U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:03 PM
 
10,596 posts, read 12,090,790 times
Reputation: 6458

Advertisements

Then there is the issue of a woman actually *wanting* to have a career. I am 48 years old and was raised by a working mom. It never occurred to me that I would ever NOT work/have a career, even having children. I was a happy child, admired my mother working, and figured I do the same. I would think that as more and more woman enter the workforce and model that choice for their daughters, you will continue to see a change in mindset of females who, besides having children, actually want to have some sort of career.

Of course, there are many that do not have that desire at all.

With that said, in the span of one's lifetime, the portion of years requiring intensive care of your children is relatively short. During that period of time, when daycare costs are so high and bills are high, it's very easy to think of the "here and now" and do what's right for "today." I find it difficult (it was for myself) to think of the longterm ramifications of stepping out of your career field for 5-10 years. I do think those in the situation of teachers, it is relatively easy to step out/step in. In my field, it would have set me WAY back.

I think the decision to stay home can be easy for some women:

1. Daycare costs are very high
2. Spouse's income is sufficient to live on
3. Not much investment in a career anyway.

If #2 and #3 don't apply, many woman opt to operate at a loss for a few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,941,773 times
Reputation: 3857
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post
I'm of the belief we trapped ourselves into this situation (sub-optimal equilibrium) gradually over the past 30-40 years. The first people to have both spouses working saw a much bigger benefit than those who do it today (heck, it must have been a super sweet deal!), because now prices have adjusted for a much larger percentage of dual-income households. So now people are forced to stay dual-income just to survive/keep up - and everyone's worse off as a result. I believe that has an impact on the absurd housing prices in this area.
That I agree with. Used to be that one parent (in those days, Dad) could work and the other stay home--and still afford a 3BR or 4BR house inside the Beltway. Meanwhile, your employer paid for your retirement, and there was no risk of outliving it. I know it wasn't all roses (especially for women and black folks), but I wish we could've had the social progress without the cost inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:12 PM
 
119 posts, read 333,094 times
Reputation: 34
for my family it has not been worth it for my spouse to work. In the lean years we just went without extras like vacations and cable TV. now we can afford all that stuff and we're happy that we sacreficed early on and got adjusted to one income. Spouse worked full time in 2008 (laid off) and again in 2011 (quit) and both times after tax and all the other stuff it wasn't really worth it for us. everyone's situation is different, we're lucky to have a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
1,449 posts, read 2,801,779 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post


Furthermore, I'm of the belief we trapped ourselves into this situation (sub-optimal equilibrium) gradually over the past 30-40 years. The first people to have both spouses working saw a much bigger benefit than those who do it today (heck, it must have been a super sweet deal!), because now prices have adjusted for a much larger percentage of dual-income households. So now people are forced to stay dual-income just to survive/keep up - and everyone's worse off as a result. I believe that has an impact on the absurd housing prices in this area.

there is plenty to be said for these arguments. But dual income households are only part of the story. Change from industrial to technological jobs, the decline of pensions, rise in health care costs (and less companies paying for them), the expansion of suburbs and rise of gas costs (without a push for reasonable public transportation), the decline of people living close to family (you know, free childcare, etc.

The modern family is really struggling with things previous generations took for granted. Whether women working was the start of it all is up for debate, but things certainly are NOT the same for the families of today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:14 PM
 
3,504 posts, read 7,920,013 times
Reputation: 3466
The reason I first stayed home was because I did not think a baby would get enough one-on-one attention unless I hired a nanny - which I could not afford. Also - it would bother me to have a stranger taking care of my baby or a daycare where God knows what can happen - all types of horrible abuse and the child would be too young to tell me about it - and it happens every day in the news - even expensive daycares. I was raised by a working Mom back when not many women worked and it was horrible - I was left with a neighbor lady and was very lonely. Nowadays it is just not worth the expense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
4,489 posts, read 9,555,817 times
Reputation: 3656
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post
And that is 20,000 and not 24,000 because she is a teacher and has summers off I assume? If you had to work all 12 months, your net profit is only $4K a year. So around that salary mark, even with all the other benefits such as 401k and the difficulty of getting back into the workforce, it's hard for me to say that making 4,000 a year is worth giving up 10 hours a day with your young children.
Right, but in just about any career (not job, but long term career), there is a lot more room for income growth than as a teacher, so I'd think it would quickly balance out. You may break even in year 1, but by year 3 you'd be back ahead significantly in a lot of fields.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:31 PM
 
84 posts, read 194,696 times
Reputation: 40
I am not saying that everyone should do it, but I think it's worth planning the family in the way that by the time the oldest child goes to kindergarten, the youngest goes to daycare. That way you are avoiding double pay for the childcare. Another option is to have nanny share with other family, if you have one or two kids.

I don't think that quitting your job just because the salary to childcare cost ratio is not proportionate is not fair neither to yourself nor to your kids. Your kids miss out on the opportunity to socialize and develop with their peers, while you miss out on the career growth and development.

However, if you feel that you'd prefer to stay home with kids because that's what you want to do and it will make you happy, do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
1,449 posts, read 2,801,779 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbee_0711 View Post
I am not saying that everyone should do it, but I think it's worth planning the family in the way that by the time the oldest child goes to kindergarten, the youngest goes to daycare. That way you are avoiding double pay for the childcare. Another option is to have nanny share with other family, if you have one or two kids.
this isn't always feasible, especially with women delaying childbearing. And even if it is/was feasible, it may not always work out as planned. I'm actually a good example of that. First at 28, no problem getting pregnant. Planned to maybe start when daughter was 3 or so for another. Moved it back to 4 since my first pregnancy was pretty hard (even though getting that way wasn't) and there was no way I could handle so much time home alone with a very active 3 year old while my husband worked full-time AND did school at night and on weekends if I was bedridden by pregnancy like the first time around. We started trying after he graduated. Guess what? 2 years later, no second kid - unexplained infertility. Well, and the aftereffects from my first with a pretty severe thyroid condition that might be the root cause of our IF, but they have no way of knowing that for certain. We're now looking at either costly fertility treatments or costly adoption. And we're still just below 35, which is a pretty common age for #1 around here.

I'm not saying this for pity, because it isn't causing me emotional distress like many others in our situation. My 6-year old kindergartener is a handful all on her own and we may just stop at her and I often wonder if we can actually handle a second. We shall see. I really just wanted to throw it out there as a "things don't always go as planned" tale.

People have their reasons for planning their families as they do. And of course there are those who don't really "plan" at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 03:06 PM
 
2,612 posts, read 4,754,098 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbee_0711 View Post

I don't think that quitting your job just because the salary to childcare cost ratio is not proportionate is not fair neither to yourself nor to your kids. Your kids miss out on the opportunity to socialize and develop with their peers, while you miss out on the career growth and development.
it.
Not necessarily - my kid has gone to preschool since he was 1. The majority of moms at the preschool don't work full-time, which is why they can take their kids to school two or three days a week and then pick them up a couple of hours later. Our kids aren't missing out on anything, even if we are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Reston
560 posts, read 1,106,348 times
Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTerp07 View Post
$2,000 * 10 = $20,000
$45-20 = $25k

...

Why is the mom responsible for 100% of the daycare costs? It takes two to tango!

($2,000 * 10)/2 = $10,000
$45-10 = $35k
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top