Married NoVA moms can't afford to work; childcare costs major culprit (daycares, house)

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by CaliTerp07

$8k for 5 years. Then when kiddo is in school and the daycare costs are rapidly shrinking, she still has a job, has funded her retirement for 5 years, has seniority, has probably had pay raises (though maybe not, in teaching), etc.

It's HARD to get back into the work force after 5 years off. I'm watching a lot of my friends struggle with it right now. The ones who stuck it out and worked at least part time while they had young kids are finding jobs much easier than the ones who have not had their hands in the industry for 5+ years.

Exactly. I think for many years, I was hardly making much at all (two kids in daycare) and my husband was no lawyer, we made exactly the same salary so one of us staying home would cause a huge reduction in our total income.

Anyway, it's all what you are comfortable with. In my career field, I had NO comfort in opting out of the workforce, and, while I felt stable in my marriage, I've seen far to many stay-at-home parents (men included) getting ditched by the working spouse. More than I was comfortable with. And those spouses were in dire straits. For me, I just had to have my own independence. That said, there are some very wonderful "positives" to being home with the kids and, let me tell you, there were days that I was so close to it. But being on the other side of it now, I am very happy with the choice I made. No regrets.

[OrangeFish]

The rule-of-thumb I have heard is take 2.5 times the cost of child care and see if that is higher or lower than the gross wages of the parent (mom OR dad) that may stay home. If it is higher, then the parent should think about staying home (e.g., it may be "paying out of pocket to go to work"). If it is lower, than it is worthwhile to consider staying full-time.

[HereinVA]

It is what it is. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government (or society, or the community or "the village") to ensure that childcare is plentiful or affordable. People choose whether or not to have children, and one of the things they should take into consideration should be the expense of childcare.

[michgc]

I agree with Christine and CaliTerp. I had my first child in 2001 and pretty much worked part-time for my employer from then until 2007 when my last child was born. With three kids, part-time work and a commute to Rockville was to difficult to manage, so I stopped working, but I planned to go back 3/4 days per week (24 hours) when my youngest was 3 years old.

I called my place of employment about 6 months before my youngest's 3rd birthday, and they said, "Sorry, we have no work for you. In fact, we're letting people go because of the economy." Our work was cyclical (education testing), so I called again the following year and pretty much got the same reply. I was plalnning to contact them again this year, but we moved away. In the meantime, I did find a part-time job last summer, but it was pretty much a "mom job" with low pay and no benefits. But I was able to only work when my kids were in school, so I had no daycare costs.

I don't regret staying home with my kids while they were young, but I definitely lost out on advancement opportunities, income increases, and the ability to save in a 401(k). This fall, my youngest will be entering Kindergarten, and I will start looking around here for a job, but I've essentially been out of the workforce in my field for 5 years, plus the economy still hasn't fully recovered so there is a lot of competition for jobs.

So while I may not have been making a ton of money while paying for daycare costs, I would have probably still had a job or at least more of an opportunity to acquire another one. It's funny because I had a co-worker who had kids the same time I did, but she did send her kids to daycare and continued to work. We used to discuss daycare costs and such. I remember thinking that she really wasn't making much (assuming we made about the same salary) after paying daycare. She's now my friend on Facebook, and I recently saw her title at the company, and she has moved up to a senior project manager.

Moral: If money is what you are after, keep your job, even if you are not making much for a few years. If you truly want to be home with your kids, then realize it will put you at a disadvantage when you are ready to go back to work.

[stpickrell]

Originally Posted by The Dissenter

Moms: I can't afford to work - Apr. 18, 2012



Thoughts NoVA?

$450 a week for a 4-year-old? That's pretty steep.

[Kembek]

My mother stayed home with me until I was 10 and then joined the workforce. I remember being very perplexed that she wanted to go to work so badly. I also remember suggesting on several occasions that she stay home "like a real mommy." That was 48 years ago and it still perplexes me.

[michgc]

Originally Posted by stpickrell

$450 a week for a 4-year-old? That's pretty steep.

It says "...for her now 4-year old son..." I imagine that was the cost when he was an infant.

[michgc]

Originally Posted by Kembek

My mother stayed home with me until I was 10 and then joined the workforce. I remember being very perplexed that she wanted to go to work so badly. I also remember suggesting on several occasions that she stay home "like a real mommy." That was 48 years ago and it still perplexes me.

I get it.

[Carlingtonian]

My mother stayed home with me and my older brother, and it turned her brain to mush. Mostly because of my brother.

OK, but seriously: I've heard childcare is crazy expensive here, and I can see that if a mom is anything but a very high-paying career, it might seem to break even--so what's the point of working?

Two reasons: Retirement and health insurance. Even if all of a working mom's take-home pay is going to child care (and that's just for the sake of argument, because how many working moms see it eat up ALL of their pay?), is she still socking away any pre-tax income into her 401K or its equivalent? Compound interest adds up. Even skipping a few years means tens of thousands lost down the road.

In a few years, the brats will be old enough to fend for themselves, and Mommy will probably want to return to the workforce. (Not always, but it seems like that's the trend most of the time.) If she does, then she's back contributing to her and Mr. Mom's retirement--but has still lost out on all those years of not only her own contributions but also any employer match. If she *can't* get back to a job she likes, then her and Mr. Mom's retirement income is basically cut in half. Ouch!

Health insurance: Dad may have a good job with great insurance. But what if his insurance sucks? Or what if he loses his job? It's good to have the spouse's employer-subsidized insurance plan sitting there as another option.

And finally, it does seem from observation that many moms get bored being homemakers once the kids are older than about 10 and off doing their own thing. This did happen with Mama Carlingtonian--who eventually went back to school and re-entered the workforce in her 50s. But that's taking the hard road.

It's a real dilemma--because I think most parents would prefer to have one parent stay home with the kids when they're small, for the sake of their intellectual development and mother/infant bonding. No one wants to leave a baby at daycare. But we're the only industrialized country with no maternity leave.

EDIT: I see MichGC touched on a lot of this out of firsthand experience, so hopefully this isn't completely redundant.

[snowdenscold]

Originally Posted by The Dissenter

I think that was $45k before taxes. Add in commuting costs, taxes, and other deductions, she'll be lucky to be taking home $28-30k a year. Than the net benefit is $8k a year which you have to decide whether it is worth working yourself to the bone for.

Originally Posted by CaliTerp07

$8k for 5 years. Then when kiddo is in school and the daycare costs are rapidly shrinking, she still has a job, has funded her retirement for 5 years, has seniority, has probably had pay raises (though maybe not, in teaching), etc.

It's HARD to get back into the work force after 5 years off. I'm watching a lot of my friends struggle with it right now. The ones who stuck it out and worked at least part time while they had young kids are finding jobs much easier than the ones who have not had their hands in the industry for 5+ years.

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.

I know that's a judgement call, but IMO it doesn't seem worth considering until you make 75K or more.


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.