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.
Working outside the home costs money. Childcare costs money. I'm not saying that all moms of young children SHOULDN'T work outside the home, but what I am saying is that it is often a choice rather than a necessity. Often people just aren't aware of how little the mother is actually bringing home after you crunch the numbers. I remember working (just a few years ago) with a young woman who had three small kids. She was literally working to clear $200 a month. Working full time, with a baby and two small children, running around like a chicken with her head chopped off, and going off into the bathroom at work to cry because she was so tired and frazzled every day, for $200 a month - that's $50 a week. But hey - they were building a new house, one that was significantly bigger than my own comfortable 2500 square foot home. With a PLAYROOM. You gotta do what you gotta do I guess.
It's amazing how many people don't actually sit down and do the math AND then do something different. For 50 bucks a week, she could get a part time job in the evening or weekend and her husband could stay home with the kids while she was working. Chances are that she'd make more than 50 bucks a week. She would get some down time. She would also have some me time. Dad would also have some time one on one with the kids.
We went through this at during our marriage and we didn't even have kids! I was absolutely MISERABLE and hated my job. It was causing me serious health issues. We looked at what we would have to give up if I stopped working. Surprisingly, it wasn't much. We just changed some things and did some things differently. So we gave up eating out 5 nights a week and only did it 2 nights a week. We stopped buying 10 DVDs a week....honestly, we never noticed the difference. We STILL have DVDs we've never watched and it's been 15 years!
We even did calculations to figure out how much I needed to earn to make it worth my while to keep my job if we had a child. We were both STUNNED! Daycare is astronomical. Add in a vehicle.....had to have 2 since we both would have jobs. My salary would need to literally double overnight to make it worth it....and that meant that I was earning minimum wage! And I would still be MISERABLE since I hated what I was doing. Add that to being sleep deprived....Gee what a blast I would have been to be around.
Yes, I own my own company now, but I don't earn squat. I do it because I love it. Will I do this forever? Absolutely NOT!
Really? MOST of their time? Even assuming each parents works the exact same 9-5 office job, with a half hour commute, the child would still spend most of their time with their parents. Once you get to school age, the overlap between school and most jobs accounts for some 7-8 hours a day. So again, "MOST" is not really accurate.
There is a different reality out there as it largely depends on the job. Many jobs in the professional world go beyond the 7-8 hours a day. Try to be a lawyer, IT professional, CPA, etc. and work 7-8 hours a day. You'd be fired pretty quick. And many of those work hours easily cut into weekends, off hours, etc. beyond the 9-5 world. And we know several couples who live in cities like Las Vegas where many of those jobs require lots of crazy hour/shift changes from week to week/month to month yet they still made the choice to have kids of which they rarely see. In these cases, one parent could work and easily support their family if they made the priority to have less material things in their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Over 1/3 of all salaried workers have flexible time schedules. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/12/art1full.pdf
And in managerial positions, it was 44% for men (as opposed to 32% for women, but that would be another thread). Flexible schedules are reality and becoming more so all the time.
So a minority % of working parents might spend an extra hour or 2 or 1 extra day with their kid vs 5 days? That's somehow helpful to an infant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
So you think a single essay from the NYT with a single reference and a broken link to a single study disproves a peer reviewed meta-analysis of over 60 studies? Really?
Yes, if said studies are done in such a manner. GIGO. Meta? Major GIGO!:
"The result is that whether you are categorized as an intensive or a distant parent depends largely on which days of the week you happened to be surveyed. For instance, I began this week by taking a couple of days off to travel with the children to Disney World. A survey asking about Sunday or Monday would categorize me as a very intense parent who spent every waking moment engaged with my children. But today, I’m back at work and am unlikely to see them until late. And so a survey asking instead about today would categorize me as an absentee parent. The reality is that neither is accurate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
So if the studies agree with your point you want to use them as evidence, and when they don't you want to use common sense. Again, really? That isn't rational or even logical.
By what measure is working a 40 hour week equate to "very little time"? Isn't it common sense that there are 168 hours a week, and we and our kids are awake for 120 or so of them? By what measure is 2/3 of our waking hours "very little time"?
Look, I have clearly supported the claim that it is POSSIBLE to have two working parents and not have the kids suffer. Anything else is semantics, you clearly want to paint families with two working parents as selfish, money grubbers, who only see their children for "very little time" but that is not by any means universal nor even the most common scenario. You tried to incorporate science, when the science supported the advantages for many kids to have two working parents, you suddenly appealed to common sense. You cannot support your claim, and your hyperbolic rhetoric does nothing to prove your case. End of story.
"Studies" often don't = reality, especially when they are done in a most illogical manner(see above). GIGO magnified, especially in meta context.
As for my point/opinion on the topic, it's as valid as yours. We are all guilty of rationalizing things in our mind that make our choices appear to be "the" valid one, often I believe to make people who make choices that work for #1 first not to appear selfish.
For myself and the bottom line point? I don't need a study to tell me having a kid should be a parent(s) #1 time priority. Not money. Not toys. Not careers. Not saving $ this/that/the other thing. I often hear from some parents in what I feel is rationalizing on why chasing money/material things and the time that requires, which translates to time away from one being a parent, is valid and best for said child. For myself, I wouldn't even get a dog if I knew I couldn't spend the vast majority of time with it, especially in the puppy stage where the training/bonding takes place. And not being the type of person that constantly boards their dog, letting other people watch it, etc. Why bother having a dog in the first place? I call that selfish to the dog, but that's me/how I approach life. And I feel the same with a child who's put into the same spot. And it's not fair to relatives who often are guilted into doing such a thing/playing the role of chronic babysitters.....I've seen that aspect of it happen more than a few times. As I said earlier, to me bringing a kid into the world should be a parents #1 priority, not chasing careers, jobs, money, etc. Of course in reality, things often don't work like that and other priorities bubble to the top for said individual.
Again, priorities.
We obviously have a different view on this so let's call it a day and agree to disagree.
There is a different reality out there as it largely depends on the job. Many jobs in the professional world go beyond the 7-8 hours a day. Try to be a lawyer, IT professional, CPA, etc. and work 7-8 hours a day. You'd be fired pretty quick. And many of those work hours easily cut into weekends, off hours, etc. beyond the 9-5 world. And we know several couples who live in cities like Las Vegas where many of those jobs require lots of crazy hour/shift changes from week to week/month to month yet they still made the choice to have kids of which they rarely see. In these cases, one parent could work and easily support their family if they made the priority to have less material things in their lives.
As for my point/opinion on the topic, it's as valid as yours. We are all guilty of rationalizing things in our mind that make our choices appear to be "the" valid one, often I believe to make people who make choices that work for #1 first not to appear selfish.
For myself and the bottom line point? I don't need a study to tell me having a kid should be a parent(s) #1 time priority. Not money. Not toys. Not careers. Not saving $ this/that/the other thing. I often hear from some parents in what I feel is rationalizing on why chasing money/material things and the time that requires, which translates to time away from one being a parent, is valid and best for said child. For myself, I wouldn't even get a dog if I knew I couldn't spend the vast majority of time with it, especially in the puppy stage where the training/bonding takes place. And not being the type of person that constantly boards their dog, letting other people watch it, etc. Why bother having a dog in the first place? I call that selfish to the dog, but that's me/how I approach life. And I feel the same with a child who's put into the same spot. And it's not fair to relatives who often are guilted into doing such a thing/playing the role of chronic babysitters.....I've seen that aspect of it happen more than a few times. As I said earlier, to me bringing a kid into the world should be a parents #1 priority, not chasing careers, jobs, money, etc. Of course in reality, things often don't work like that and other priorities bubble to the top for said individual.
Again, priorities.
We obviously have a different view on this so let's call it a day and agree to disagree.
I guess I'm not surprised that this has turned into an SAHP/WOTH parent argument.
But I do want to throw a couple of things out there for you to think about. I went back to work when my daughter was 10 weeks old and she stayed with a woman who took care of children in her home until she was 2.5 years old. My daughter has no memory of that woman. My daughter started at a daycare when she was 2.5 years old. She has no memory of her earliest daycare/pre-school teachers.
By all measures my daughter is a typical 17-year-old girl. She makes good grades, has meaningful relationships, doesn't drink or abuse drugs. She can be moody and have an attitude, but like I said, she's typical. There is no indication that she was harmed in any way by my not staying home when she was an infant. And we spent loads of time in the evenings and weekends doing all the things you do with an infant and toddler. And we still sit down to dinner together most nights, even though she has more and more of a life away from home.
Also, you are quick to dismiss people who work to save $ for this/that/the other thing. We've had 2 savings priorities: retirement and a college fund, both of which we've done with our daughter in mind. I don't ever want my daughter to have to worry about supporting us in our old age. You should check out the Non-romantic Relationships page to see what some parents expect from their adult children. I'd also like for her to be able to graduate from college debt free. As I'm sure you've heard or experienced, graduating with student loan debt can be very financially debilitating for twenty-somethings.
You talk about priorities and we all have them. But don't assume that parents who choose to work are doing so for selfish reasons, or chasing material things. Being a good parent doesn't stop when a child turns 5, or 12 or 18. You call our decision to both work "rationalizing," but I call it long-term planning.
I have a friend who stayed at home and also sent her oldest 3 kids to parochial school. She started working after they moved when kid #4 was in elementary. Last I heard, they needed to "start saving" for retirement. Their 3 oldest kids are either in or out of college now and they've all gone to school on loans, with very little thought given to how they're going to pay them back. The oldest graduated from college and can't pay his loans. His parents co-signed for them and are now having to pay them back, even though they're in their 50's. Their children will have the burden of caring for them when they can't work anymore.
A lot goes on when a family decides how they're going to allocate time and resources. Don't assume that everyone who does it differently from you is making a selfish choice.
There is a different reality out there as it largely depends on the job. Many jobs in the professional world go beyond the 7-8 hours a day. Try to be a lawyer, IT professional, CPA, etc. and work 7-8 hours a day.
I am an IT professional. I work between 40 - 45 hours per week. There are crunch times. I say to husband and kids, ok here we go! And we do that for a few short weeks. But when a kid is sick or there is a snow day, I work from home. If I have to be out, I am out. For heaven's sake, my boss is a parent too.
Who still works on the rail for the company town? A company that wants to succeed attracts the best and the brightest. And they don't do that by being a sweat shop.
"Here's what we tell women today: You not only can, but should have a career and children -- because if you don't, you're basically a) lazy, b) weak, c) not a real woman. But also, you should do it without any support. Without government-paid maternity leave (what are you, a socialist?). Without too much childcare (because then you're a ****ty mom) or falling behind on the job (because then you're a ****ty employee -- typical woman!). Without too much help from your husband (because then he's a *****)."
This rang true for me. When I posted a couple months back about being conflicted about being a SAHM with elementary aged kids, I got ripped into in a major way. Not by everyone. But most of my support came from DMs and rep points with comments. Ive done the working mom thing...I didn't find it fun. I felt like I was missing out. That's me. I know women who work only because they realized being a SAHM makes them want to commit suicide. And that is fine too.
But I do think that the general theme of what women in our society hears is what the writer shared here. I fully agree...that is the message.
I guess I'm not surprised that this has turned into an SAHP/WOTH parent argument.
But I do want to throw a couple of things out there for you to think about. I went back to work when my daughter was 10 weeks old and she stayed with a woman who took care of children in her home until she was 2.5 years old. My daughter has no memory of that woman. My daughter started at a daycare when she was 2.5 years old. She has no memory of her earliest daycare/pre-school teachers.
By all measures my daughter is a typical 17-year-old girl. She makes good grades, has meaningful relationships, doesn't drink or abuse drugs. She can be moody and have an attitude, but like I said, she's typical. There is no indication that she was harmed in any way by my not staying home when she was an infant. And we spent loads of time in the evenings and weekends doing all the things you do with an infant and toddler. And we still sit down to dinner together most nights, even though she has more and more of a life away from home.
Also, you are quick to dismiss people who work to save $ for this/that/the other thing. We've had 2 savings priorities: retirement and a college fund, both of which we've done with our daughter in mind. I don't ever want my daughter to have to worry about supporting us in our old age. You should check out the Non-romantic Relationships page to see what some parents expect from their adult children. I'd also like for her to be able to graduate from college debt free. As I'm sure you've heard or experienced, graduating with student loan debt can be very financially debilitating for twenty-somethings.
You talk about priorities and we all have them. But don't assume that parents who choose to work are doing so for selfish reasons, or chasing material things. Being a good parent doesn't stop when a child turns 5, or 12 or 18. You call our decision to both work "rationalizing," but I call it long-term planning.
I have a friend who stayed at home and also sent her oldest 3 kids to parochial school. She started working after they moved when kid #4 was in elementary. Last I heard, they needed to "start saving" for retirement. Their 3 oldest kids are either in or out of college now and they've all gone to school on loans, with very little thought given to how they're going to pay them back. The oldest graduated from college and can't pay his loans. His parents co-signed for them and are now having to pay them back, even though they're in their 50's. Their children will have the burden of caring for them when they can't work anymore.
A lot goes on when a family decides how they're going to allocate time and resources. Don't assume that everyone who does it differently from you is making a selfish choice.
I agree with your reasoning and it's very admirable; really, I admire those who can plan like that and juggle work and parenting, because I personally couldn't do it.
I just couldn't do it.
I agree planning for their futures may even be more important than those early days they won't remember.
But personally for me, a major, huge part of that joy of having kids and parenting have been those very early years, especially the first baby year. I'm still reveling in it with my youngest who is 7 months and it is flying by even though I'm with him all the time, my oldest is 6 and it went by so fast it's a blur.
That time goes so fast and its such a short period of life, yet it is so so precious. Spending mornings cuddling them in bed, and seeing the way they develop and grow, and being there to see them do all their firsts - to me these are some of the best moments of parenthood, that make it all worth it, and i couldn't imagine missing a single moment of it - never mind a full 9-10 hours every day. I couldn't imagine a nanny being the one to see their first step or hear the first word. No thought of college funds or retirement funds could make it worth it for me personally. Hell, life is so so unpredictable. There's no guarantee I'll even LIVE to retirement age, something could happen tomorrow, and I want to live my life today the way it's worth living to me - and for me that includes being the one to raise my kids and witness all these happy everyday moments. It's not even for them, it's for me, it's a selfish thing I admit. I didn't carry them for 9 months and give birth and stay up nights only to miss out on those beautiful things that make it all worth it. No way in hell.
My parents weren't able to pay for my college. big deal. My mom stayed home, though due to circumstances more than choice. I loved having her home. IT's not something i would ever fault or resent them for. I took a loan and paid it off. I have a fantastic, wonderful relationship with my parents.
My husband didn't have a cent of student loan. His parents both worked, paid for college, got divorced, and he's not particularly close to either of them. Paying for stuff is not end-all.
Was this a published study that can be accessed online? I know our sociology teacher was just talking about this topic in class last week. He is always looking for more sources.
No, but I've provided the links to some of the information in this thread. They are easy to find - most of this information came from the US Census Bureau and then it's easy to use a good inflation calculator (I also provided that link).
Was this a published study that can be accessed online? I know our sociology teacher was just talking about this topic in class last week. He is always looking for more sources.
Here's a lot of that info:
Here's a quick Google with some facts from the US Census Bureau:
Median new home size in 1973 - 1523 square feet (sorry but I am not going to dig again for info from the 1960s - we can go with the early 1970s for quick reference): https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/...medavgsqft.pdf
Median home price in 1973 - $32,500 https://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf
Adjusted for inflation - $189,507
Price per square foot average - $21
Adjusted for inflation - $114
Median new home size today - 2477 square feet
New Single-Family Home Size Increases at the Start of 2015 | Eye On Housing
Median home price today - $288,900 https://www.census.gov/construction/...uspricemon.pdf
Price per square foot - $116
Only $2 difference per square foot - and remember, NO FORMICA ALLOWED in 2015!
Interesting how during the same time period (40 years) the percentage of dual income households rose from 25 percent to 60 percent. The share was nearly the same for two parent homes with children.
What I find interesting is that even in this day and age where we're often told that both parents are forced to have to work, 40 percent of parents with kids living at home AREN'T employed. Employment Characteristics of Families Summary
Who care what YOU'D question? If the work is peer reviewed, than it has been examined by experts from the field. Which is certainly more valuable than some rando on an internet forum.
Did you bother to read the information I provided for you, along with the links to the research from the US Census Bureau backing up very specifically what I was saying about the median size and cost per square foot of homes in the US from the 1960s or so to present day?
I am an IT professional. I work between 40 - 45 hours per week. There are crunch times. I say to husband and kids, ok here we go! And we do that for a few short weeks. But when a kid is sick or there is a snow day, I work from home. If I have to be out, I am out. For heaven's sake, my boss is a parent too.
Who still works on the rail for the company town? A company that wants to succeed attracts the best and the brightest. And they don't do that by being a sweat shop.
I don't know about IT. I do know in several "professional professions", especially those with high degrees, its very competitive. Women who don't work the same as their male counterparts fall behind, are minimized and even written off. In my husband's profession, a woman talking full maternity leave (even with twins!) was talked poorly about and lost status in their departments. Especially if they chose to have more then one child. Not to mention they were expected to work the same hours, which was often 12 hours a day.
Luckily my husband moved to a much more family friendly company. In some ways it was thought of as a step down by his colleagues, because it wasn't the "best in the world" company like they were. But its provided a work life balance, more money and still prestigious. Still, in the 6 or so months he has been working, two of his female colleagues have given birth and been back to work full time with in a week. So the pressure is still there.
There is internal pressure from the organization, even if it isn't said directly. But also, some professions attract over achievers that tend to press themselves to excel...even if they just had a baby.
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.
