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.
My husband and I waited 7 years before having a child. We did so because we knew that at that point I could drop out of the workforce for a while to take care of our baby. IOW, we could get by on one income.
Also, I always knew that I never would be able to leave my child in daycare. After our daughter was born, I knew for sure that I couldn't bear to leave her in daycare. I could just imagine going back to work and not being able to concentrate, maybe even breaking into tears. It surprised me as to just how intense my maternal instincts were.
When she was 2 1/2, we had bought our first house and we knew that if I could bring in some money, it would help with expenses. I found a part-time job very close to home where I was able to work nights and weekends. That way, my husband would be able to care for her while I worked. Even better, if he was working late and I had to get to work, the manager didn't mind if you brought your kids to work every now and then. I wasn't the only mother who sometimes was in that position. This was before cellphones so my husband and I agreed that if he was running late (stuck in traffic, etc.) that I would just go to work and when he got back to town, he would just stop at my workplace and take her home.
Yes, going on the mommy track meant losing income. However, if I had stayed at my job, I did the math and figured that if we had put her in daycare, in the end with all the extra expenses that involved working, I would have netted about $1/hour. It just wasn't worth it. Besides, he was in a job where he was steadily climbing the career ladder and was at the point where his income would have surpassed mine.
In the end, I never regretted our choices. That said, it's what worked for us.
Since time immemorial, one parent or another took an active daily role in raising their children. Only since the '60's have we decided to farm out the mundane roles to others.
Oh, come on. Read some history books. The rich in many countries have not had an active role in raising their children for centuries. They'd hand them off to a wet nurse, then to governors or governesses, then maybe send them to boarding school, and only then take an interest in them. And the working poor often left their children with anyone able to watch them - relatives, older kids, and even (don't Google this if you don't want to cry) baby farms. There was a spectrum of how uninvolved parents were, but still. You have a very artificial rosy picture of past parenting practices in your mind.
Anyway, I've come across quite a few parents who are truly not comfortable taking care of their own children, and prefer to have them in others' care. That includes my own parents - and I can say 100% that I'm grateful that I was in others' care. I was better off that way. It's not great to be cared for by people that get hives from the idea of playing with a baby, or don't know how to react if I child misbehaves, or have a short fuse for crying. The day care and schools I've experienced were loads better and gave me a window into how other people live. I'm very grateful to have that experience now that I'm learning to be a parent.
I've also come across quite a few parents who are not happy about having to work. They haven't suddenly started to like being around their kids now. They always have liked the kids and wanted more time with them, but they didn't have the option if they wanted a home and food on the table. And you know what, even they are not thrilled about doing child care and full-time jobs at the same exact time. It's not good for the kids and it's not good for the parents. And the parents of school-aged kids are not upset that they're forced to spend time with their kids. They're upset that instead of an education, their kids get some unholy blend of canned lectures, PowerPoint homework, and 6+ hours a day of screen time.
one size doesnt fit all for every family. You have to do what is right for you. For my family, we decided I should quit my FT job and stay at home with the kids. That morphed into me working part time once my youngest was in prek. Then once they were in school full time, I got a FT job close to the school/home and flexible enough to drop off and pickup at 3pm. I am gonna sound judgmental, but I dont understand why people put their kids in all day daycare and drive luxury cars and live in huge houses. If you cut both those material things out of your life, you could be a SAHM. But whatever, to each their own. Not being critical, I just don't understand it.
Yes, life is full of choices... If you choose to have children you should make sure that you can afford them..... first. Why should your employer or the tax payers have to subsidies your “choice” to have children? Gov’t subsidized children leads to people having more kids that they can’t afford to raise. The more kids the higher the payday. There’s even more money if “dad” isn’t living in the home... How is this good for children? It just encourages people to have kids out of wedlock because they know that they can live off the gov’t teat so why go to work? Why should the kid’s dad pay for their kids if the gov’t and the tax payers are doing it for them?
Where is your well balanced family? You’re farming out the the responsibility of raising your kids to strangers.... the gov’t and the tax payer. Who wouldn’t be happy and all smiles if they could just shift the responsibility of their choices on people who don’t have a choice other than to financially help you pay for your “choices”.
Making smart decisions in regards to having children is what’s “good for the Nation”, not using kids as more of a commodity to earn money or receive benefits that others have to pay for.
I get it and I am not totally heartless, but unfortunately too many people are able to game the system which isn’t good for anyone.
What does not being married have to do with it? I don't understand the obsession with looking down on couples who have kids together but aren't married. newsflash- even people who are married doesn't mean they have more money. Sometimes it's better not to be married.
Unfortunately you have to game the system just to get the help you deserve. If minimum wage increases we'll be fine. Bottom line- the price of living is too high. People still have a right to have kids and love them and try their best to take care of them. Better than abandoning them in the bathroom right?
As a father of 2 boys who co-parents, I find the whole “women should be a SAHM” argument insulting to both women and men. The days of the Boomer “men bring home the bacon while women fry it up in a pan” are over.
Perhaps a working mother can’t balance child rearing as well as working in a professional career without a partner, but if it’s split it’s manageable. We did leverage daycare for the first few years but now juggle everything as equally as we can - including cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.
I see no reason why having children and 2 careers is an impossibility. But OP, if you didn’t feel it would work for you it’s good that you didn’t have kids.
Those days aren't over at all. I am a stay at home mom. I like it and I prefer it. I absolutely hate any parent who just throws their kids in daycare ... be home with the child . Its so important to be there for them. Protecting them.
People who have to work obviously can't afford to be a parent.
Those days aren't over at all. I am a stay at home mom. I like it and I prefer it. I absolutely hate any parent who just throws their kids in daycare ... be home with the child . Its so important to be there for them. Protecting them.
People who have to work obviously can't afford to be a parent.
See, if I believed in the supernatural, I'd believe that this is exactly the kind of attitude that would make the universe bestow a series of losses upon you that ended with you a broke and alone single mother.
My wife and I were both working freelance when we had kids, so I was able to basically do most of her work at home while also picking up any odd jobs I could. Plus, we lived a very low-expense lifestyle. I think for many, many people two jobs are necessary just to keep food on the table and a roof overhead. But, I agree with the idea that many others could find a way to afford to have one or both parents stay at home to raise the kids, especially with WFH becoming more accepted and necessary. I look around at the "typical" middleclass lifestyle and I could instantly cut a fulltime salary from many budgets. Just one example. My current car cost $2000 and is now in its fourth year of life for me. And, that's a high-end car for me! Any spending of over $10K is a total waste of money from a transportation perspective, even if you know nothing about car repair. I see a lot of driveways with two or more cars worth much, much more than the cost of the house I currently live in. I grew up in the '60s in a nice neighborhood, but back then our lives were much less costly: one old car per house, no cable TV or Internet or cellphone bill, walked to school, mom sewed us clothes and we bought stuff used, no a/c in the summer, no flights around the world, grew veggies in the backyard like everyone else, I shoveled snow and delivered newspapers as a kid to earn spending money, never had a new bike--always used and cheap, etc.
A lot of people are still under the erroneous impression, that the reason both spouses work these days, is mostly by choice. I was one of those people, that believed, that when middle-class women went into the work force whenever that first started, it was by choice.
Economists point out, though, that wage stagnation began in the 80's, while COL indicators continued to rises: rents/RE, groceries, etc. By the 90's, women had to work, in order to make up for the growing gap between what their husbands were making, and basic monthly expenses. This is also when CEO pay took off like a rocket, so the profit from ever-improving productivity was no longer going into rewarding employees for that productivity, by raising their wages. It was going toward inflated CEO pay.These days, the only people who can afford to have a SAHP, are those, whose income far exceeds the COL in their area. Or the SAHM/SAHD has to have some kind of home-based part-time gig, in addition to looking after the kids and home.
That is not entirely true. I have a few friends who stayed at home because the cost of childcare was so high that the finances did not work out. One would bring home $400 a month when she took into account her commute expenses and childcare expenses. Another had two kids within 2 years of each other, and her take home pay wasn’t more than it would cost to have two in daycare. For people who are making at or below the median wage, that is often the situation. At least until the kids are out of diapers, the costs of daycare can be a lot. My nephew is 6 now, but her discounted daycare (started at age 1) was $1700 a month. I think they got $100 off a week. Imagine if you have 2 close in age. She said the costs went down to about $1200 a month once he got out of diapers.
FWIW, one of the friends who stayed home ended up with a husband who lost his job in the recession. She had not worked in a while, let her professional license lapse, and they ended up losing their home in foreclosure. So there are reasons not to have one parent be a SAHP long-term. My sister stayed at home for a year, but she did freelance work during that time.
Since the Covid-19 lockdown, I've heard a number of parents express they like being home with their children. Isn't that nice? Parents actually wanting to parent! Stop the presses! Call the media!
How did we get to the point that it takes two incomes to run a family? Why has it not only become acceptable but in many ways the norm to farm out ones children to the lowest priced stranger to raise our nation's children? Because we'd rather serve our corporate overlords than raise our children?
It seems this has only been the way since the '60's. Is it a coincidence that families have never been as strained -- or estranged -- from one another.
My husband and I don't have children. That's mostly because we decided we couldn't do both a career and parenting and do them both well.
Someone said Dan Quayle was right and Murphy Brown was wrong. Now there's something I never thought I'd say, but can we agree that all things being equal... A two-parent household is better for the child. Saying this doesn't demonize the one parent household.
The workplace could change to accommodate this. Whether the father or the mother (or Spouse A or Spouse B) stays home is a family decision. Whichever spouse stays home would receive some level of Universal income. They are after all, caring for our nation's future and that's at least a national security issue.
Children deserve it... Parents deserve it... Our nation deserves it. Well-balanced families and near zero unemployment. Happy, smiling faces! What could possibly go wrong? It is time to return to family obligations and stop farming out responsibilities to strangers?
No one is forced to stay home or give up a career. Life is full of choices. And I choose to avoid being antagonistic so I hope we can have a friendly discourse. What say you?
I plan on making my sons work for money as soon as they are able.They will have to work every summer.They will have to work while they are in college too if they go to college.Hopefully they wont make min wage because hopefully they will be mowing yards when they are young.
Thanks for those of you that offered the interesting comments and some good points all around. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the issue personally. Of course there are good parents. What could you expect in a country with 1/3 of a BILLION PEOPLE! Some parents will move heaven and earth to provide for their children and to love them and guide them.
So it's not about the choices you made or I made. IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE FUTURE. Are you really going to defend this culture that believes societal issues and the foundation of Family are doing just fine? Everything is peachy keen? 40% of children are now born to single mothers with no additional spouse playing a role. And a majority of single mothers will live in poverty with their child, dreams will be deferred and opportunities lost. You REALLY believe that sort of standard is GOOD ENOUGH? Hundreds of thousands of children in foster care and I probably don't have to tell you what a total nightmare that is. On their 18th birthday, these kids are tossed to the street, with virtually no one to turn to! Do you really think the government is doing everything it can and should do to support and nurture healthy family units?
Can you just TRY to imagine that there is a better way to support families and children than what is happening today?
Clearly, if you think everything is just fine because "you" raised upstanding citizens, then we have little in common.
I see a public school system that has failed. If you don't believe me, take a look at the global rankings. Part of the problem is because parents aren't involved (except for "you" of course.) Ask a teacher in any inner city school and ask them how many of the parents of their students show up for Parent-Teacher Night. The answer is between 5 and 10% show up. That means 90% DON'T. But typical for America, it's always, always someone else's fault.
The bottom line is we get the government we deserve. Millions don't even bother to vote. We get the public education we deserve. And what becomes of the youth in the upcoming generation is exactly what you made of it. For some who can least afford it, buying the newest sneakers is the newest definition of Family Values. Sorry, I don't get it.
What I am getting is the impression that Americans don't value the proposition that allows one parent to stay home and actively raise their children instead of paying someone else to look after them. To my way of thinking a monthly Universal Stipend to that parent would be an investment in this country that would be well worth it. Oh well, as a woman who is apparently standing alone in this thinking, at least we're all entitled to our own opinions.
Your rant it going two different directions here. Both parents working and being a single parent in poverty are two totally different topics.
btw....I think the public education that my son is getting is good to excellent. I would say 90%+ parents go to conferences at our school. Either my wife or I could be a stay at home parents at this time, but we both choose to continue to work FT to get further ahead financially.
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.
