Do you think MA retirees will sell their homes en masse by 2015? (Boston: fit in, condo)

[konfetka]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

And if people didn't have kids, they could afford houses on whatever incomes their household has
Many households are single-income, ONE person- we can't compete with two incomes. Houses will cost what people can and will pay.

Single-income households - not sure what the percentage is, but it would seem to be a small percentage, since condos would be more affordable for single income.

[konfetka]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

My wife actually likes having a job and has no interest in being a SAHM. This was a choice she made and I'm sure there are plenty of women who make the same one. The days of June Cleaver are long over.

Not sure if you have a kid, but it's a different situation then if you didn't. Also having one is different from two or three, because for many people the cost of daycare for 2 kids plus not seeing them all day is not worth it.

Also intentions can be different from reality. Based on my own experience, when I was at work 3 months later only to realize it was not what I wanted to focus on.

In reality feminism which led to most women working also led to appreciating house prices. Those women who choose to work actually make it more difficult to afford to stay home for those women who choose so.

About 30% of moms stay home and 70% work. Of the 70% I am sure many work because they have to, not because they want to. Of those who do work there are many who work part time or mothers hours. As a result their incomes are smaller. Then there are those who stay home for 1, 2 or 3 years until the kid is 3 years old, or until kindergarten, or until the kid can stay home alone after school. Most of these women already worked for 10, 15 or 20 years, and enjoyed it, and at this new stage of their life they prefer to focus on family. Some of them 'retire', but most of them are just putting their careers on hold. And for many many women a break of motherhood brings them to new more flexible and more fulfilling careers.

Thanks to capitalism in this country (unless you are very poor) you have to pay for daycare yourself, unlike many other countries in the world. While upper class and the poor do OK, many middle class people cannot afford daycare for 2 or 3 kids. Plus USA is the only country in the world without paid maternity leave, behind even Pakistan. This country is one of the wealthiest in the world, so it's all about priorities.
But the more women work, the more revenue the government gets, so why spend money on kids, if you will get less money in return.

But if you can afford not to work, but would rather work then be with your kid, then why have kids at all? If a career is what you want rather then kids, then it's unfair to your kids to bring them into your life. Usually not working means sacrificing your standard of living, so it's a choice between your standard of living and maintenance level made possible by your career on one hand and kids on the other hand (for some people).

However the tide is actually turning, today more and more women want to stay home because of new ideas in parenting, like 'Attachment parenting' and research that shows the benefits of staying home with your kids on their development.

I think feminism had such a radical effect on family and society, so a reversal in the opposite direction is only natural.

[kingeorge]

Originally Posted by konfetka

Not sure if you have a kid, but it's a different situation then if you didn't. Also having one is different from two or three, because for many people the cost of daycare for 2 kids plus not seeing them all day is not worth it.

Also intentions can be different from reality. Based on my own experience, when I was at work 3 months later only to realize it was not what I wanted to focus on.

In reality feminism which led to most women working also led to appreciating house prices. Those women who choose to work actually make it more difficult to afford to stay home for those women who choose so.

About 30% of moms stay home and 70% work. Of the 70% I am sure many work because they have to, not because they want to. Of those who do work there are many who work part time or mothers hours. As a result their incomes are smaller. Then there are those who stay home for 1, 2 or 3 years until the kid is 3 years old, or until kindergarten, or until the kid can stay home alone after school. Most of these women already worked for 10, 15 or 20 years, and enjoyed it, and at this new stage of their life they prefer to focus on family. Some of them 'retire', but most of them are just putting their careers on hold. And for many many women a break of motherhood brings them to new more flexible and more fulfilling careers.

Thanks to capitalism in this country (unless you are very poor) you have to pay for daycare yourself, unlike many other countries in the world. While upper class and the poor do OK, many middle class people cannot afford daycare for 2 or 3 kids. Plus USA is the only country in the world without paid maternity leave, behind even Pakistan. This country is one of the wealthiest in the world, so it's all about priorities.
But the more women work, the more revenue the government gets, so why spend money on kids, if you will get less money in return.

But if you can afford not to work, but would rather work then be with your kid, then why have kids at all? If a career is what you want rather then kids, then it's unfair to your kids to bring them into your life. Usually not working means sacrificing your standard of living, so it's a choice between your standard of living and maintenance level made possible by your career on one hand and kids on the other hand (for some people).

However the tide is actually turning, today more and more women want to stay home because of new ideas in parenting, like 'Attachment parenting' and research that shows the benefits of staying home with your kids on their development.

I think feminism had such a radical effect on family and society, so a reversal in the opposite direction is only natural.

Great summary. In my neck of the woods most educated women and few men (with great career accomplishments) often stay home for those first 3-10 most formative years. I admire their maturity and sacrifice. Our society does benefit when kids are well cared for from the beginning, and cared by people who love them most. Obviously not everyone can make such natural choice and there are no bigger everyday heroes than single/divorced parents.
As nation we talk about importance of family, how kids are our future, but in reality, we are bunch of backward and unsympathetic people who could care less about most vulnerable members of our society, and have bought into notion of bottom line that has to determine everything, and that bottom line is more important than life and humanity. Why have it easy and civilized, when we can "invent hot water all over again" and have it as hard and as complicated as possible? So both parents can suffer their foolish choice to have one or two kids. Sad.

[dravogadro]

I have seen a good deal more men deciding to stay home these days to take care of the kids. Depends on who brings home the bacon.

[CaseyB]

Could we get back on topic, please? I believe this thread is about retirees.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by konfetka

Not sure if you have a kid, but it's a different situation then if you didn't. Also having one is different from two or three, because for many people the cost of daycare for 2 kids plus not seeing them all day is not worth it.

We do have a son. My wife spends plenty of time with him as she only needs to be on campus 2 days on most weeks. I realize most working moms are in the office M-F, but this is one reason why my wife was very happy to maintain her career after becoming a mom.

Originally Posted by kingeorge

Great summary. In my neck of the woods most educated women and few men (with great career accomplishments) often stay home for those first 3-10 most formative years. I admire their maturity and sacrifice. Our society does benefit when kids are well cared for from the beginning, and cared by people who love them most. Obviously not everyone can make such natural choice and there are no bigger everyday heroes than single/divorced parents.
As nation we talk about importance of family, how kids are our future, but in reality, we are bunch of backward and unsympathetic people who could care less about most vulnerable members of our society, and have bought into notion of bottom line that has to determine everything, and that bottom line is more important than life and humanity. Why have it easy and civilized, when we can "invent hot water all over again" and have it as hard and as complicated as possible? So both parents can suffer their foolish choice to have one or two kids. Sad.

I have no doubt that you've just managed to insult every working mother that reads this forum.

[kingeorge]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

We do have a son. My wife spends plenty of time with him as she only needs to be on campus 2 days on most weeks. I realize most working moms are in the office M-F, but this is one reason why my wife was very happy to maintain her career after becoming a mom.



I have no doubt that you've just managed to insult every working mother that reads this forum.

Then I suggest that you re-read my post again. Thank you.

[495neighbor]

Companies need to relocate to the suburbs to take advantage of the talents of women of child rearing age who choose to be working mothers. They also need to be flexible to offering working from home hours. (The recent Yahoo decision seems to be a big strike against working women.) Otherwise families with two working parents need to compromise the big mega-mansion in suburbia and live in smaller, denser neighborhoods closer to urban hubs. The limited commuter rail schedule alone makes it all but impossible for someone to be a working mother, when picking up children from daycare is added into the mix. Lots of former executive turned fitness trainer or personal coach (probably not entirely by choice) in these parts.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

Then I suggest that you re-read my post again. Thank you.

I read it. You said you admire women who bow out of their careers to care for their kids for 10 years or so. You then immediately went on to say "Our society does benefit when kids are well cared for from the beginning, and cared by people who love them most." This would imply that kids who have two working parents are not as well cared for as kids with a SAHM. If I were a working mother, I'd be pretty insulted by that.

[brightdoglover]

Originally Posted by konfetka

Single-income households - not sure what the percentage is, but it would seem to be a small percentage, since condos would be more affordable for single income.

And many couples or couples with kids or single parents live in condos for the same reason.

Condo living is a completely different experience than house living. I have always lived alone and thought I'd have to live in a condo because I thought I had to live in a specific city, and after three years of everything going wrong that can go wrong with condo ownership, bailed out 25 miles inland and bought a tiny crumbling house- which finished crumbling- I had it torn down and built a slightly larger and new house, which is a dream come true. I worked extra and make certain work decisions around the expense (and my age).

Just saying, not every single person wants to live in a condo. Home ownership among single women especially is an ever-increasing portion of the buying population.