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.
It depends on how we prefer to set and meet priorities. And I'm not saying that in a snotty, Dr. Laura-esque way, ftr.
For some people, it really is more important to have the house with the birdcaged pool and the Volvo. They see it as "my kids' friends will come over on weekends and the car is super safe". For others, it's more important to have one parent home; they may well also see it as "my kids' friends can come over and it's safer". I don't think anyone really says "I work because I prefer toys to my kids" or "I'd rather live in poverty". The only times I've heard either sentiment voiced is by people mocking choices not their own.
Different families also define "do better" and "limping along" differently. Probably the folks in the 4000sf houses would consider mine (a bit less than half that) a case of "limping along". They'd probably figure they "do better" with their car note for their Volvo or Infiniti than those of us with middle-aged Toyotas and Fords. It's a case of opportunity cost-- and for me, the opportunity to drive a $40,000 car into a gated drive costs too much. For me, working at a job I'm not crazy about to pay for stuff I don't strictly need would be "limping along".
Somebody else's mileage no doubt varies-- but as long as I'm not married to that somebody, that's their business.
LOL, the old extremes argument. You do realize that most families are near the middle, right? Sure there are the rich but they make up less than 5% of the population. Why drag them in to this argument? What point do you think you prove by doing so?
BTW, Volvo's are a lot safer than many other cars on the road. Why do you think child safety in a car doesn't matter? In the same accident, the standard minivan won't fare as well (nor it's occupants) than many a Volvo. You don't buy a Volvo because you like expensive cars. You buy one because it's one of the safest brands on the road. I've never owned one but if I had the earning potential to afford one, I wouldn't deny that extra measure of safety to my kids.
I know a couple who switch off the Volvo with the kids when they trade off for weekends because it's the safest thing they own to drive the kids around in. Cars aren't just about looks and prestige. I would never drive my kids around in a beater. Since we had kids, we've always owned, at least one newer, safer and reliable car. IMO, my kids deserve that. Before that, I drove my cars into the ground. Once the kids move out, I'll go back to that. With one getting ready to take drivers ed, I might be considering that Volvo in the near future.
What did the time with your kids buy you or them that they would not have had had you worked? According to the studies, depending on your earning potential, your kids might have turned out better if you had worked. What they've found is that if you compare like income households, the results are the same for SAH or WOH with the exception of the daughters of working moms having higher self esteem and the sons of working moms viewing women as more equal to men. They also find that outcomes for children do correlate positively with higher SES. So, if your income were enough to increase SES, that could mean a better outcome for your children. The only time mom SAH is a positive is if mom is both educated and her income wouldn't matter.
According to the studies, SAH/WOH isn't one of the deciding factors in how children turn out except in how it impacts finances. Either working comes with positives that offset any negatives or it's simply not part of the equation. Either way, mom's working status only matters with respect to how it impacts the family financially. Lots of things do matter like having an educated mom, SES, having an involved father and good parenting but SAH/WOH really doesn't matter other than the financial impact.
I know you really like that first theory, but I've found studies arguing both for and against that position (the biggest proponent research was done in Brazil, and it's unclear how that correlates to US social factors). As for the second (in blue), twin studies (identicals raised apart) have found that it's not quite that simple.
Yes, I agree, it's not that simple. There are way too many factors to consider than just the mom's sahm/wohm status-and like I've said, for many women, this can change and flex throughout the childraising years.
I know you really like that first theory, but I've found studies arguing both for and against that position (the biggest proponent research was done in Brazil, and it's unclear how that correlates to US social factors). As for the second (in blue), twin studies (identicals raised apart) have found that it's not quite that simple.
Google is our friend.
There is a lot of longitudinal research supporting this. I'm referring to studies in the US. If you're Brazialian then I guess you'd use the Brazilian studies. I'm not sure how culture differences might effect outcomes.
Twin studies are small and don't trump longitudinal studies. They're done more to find out the influence of genetics over environment. I'm surprised you'd bring them up. If genetics is all that matters, who cares if mom stays home or works? Results will be the same, right?
While there is a strong argument for genetics, there is also one for SES and there've been a lot more people followed for a lot more years on that one.
There is also strong evidence for peer influences being stronger than parnental influences. Peers are determined, in large part, by where you live which is determined by SES. I find this one kind of scary but I believe it. It makes sense that our children's peers would matter more than we do. After all, it is their peers they must go out with and make their own society.
And you can make just as much impact in the life of a child as a working parent as you can as a stay at home parent. Sometimes more.
I'm not arguing for or against someone being a SAHM. I'm merely stating what worked for my family and our circumstances. Admittedly I came to this thread very late and was more focused on the side of how people afford kids, then I was in debating whether someone should work or stay at home. I think it is ultimately a decision that each family needs to make for themselves and weigh out the positives and negatives.
You can reference all the material in the world to support either situation, but I tend to think that qualitative analysis begins to fall short when you are dealing with myriad situations, mindsets and circumstances. This particular question and issues with raising children in general ultimately comes down to the family making the choice that is best for them. You can't parent from a book (though they are certainly good reference material) anymore than you can make this kind of decision but quoting a longitudinal study conducted by a university on what's best.
With all of that said, I don't think negatively of someone who chooses either option if it is what works for them. Too often people are caught up in the mindset that they need to do what the world says is best for their child. What is best for the child is for the parents to be involved, listen to what their kids say and do their best to understand their feelings and what they are ready for.
The last thing I would throw out there is that my wife and I have done it both ways. Until my son was about 3 years old, my wife worked full time. We were able to rely on my MIL to help with childcare. It got to a point where she felt she couldn't do it anymore. My wife and I searched out what seemed to be the best daycare we could find. We signed him up, paid the money and thought everything was great. Unfortunately it wasn't. My son was the most miserable kid in the world the month he spent in daycare. He hated every minute of it. This is around the same time that my wife was expecting our first daughter and was having issues. We made the choice for her to leave work and stay at home for her health and my sons happiness. Each kid is different and you need to do what's best for them. Most of the kids in my sons class cried when they had to leave daycare because they had so much fun. My son cried everyday we dropped him off and practically leaped down the steps to come see us when we picked him up.
For some people, it really is more important to have the house with the birdcaged pool and the Volvo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
You don't buy a Volvo because you like expensive cars. You buy one because it's one of the safest brands on the road. I've never owned one but if I had the earning potential to afford one, I wouldn't deny that extra measure of safety to my kids.
Oh my leave the poor Volvos alone!!!
JK - but we are a single-income family, and we have a 1993 Volvo 940 Wagon that is awesome!
We bought it in 2002 for $6500. It has more than 200K miles on it now and still going strong.
You get a good Volvo (most volvo mechanics will talk about the 240s with a gleam in their eyes) and it can go and go.
(If you want to pick on a vehicle choice, pick on the pearlized paint Escalades with the spin wheels. Stodgy old volvos are the ugliest car you will ever love)
Love my Volvo! We have a 2006 Volvo XC70 and it's PAID FOR and we're also a single-income family (I'm a SAHM). It's awesome for camping and road trips and trips out to the snow/mountains. We drove it to Vegas last Summer! We've had mechanics try to buy it from us - such a good car. We've always had Volvo's or Ford trucks. I do wish we had kept our 240's... I miss those cars... but it was worth selling them (all sedans) to get our new wagon. The wagon is awesome with all that room in the back for road trips and camping... they seem like one of the better investments as far as cars go. Not that a car can be seen as an investment... but if you're going to plunk thousands of dollars down for a set of wheels, you can't go wrong with a Volvo. They are built to last and like others have said, are very safe. There's even a "My Volvo Saved My Life" club you can join! We know several families whose lives were saved by their Volvo's. One family was pushed by a drunk semi driver off a bridge on a hwy - and survived!
... So, why do people keep arguing in favor of eliminating one income? What is the basis of the argument when, finances aside, our kids are, pretty much, going to turn out the same either way?
...
I think probably because some families don't think of it as giving up one income. Even if our kids do "turn out the same either way"... the memories we have when looking back will be completely different depending on our choice. Some families, like our own, we just don't place much value on that whole status quo money-driven American dream machine thing. Careers put money in the bank but not much else, in our opinion. We're more about slowing down, enjoy life day-to-day, and really experiencing our children while they are young. When our kids are older we'll have the rest of our lives to do whatever we want individually... whether that means working or traveling or going back to school or whatever... but our kids are only young and really with us - under our roof and in our care - for a relatively short time. If you can get by on one income so you can experience this sort of life, it's well worth it. And I think this is why people that do this argue so steadfastly in favor of trying it if you can, because it's something that is absolutely worth giving up a few years worth of a silly career for. People are more important than jobs that can come and go and to a parent there's no more important people than your kids.
I think probably because some families don't think of it as giving up one income. Even if our kids do "turn out the same either way"... the memories we have when looking back will be completely different depending on our choice. Some families, like our own, we just don't place much value on that whole status quo money-driven American dream machine thing. Careers put money in the bank but not much else, in our opinion. We're more about slowing down, enjoy life day-to-day, and really experiencing our children while they are young. When our kids are older we'll have the rest of our lives to do whatever we want individually... whether that means working or traveling or going back to school or whatever... but our kids are only young and really with us - under our roof and in our care - for a relatively short time. If you can get by on one income so you can experience this sort of life, it's well worth it. And I think this is why people that do this argue so steadfastly in favor of trying it if you can, because it's something that is absolutely worth giving up a few years worth of a silly career for. People are more important than jobs that can come and go and to a parent there's no more important people than your kids.
I think the post above explains things well. my kids are only young once and I want to have those moments with them. These are the moments where mom and dad are their world and we treasure them. I keep arguing it because I believe strongly in it. I don't disagree with daycare or anything else BUT I like the way we raise our kid(s ....one on the way) and don't see why one income is such a big deal. Quite honestly, I don't see why it matters to anyone else what cars we drive, live, make, etc. As long as my kids are cared for and loved. I am also arguing it because you(ivory) seem to stereotype alot and that is a peeve of mine. I am not any of those many things you(ivory) mention of those that live on one income. I could stereo-type your side of the discussion but I have not experienced your side and quite frankly do not know a thing about you ...therefore I will not judge.
...why do you keep arguing the opposite? ...
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.
Results will be the same, right?
