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.
I think that every intelligent person knows that if you aren't financially secure, you can end up with nothing fast. No one is arguing that. What is wrong with someone choosing to be a SAHM if they are financially secure, have money for their childrens college educations and enough left over for retirement? Especially if they have planned for emergencies, loss of a job, etc? Just because your family wasn't in that position, and your sister didn't plan ahead for something like her divorce, it doesn't mean other SAHMs and their families haven't planned for these things. Also, where is it set in stone that once a woman is a SAHM, she is always going to be a SAHM? Life is messy. Most people plan for that. Most people also know that sometimes you have to change your plan when something happens. Someone who is a SAHM today, may be a WM tomorrow because their plan changed. It is not all black and white.
....and .....wait for it....even "financially secure" people, can end up with nothing...real fast! People who put "financial security" in the number one slot on their list, can find themselves completely and utterly alone, as well as over their head in debt.
....and .....wait for it....even "financially secure" people, can end up with nothing...real fast! People who put "financial security" in the number one slot on their list, can find themselves completely and utterly alone, as well as over their head in debt.
Exactly. I would rather give DD fewer toys and "extras", but have a happy and emotionally secure home life than work more than I need to and cause emotional strain on the family because we never see each other.
My point is that our working status is irrelevent. Some are offended by that. I'm not sure why. I'm just debating (just something to do that requires mental exercise that has nothing to do with grading papers, writing lesson plans or setting up labs. You'll often find me involved in a debate around here. If not here, over at the education board or the true crime board. Sometimes I just play devil's advocate to see where it goes. For me, this is just entertainment.). SAH itself is, pretty much, irrelevent. It's not a better brand of motherhood. Kids don't turn out better. It's easier than being a WM but easier doesn't mean better.
You can, however, actually make an argument for working being better. Many WM's, like me, actually push their families into a higher SES by working (not sure I do anymore as I switched careers but dh makes a lot more now so we're still in the same SES we were in before with me working when the kids were young). One thing studies always correct for is SES because we know it matters. So, when they compare the children of WM's to the children of SAHM's they compare like SES households only WM's raise their children's SES (not all, but some do and that will raise our children's SES as a group when compared).
There are other reasons moms should work. The cost of SAH is more than just the lost wages during the years mom is home. There is lost savings, lost vesting towards retirement, lost promotions and raises and lost experience. Many SAHM's will find themselves in my sister and SIL's shoes 20 years from now. Unable to even consider retirement because of the decision to SAH when their kids were little. My sister has no idea how she will feed herself once her alimony runs out. It works out for some but many more are actually harmed by the decision. My sister's divorce really drove home the risk she took when she decided to SAH. She'd like to take that decision back now but she can't.
So why do I debate this? Because it's one of those debates that can go many directions which makes it fun and I hope that I can help some mom out there who has decided to work feel better about her decision (in case you haven't noticed, it's pretty typical for new moms to question every single decision from what kind of diaper to use to whether or not to make baby food at home...New mom's sweat the details to death.). There are a lot of people who would try to make us feel guilty for supporting our families. It's only been recently that women have been supported and not contributed to supporting the family. Throughout history women have worked along side their husbands to support their families. When you think about it, today's WM is closer to the traditional norm than a SAHM. According to my grandmother, the only real difference is we now actually have someone whose job it is to actually watch the kids. She swore hers raised themselves and watched each other while she cooked and cleaned. My grandma was pretty cool.
BTW, there is one argument in favor of SAH but, for some reason, SAHM's never come up with it in debate. SAHM's always come up with the same lame arguments. Time...but the time studies show very little difference in time actually spent on children because of the way people tend to use time... They try to claim their kids benefit from them SAH but studies show that the only measureable long term differences actually favor the WM. My personal favorite, didn't show up in this thead....That's the people who try to tell us our day care providers are raising our kids, as if one can actually raise a child in 45 hours a week, including nap time, Monday-Friday and be done in 5 years. I've been in some really good debates. I usually win....except for one argument but the only time I've ever seen that one posted about was when we switched sides on a board once (under fake nicknames) and argued the other side and it was my argument...
The fact that you think of this as a debate with clear winners and losers while everyone else has pretty much agreed that there are pros and cons to working and pros and cons to staying home and that everyone should do what works best for themselves and their families is the reason why this thread just goes on an on and on.
Typically a good debater challenges ideas without resorting to condescending remarks. They listen, reflect and respond rather then repeat themselves over and over again. There is a big difference between winning a debate and having the last word.
I guess I wouldn't think that I was being very responsible if, depsite being able to make an excellent salary, I were adoring my child in a homeless shelter or dangerous neighborhood/home. Emphasis on "I".
I don't think anyone is saying you should stay home if that means that you would be homeless.
Also, note that often just a small adjustment in monetary lifestyle means a big improvement in actually enjoying your life. Having one car instead of two might be the trade-off. Eating out less, going to free events rather than ones you have to pay for can also be trade-offs. There are expenses that go with working that include having to have dressier clothing too.
Adding another personal note: Before we had children I worked for 7 years, but... we lived on one salary and banked the other so that we were financially able to allow me to stay home until the children went to school. We had only one car and bought a home in a suburb that had great public transportation.
Exactly. I would rather give DD fewer toys and "extras", but have a happy and emotionally secure home life than work more than I need to and cause emotional strain on the family because we never see each other.
See, now I feel a bit differently about this. I would rather be able to give my kids a great house; education; vacations ~ than stay home. My best friend felt that way as well - though her husband eventually quit so she could do the required travel ( which, in her case, was HUGE)
Many times I had to struggle with whether or not to take a promotion that meant more money - but perhaps more travel.
I usually erred on the side of more money - because teen-agers are expensive! Insurance, second car, sports; sports uniform; travel sports. AP classes . . . that all takes cold, hard cash.
If one spouse makes enough to provide all those things - then I would probably SAH while my kids are small too.
But I do agree that SES matters when it comes to the financial success of our children.
I think that every intelligent person knows that if you aren't financially secure, you can end up with nothing fast. No one is arguing that. What is wrong with someone choosing to be a SAHM if they are financially secure, have money for their childrens college educations and enough left over for retirement? Especially if they have planned for emergencies, loss of a job, etc? Just because your family wasn't in that position, and your sister didn't plan ahead for something like her divorce, it doesn't mean other SAHMs and their families haven't planned for these things. Also, where is it set in stone that once a woman is a SAHM, she is always going to be a SAHM? Life is messy. Most people plan for that. Most people also know that sometimes you have to change your plan when something happens. Someone who is a SAHM today, may be a WM tomorrow because their plan changed. It is not all black and white.
No one said there was anything wrong with SAH. SAH or WOH by themselves really don't make a difference. The financial impact does.
The problem is you have people like my sister who thought they were secure only to find out later they sold the farm with the decision to SAH. She has been unable to restart her career since her divorce 3 years ago and only has 4 more years of alimony. It's painful to see what she's going through. While she will get half of her dh's social security for the years they were married, that's not much as every year he works now, takes one away from her (they base social security on your 20 highest earning years and he makes more now than he ever has). She needs 17 years in the work force to vest for her own social security check. She's 49 and can't find work. Start doing the math.
Her kids ended up ok only because the divorce decimated her finances to the point they get a free ride to college. She OTOH will have to rely on the generosity of her family to have a roof over her head and food to eat. Hers is a worst case scenario for sure but it's one that happens. Divorce hits SAHM's worse than WM's and 50% of marriages end in divorce. It's a crap shoot. A crap shoot that my sister lost. What good are the years she stayed home to her now? She and her kids would be better off if she'd stayed in the work force. She's desperate to remarry. I'm hoping she does because I really don't want her for a roommate at the old folks home.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 10-02-2011 at 11:36 AM..
....and .....wait for it....even "financially secure" people, can end up with nothing...real fast! People who put "financial security" in the number one slot on their list, can find themselves completely and utterly alone, as well as over their head in debt.
Yes they can but the odds are stacked in their favor. Take my case. Had I SAH during my children's early years, I would have been SOL when I was let go from my company. I wasn't because I had savings to fall back on. Sure, I no longer have those savings but we weathered the storm BECAUSE I didn't SAH. We would have lost the house if we didn't have the savings we had because I worked during the preschool years. A decision to SAH would have come back and bit me in the butt big time. I was out of work for almost a year and when I did find work, I was, seriously, underpaid for two years. I'm on the right track now but we lost $20K in savings (money not put into savings) during that time and spent $30K we had in savings to weather it.
How many of you can take a $50K hit in the next three years to prevent you from losing your house? We were really close to having to hit my 401k when I found the job I have now. We exhausted our emergency funds. Things are still a little nervous because we haven't replaced that savings. If I lost my job now, we'd be hitting my 401k in about 3 months. Even with all of our preparations, we could only support our family for about 5 years with what we have in savings. I can't imagine where we'd be without those preparations.
Yes they can but the odds are stacked in their favor. Take my case. Had I SAH during my children's early years, I would have been SOL when I was let go from my company. I wasn't because I had savings to fall back on. Sure, I no longer have those savings but we weathered the storm BECAUSE I didn't SAH. We would have lost the house if we didn't have the savings we had because I worked during the preschool years. A decision to SAH would have come back and bit me in the butt big time. I was out of work for almost a year and when I did find work, I was, seriously, underpaid for two years. I'm on the right track now but we lost $20K in savings (money not put into savings) during that time and spent $30K we had in savings to weather it.
How many of you can take a $50K hit in the next three years to prevent you from losing your house? We were really close to having to hit my 401k when I found the job I have now. We exhausted our emergency funds. Things are still a little nervous because we haven't replaced that savings. If I lost my job now, we'd be hitting my 401k in about 3 months. Even with all of our preparations, we could only support our family for about 5 years with what we have in savings. I can't imagine where we'd be without those preparations.
Yes they can but the odds are stacked in their favor. Take my case. Had I SAH during my children's early years, I would have been SOL when I was let go from my company. I wasn't because I had savings to fall back on. Sure, I no longer have those savings but we weathered the storm BECAUSE I didn't SAH. We would have lost the house if we didn't have the savings we had because I worked during the preschool years. A decision to SAH would have come back and bit me in the butt big time. I was out of work for almost a year and when I did find work, I was, seriously, underpaid for two years. I'm on the right track now but we lost $20K in savings (money not put into savings) during that time and spent $30K we had in savings to weather it.
How many of you can take a $50K hit in the next three years to prevent you from losing your house? We were really close to having to hit my 401k when I found the job I have now. We exhausted our emergency funds. Things are still a little nervous because we've only been able to replace about $15K of that fund but we're working on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to get a job next summer and increase that.
A lot more people than you think can weather the storm. You are going under the assumption that all of us are like your SIL, 49 and out of luck. Unless my husband dies, or does something incredibly stupid, he won't lose his job. If he dies, we have a $1 million life insurance policy. Just because I don't currently work, doesn't mean I can't work if need be. Not be overly religious, but God has always provided for me, I believe he will continue to do so.
And few of us have working crystal balls. As my grandmother used to say "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst". If you can't handle the worst case scenario, you need to rethink your decision. Sometimes, no matter what you do you can't. We were within weeks of having to hit my 401K when I got the job at the charter school and all that job did was put a tournaquet on a hemmorage. We're, slowly, working our way back now. As soon as dd#1 graduates, I'll take a second job (she commutes with me so I'm kind of stuck with her hours WRT after school activities).
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.
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.
. I've been in some really good debates. I usually win....except for one argument but the only time I've ever seen that one posted about was when we switched sides on a board once (under fake nicknames) and argued the other side and it was my argument...
