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.
Things one does for their own household aren't a job. They might be work, but they're not a job. Like, when I mow my family's lawn, that doesn't make me a "landscaper" any more than when my husband stays home with the kids that makes him a "babysitter."
If you mow your family's lawn, you are saving your family money that they'd otherwise have to pay to a lawnmowing service. So your work in mowing the lawn has economic value. It translates into saved dollars for your family. This is the point that people don't get.
I will say most people volunteer because it benefits their own child. Nothing wrong with that but it's not like they are just being saintly and altruistic.
When a parent volunteers at their child's school; it's a HUGE benefit to the child. I figured that out right away.
.
You didn't grasp the point that I clearly made in my post. This volunteer work for school saves the taxpayers money.
I never once claimed they were "altruistic" or saintly. Where on earth are you getting this from? It's clearly a reading comprehension issue.
My dear mother (may she rest in peace) had me CONVINCED that being a SAHM was the worst thing in the world. In her case, I just think she was unhappy. She HATED housecleaning; she HATED cooking (or just got tired of it because she was a great cook). My Dad (schoolteacher) was the one who had breakfast with me every morning; she was usually still in bed when I walked to school; now this is when I was in middle/high school.
Anyway, she just told me over and over - be sure you have your own money; get a job; never depend on a man for all your money . . . .
I was determined never to be a SAHM. Once I had my own child; as a working mother, I started to look back and wonder what was so bad about my mother's life. She was a person that definitely could make any task difficult by choosing the most difficult path to complete any task and perhaps that played into it. *She ended up being a wonderful grandmother so definitely she wasn't a terrible person*.
I'm not sorry I was a working mother (but I was jealous of the SAHM's because their life did seem easier). I was often up at 5am leaving for a work trip by 6am . . getting home late, etc. After I started working from home; things were easier.
Maybe it just runs in my family ~ but my cousin was also a SAHM who reminded me over and over that "Oprah says a SAHM is the hardest job in the world". She had a weekly housekeeper; didn't get up before 10 am and spent every summer at the poll. Yeah; I was jealous. But now our kids are grown and I see the benefits in having a job. She got divorced and started cleaning houses.
Being a SAHM a generation or two back was a different animal I think. Women's career choices back then were essentially nurse, teacher, secretary, waitress or mother, with mother being strongly encouraged. Men were expected to do much less around the house and could get away with a lot more than they can now in terms of how they treated wives. If your mom was in today's world, I doubt she would have been a SAHM, but she probably didn't have much choice then.
Your last paragraph made me LOL. My mom is 57 and doesn't have kids at home anymore, making her a SAHW. She has a landscaper and cleaning lady and she still finds ways to complain about how how other people have it better. Whenever she complains about my dad I tell her he is too nice to her as there would be no way my wife would have a cleaning lady if she wasn't working. She doesn't cook much either so I don't know what the hell she does all day aside from think of reasons to be aggrieved.
You didn't grasp the point that I clearly made in my post. This volunteer work for school saves the taxpayers money.
I never once claimed they were "altruistic" or saintly. Where on earth are you getting this from? It's clearly a reading comprehension issue.
It only saves the taxpayers money if it's something they would agree to fund.
Most volunteers do so to help their children and others in the community. Not to save the taxpayers money. Not to mention most communities aren't currently jumping on board to fully fund educational needs anyway so no real savings per se.
Well frostnip some people earn a living mowing lawns, pool service, housecleaning etc, so if you want to argue that sahm who do these things are not saving their family money have at it.
I can't speak for others but I viewed staying home full time to raise my children as a job. Some people work for pay, some don't, but it's all work one way or another.
It only saves the taxpayers money if it's something they would agree to fund.
Most volunteers do so to help their children and others in the community. Not to save the taxpayers money. .
It still saves the taxpayers money regardless of "why" they do it or even if they aren't aware that it saves the taxpayer money. I was never trying to argue what their motives were nor do I care what their motives are. You are attempting to argue a point that was never made in the first place.
Schools use tons of volunteers. It saves the taxpayer money. And, I also never claimed that only SAHMs did volunteer work.
Last edited by PriscillaVanilla; 01-23-2018 at 03:47 PM..
It still saves the taxpayers money regardless of "why" they do it or even if they aren't aware that it saves the taxpayer money. I was never trying to argue what their motives were nor do I care what their motives are. You are attempting to argue a point that was never made in the first place.
Schools use tons of volunteers. It saves the taxpayer money.
It only saves money if the money would actually be spent if there were not volunteers. I'm saying that in many (or most) cases, that isn't really the alternative. The alternative likely is that the schools, teachers and children would do without. Schools are often struggling to pay teachers. Chaperoning on field trips and individual reading partners etc is likely not something that would be taxpayer funded if parents (both SAH and working) didn't volunteer.
It only saves money if the money would actually be spent if there were not volunteers. I'm saying that in many (or most) cases, that isn't really the alternative. The alternative likely us that the schools, teachers and children would do without. Schools are often struggling to pay teachers. Chaperoning in field trips and individual reading partners etc is likely not something that would be funded if parents (both SAH and working) didn't volunteer.
Even if it doesn't always save money, lots of volunteer activities improve children's learning experience and better school districts raise the property values of people's homes in that area. This ultimately benefits everyone in that school district, even those without children.
And, I also never claimed that only SAHMs did volunteer work.
?
I don't think I said you did.
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.
She had a weekly housekeeper; didn't get up before 10 am and spent every summer at the poll. Yeah; I was jealous. But now our kids are grown and I see the benefits in having a job. She got divorced and started cleaning houses.