLS! MORE HOUSING!
They're wrong, of course. I hate them, I do. Of course, I'm going to profit enormously when we decide to sell our home. . . but we're not planning on selling for the next 15 years or so.
I would love to have a 30 minute commute.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Scott, have you ever considered moving to a smaller town? I know it would be a huge upheaval for your family, but certainly you could find a similar job elsewhere (I'm not sure what you do exactly; IT maybe?).... Our town isn't tiny, but our house is considered pretty far out there, and we're only 2 miles from downtown and 1.5 miles from work. Pizza places won't even deliver to us.
Just sayin'. I'm sure there must be a good reason why you can't move, I'm just having a hard time imagining it. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Wonderful topic, so many things to weigh in on, I don't know where to start.
I have the perspective of being on both sides - I was a working mother of two, then became a SAHM of four, and I'm now in college to earn my degree so I can go back to work in a field of my choice.
I don't think the government should pay me to stay at home, or give my husband more money because he supports a family, but I do wish they would at least be equitable in the way they treat working parents vs. at-home parents. It bothers me that working moms can get tax credits for child care - to me that sends a message that working parents deserve more tax breaks than families that have one parent at home. In fact, in my experience, it's the families with one parent at home that need the most help - because they've made huge financial sacrifices in order to keep one parent there.
I'll add more on the other great topics later.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Zeugma,I think you brought up a very valid point about being pressured to buy an expensive house. I've also noticed that people seem to feel pressured to buy a big house as well, which most of the time equals more expensive. A lot of the time it just seems to be the status of being able to say that your home is X number of square feet.
We have some friends who are parents of 3 little ones. They just bought a home that's not too much larger than our old house, but they paid double for it. I think the wife felt that expensive = good house. It was over $200,000, and since they couldn't afford that much they got an interest-only mortgage. My husband is very close with the husband, and since he was asked his advice he told the husband that we would *never* consider something like that because of the financial risk. I really hope that things work out for them.
I think that banks definately do a good job of subtle pressuring by offering to lend more money than what people truly afford. But then again, a lot of people just aren't realistic about their budgets so they're willing to be pressured, know what I mean?
space opera
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:I think that banks definately do a good job of subtle pressuring by offering to lend more money than what people truly afford.
This is so true. When we were shopping for our house, we were "automatically approved" for over double what we could afford.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It bothers me that working moms can get tax credits for child care - to me that sends a message that working parents deserve more tax breaks than families that have one parent at home.
Assuming you mean "working moms that are part of a still-together marriage," I agree. Families with a stay-at-home parent are making significant financial sacrifices.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: I think the wife felt that expensive = good house.
In many cases, that is true. It has to do with what materials are used, and what contractors build it.
We used a framer that cost almost twice as much as the other bids. Why? Because he was licensed, insured, had a regular crew that worked with him every day, instead of picking up people on street corners who would work for the day for $50 and a six-pack. I've known friends who hired the other type framing crews and listened to their laments about the poor structural nature of their homes. ONe framer framed an uptairs bathroom for a friend of mine without putting in the extra supports needed for a bathtub full of water - my husband caught it when he came to install the tub. It costs thousands to fix, everything had to be ripped out and re-done.
Believe it or not - sometimes spending more isn't about vanity, it's smart, sound decisions.
Now, not to say that is the case with your friend, certainly I think the interest-only mortgage sounds frightening, but I don't like the assumption that expensive houses are all about keeping ahead of the Joneses.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Assuming you mean "working moms that are part of a still-together marriage,"
Yes. I was trying to draw the contrast between two families, both parents intact. One has both parents working outside the home, and one has one parent staying home. The two income family gets the child-care credit, the one income family does not.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Yeah, Belle, I didn't mean to imply that all expensive houses are bad. I definately know that you get what you pay for.
From what I've heard (and this is from the woman herself) it was all about having a big house and that was it. They have a big house, but it's got a much smaller yard than their old one and it's across the street from railroad tracks. Sadly, I don't think it's what the husband wanted at all. He and Mr. Opera went to a gathering last week that took place at a farmhouse set on several acres of land. Mr. Opera said the husband looked around and said, "Gosh, I probably could have bought this for what we spent on our house."
I believe in smart decisions, but I don't think taking an interest-only mortgage out because you can't afford the house is one. I can't believe they can live in that house for 40 years and still not have a single dime paid off on it. But, enough about them - I just thought it was a good example of allowing yourself to be pressured.
space opera
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It's also about what makes the most sense in your particular housing market too. In more expensive housing markets like Chicago and DC suburbs (and all of California), the strategies are very different. With our house in the Chicago suburbs, we bought one close to the limit of our loan approval. However, it was a much better investment than a smaller condo would be, because single family houses appreciate at a much faster rate. And the house was a fixxer upper that we could put elbow grease, and only a little bit of money into and get a huge return on investment. Even with only doing little things (like removing eyesores) it has appreciated nearly $30K in under two years, and would be worth about 20K more if we invested 5K into renovations.
But in higher priced markets you will pay more for housing as a percentage of your income than say Oklahoma. If something drastic ever happened and I had to live on a minimum wage job I would move someplace like Oklahoma. It is much easier to get by there with a lower cost of living.
AJ (Note: In a rapidly appreciating housing market, interest-only loans make more sense, because you get equity at a far faster rate that way. However I personally still wouldn't do one.)
[ March 10, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Miro: The Pixiest and I are two entirely different people. I had posted under another name when I first joined but I didn't really like the way I was regarded under that alias so I switched to this one. ...And then discovered just a little while later that ThePixiest was a member. It was a bit of an issue at first but she didn't post quite as much then and I think after awhile people just learned through our different writing styles and topics that there was a difference. ::shrugs:: It's worked out alright for two and a half years now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Did y'all ever read The Millionaire Next Door? Great financial book. It talks about what the characteristics of millionaires are, and, basically, it is people who live on 80% of their income. One of the facts it mentioned was that many (most?) high income households have a net worth that is far below what it should be, considering the age of the earners and their income, but that's because they spend everything.
It's true. Good saving habits can also make the difference in allowing someone to be a homemaker if he/she wants to. Though it's harder than it used to be, it's still possible: my dad's been a homemaker for something like fifteen years.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:The two income family gets the child-care credit, the one income family does not.
Y'know - I could be horribly wrong here, but to the best of my knowledge, it matters not whether you are a 2-working parent family or a 1-working parent family in order to get the tax credit.
It depends on the amount of income earned by the household, and the amount spent on child care, which the tax preparer then follows the formula to determine what % you can deduct from your taxes.
It is not about SAH parents with working parents, or single working parents, or both parents working.
It's about how much you earn and how much you pay for child care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*agrees with Shan from personal experience*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
You do get less % the more you earn . . .
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think you guys are missing my point - yes I could get the child care credit - if I put my kids in child care.
But see, I choose not to. I choose to care for them myself. The child care credit to me says "We, the government, will help you go to work and leave your kids with others. And as for you people that care for your kids yourself - you guys don't need any help."
I don't like that. I'm not saying the government should give me any money to stay home with my kids - I just don't think they should be in the business of rewarding parents who leave their kids in daycare with a tax credit. I am an advocate for that tax credit being abolished altogether, and replacing it with an increase in the child credit that benefits ALL parents, those that use child care services, and those like me who don't.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Belle, you have a choice and the OPTION. Big difference.
There are plenty of people that don't have the option. Either there is a single working parent, or both parents work minimum-low wage jobs JUST to keep a roof over their family's head, food on the table, and clothes on their backs.
The tax credit merely recognizes the fact that child care is a huge expense - and for the lowest income families, a way of recouping some of that expense.
And really, the more you earn the less you get back. For example, a person reporting $1880 in licensed (taxable) child care (and an income of $40,000) gets a tax credit of $414. A person reporting only $15,000 in earnings and the same amount in child care fees would have received NO MORE than $658 in a tax credit.
There is NO bar to any family - both parents working or not - to using and claiming the child care tax credit. It's simply based on personal choice and income-based need.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Wow, we should all just give up and stop having kids!![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I think your family made the choices you made because they're right for you, and it sounds like you're choices were well thought-out.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), and usually this type of discussion turns ugly fast. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
My husband is very close with the husband, and since he was asked his advice he told the husband that we would *never* consider something like that because of the financial risk. I really hope that things work out for them.