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 certainly don't begrudge any woman for deciding not to have kids and concentrate on the career path. I've known more than a few and they seem satisfied with their life choices.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
If you are a mom not in the workforce there is no retirement plan for you. If you entered the workforce later, your SSI begins then, not before. Your compensation for retirement will average less than the man that has worked every day till the age 72 and did not take time off to be a dad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmerLernen
So? When you choose one fork in the road, you give up what you could've had if you had chosen another fork in the road. It's called life. If you prioritize raising children over maximizing your Social Security benefits, that's your choice. If you want it the other way around, then forgo having kids.
Birth rate in the u.s. at 1.78 --- many have made the choice to forgo having kids. If the u.s. government does anything it will be what they always do --- change the behavioral pattern of its citizens.
The thing of it is and what I want to know, if a person wants to get married, have children, raise those children in a traditional home, what business is it of anyone, what they do? Why must people always get government involved in our lives? It is none of their business --- what we do.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
If you are a mom not in the workforce there is no retirement plan for you. If you entered the workforce later, your SSI begins then, not before. Your compensation for retirement will average less than the man that has worked every day till the age 72 and did not take time off to be a dad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68
That’s between the mom and dad then. I’m raising 2 kids with my wife and we both share duties and both work.
If you decided to be a SAHD --- that choice would be between the mom and dad, financial consequences understood and adjustments made to the standard of living. The question is --- should you be made to make those adjustments to your standard of living --- or do you get the government involved in your life and compensate you for the work you do at home with your children?
I see both sides of this argument --- it is work, it is unseen by society, it is stigmatized by society and not in a nice way, we see the value of ourselves as money and what contributions we make to the society that will, not be nice to us ---
The only solution I see is the ubi --- everyone gets it, no one can stigmatize anyone group, because of it and the government is happy, that they are spending money on their citizens.
JFC these people "libs" are F'ing crazy... I told my wife this and she's like why would I f'ng work then? How are we going to pay this? How come I worked this hard and for this long for everyone else to just get what I get for free?
I said welcome to the real world it's nice to have you aboard.
I didn't like trump he was a real arsehat of a person but he wasn't nucking futs like these people are. If you want to see a way to tank the greatest country on earth well strap up strap on get your popcorn and watch this ish burn.
Part of the benefits of being a SAHM when the kids are grown and gone is that some of us get to decide the people with whom we will have contact. So yes, I live in a protected bubble. At around age 50, many women stop tolerating BS. That gives us a lot of freedom.
The man my daughter married was raised by a mom who did everything without any help from her husband. That guy expected dinner on the table at 6:30. And he got it exactly like he wanted it for 65 years. Consequently, my sil is a very hands on father, 24/7. And most of their friends are.
But that mom had the benefit of the 1st wave of feminism. She had a doctorate in chemistry. It didn't result in employment.
All those who participated in the 2nd wave wanted education opportunities for anybody who wanted them. And then jobs, credit in one's own name, the ability to get a mortgage without a male cosigner and all the rest.
Lobbying for the ERA in my state was so my daughters and all girls could do what they wanted. It took another 50+ years for females to get out from the control of some white man. And that Gloria Steinem feminist movement turned out to be a white women's movement so corporate America could get 2 employees for the price of one.
I honestly never understood that statement. Did wages decrease by 50%. Women in the workforce wasnt a new thing. The feminist movement opened up the career field for women.
If you decided to be a SAHD --- that choice would be between the mom and dad, financial consequences understood and adjustments made to the standard of living. The question is --- should you be made to make those adjustments to your standard of living --- or do you get the government involved in your life and compensate you for the work you do at home with your children?
I see both sides of this argument --- it is work, it is unseen by society, it is stigmatized by society and not in a nice way, we see the value of ourselves as money and what contributions we make to the society that will, not be nice to us ---
The only solution I see is the ubi --- everyone gets it, no one can stigmatize anyone group, because of it and the government is happy, that they are spending money on their citizens.
So now we are paying folks so they arent stigmatized? So their feelings arent hurt because they dont do as well financially as others, because perhaps they made bad choices. That "they" aka. the government is actually you and I the taxpayer.
I guess Im just in a state of mind. Yesterday I was talking to a friend who is bipolar and lives off disability and food stamps. She mentioned her neighbor asked to borrow money for diapers (like she has extra but she would have given it if she had any). This is a married couple with five children. They recently had twins. Neither of them have jobs. Five kids. Dont have money for diapers. I get up at 4:30 every morning and work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I have held a job since I was 15. I only had 2 kids, never on welfare (food stamps for 6 weeks when we were first married and my husband was layed off), sacrificed and worked two jobs and went back to school after their dad died. I think, why should I pay more taxes and have less so people like those mentioned can have more without thinking, planning or working and not stigmatized for it?
I honestly never understood that statement. Did wages decrease by 50%. Women in the workforce wasnt a new thing. The feminist movement opened up the career field for women.
Wages just started going up. We keep having events like the melt down in 2008 that keep wages for lower for the income demographic. The oil companies pay great for petroleum engineers, etc. But that is an iffy business. Feast or famine.
As an example, how could a middle manager in a Fortune 100 company one salary support themself, a wife, 3 kids, a mother in law, 3 dogs, 2 cats and a gerbil in 1980. Two cars and a nice house in a good schools district. And that's when the interest rate on mortgages was 12%. The kids had extras like music lessons, instruments, sports yada yada. If a family wanted that could it be done today?
My youngish friends with teenagers think the needed income would have to be around 200K.
The inflation calculator informs me that DH salary today would be 75,000 a year. That's not hard to come up with. But could I have a 5/3.5 house in one of the best school districts in the county and 2 late model family cars on that? Now factor in a 3rd car and insurance for 2 teenaged drivers on 75K a year.
Wages just started going up. We keep having events like the melt down in 2008 that keep wages for lower for the income demographic. The oil companies pay great for petroleum engineers, etc. But that is an iffy business. Feast or famine.
As an example, how could a middle manager in a Fortune 100 company one salary support themself, a wife, 3 kids, a mother in law, 3 dogs, 2 cats and a gerbil in 1980. Two cars and a nice house in a good schools district. And that's when the interest rate on mortgages was 12%. The kids had extras like music lessons, instruments, sports yada yada. If a family wanted that could it be done today?
My youngish friends with teenagers think the needed income would have to be around 200K.
The inflation calculator informs me that DH salary today would be 75,000 a year. That's not hard to come up with. But could I have a 5/3.5 house in one of the best school districts in the county and 2 late model family cars on that? Now factor in a 3rd car and insurance for 2 teenaged drivers on 75K a year.
And you believe that, economics, was caused by women being granted equal legal rights and opportunities?
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.
