Firstly, CAR, I do apologize if you personalized my posts to yourself. They really weren’t about you, in particular, but about how the “system” perceives the value of household work and childcare. It doesn’t matter what I think … the “system” is reality and we all must accept it. (For the record, I’ve always been okay with the idea of SAHP’s IF the family can afford it and they are not using EBT/TANF while the SAHP is NOT seriously disabled and simultaneously attempting to skirt paid work). If you will recall this earlier post of mine:
[quote=bearishgurl]. . . I feel that the arguments about why a parent can’t work FT or work at all to support their kids are smokescreens. I suspect that those making this argument are in one of these 3 situations: a) they simply have enough household income to live on indefinitely and so their contribution to their family’s monthly income is not needed; b) they currently have enough household income to live on for the near, foreseeable future and if additional income should later be needed, they’ll cross that bridge when they get there; and/or c) they ARE making money every month, but it is passive income and doesn’t require them to leave home or placate an employer (i.e. investment mgmt).[/quote]
All I was saying in this post is that the SAHP’s described in the above paragraph may tell everyone in their sphere that they would only make .30 on the dollar (or come out negative after being paid for work outside the home) and that is why they didn’t have any choice but to be a SAHP. But the reality is that they don’t need to work outside the home. There is enough money within the household (at least for the time being) to support the home and everyone in it and their income contribution is not needed (or whatever the SAHP makes from work-at-home endeavors or passive investments is sufficent income). If there was NOT enough monthly income in the home for the family to survive, they would likely be employed or there would be a lot of strain in their relationship with the other (employed) parent if they were not.
Those that are SAHP’s by choice should just own the fact that their monthly income is not presently needed for their household to function instead of use the excuse that child care would be too costly for them as the reason why have chosen to be SAHP’s.
CAR, you must know that I (above probably everyone on this forum) am “fully cognizant” of a firefighter’s 24/48 hrs on/off schedule and otherwise extremely wacky work/call-in schedules. My understanding from your previous posts over the years is that your spouse (your kids’ dad) is a FT firefighter (sworn staff) of a fire dept located in San Diego County. I could see why you would make the deal regarding having/raising children (which you described in a recent post above) prior to marriage to a sworn employee whose wacky schedule was already in place at that time.
I also fully understand that where you are from (San Fernando Valley area?) is the business, finance and insurance capitol of SoCal and therefore has many thousands more jobs which are NOT in the tech/biotech fields just as Sacramento and suburbs and, more recently, Lodi and Chico is for NorCal. Due to this phenonemon, I have counseled my kids over the years (who did/are majoring in business fields) to get the h@ll out of dodge and stay there in order to obtain and keep a job with a career ladder. And they have and will do so. You are correct that there is virtually NOTHING in SD County paying more than $50K in business fields in SD County, and in 80% of the job openings, fluent Spanish (with technical terms) is required for the position. ($50K is actually about a mid-career business salary in SD County, NOT an “entry level” salary.) Many/most? of those “mid-career” business employees holding those ~$50K jobs in SD County are now 45-65 yrs old and bought their current residences in SD County for between $45K and $275K (a portion of them have paid their residences off) and therefore can afford to work for ~$50K (esp if it just involves a short drive from their homes w/o fwys). Younger Gen X, Gen Y and incoming new and newer skilled-worker-residents from counties/states with cheaper residential RE than SD County cannot afford to work for $50K and still pay their rent/mtgs. So, I get why you can’t make the salary you once did in the SF Valley here in SD County. Part of the reason why I am considering moving out-of-county or out-of-state is because I have a few years left where I can make a FT contribution to a company/firm and feel my chances for hire would be up to 1000% better elsewhere than SD County. I will soon finally be in a position to do so.
As for homeschooling, I feel that this is each family’s personal choice if they want to put out the SAHP’s time and the money for it. ($1-$2K per yr for each kid, with books and grading? … not sure how much it costs) But the “free” public schools are always there and if the kid(s) attended them, it would free up that parent-instructor or facilitator (not sure what it’s called) from about 7:30 am to 2:30 pm while their kid(s) were in class. Even if the SAHP didn’t “need” to bring in income from a PT job during these hours, they would have more time for themselves to do errands and even hang out at the gym! There wouldn’t be any daycare or afterschool care expense for the family during those hrs.
Sorry, but the “feminist stereotype” depicted by a small faction of the MSM as “man-hating,” men’s watch-wearing, 200 lb+ lesbians (no offense intended here to any readers) is NOT REPRESENTATIVE WHATSOEVER of the pioneers of the US women’s movement. That depiction is an example of the many slam-tactics used by the SAHP supporters and in SAHP forums in attempt to garner support for the participants’ choices in life (or make SAHP’s “feel better” about the choices they have made). If they felt confident about their personal choices, they wouldn’t feel a need to be making these false assertions.
Contrary to popular belief, many well-known “feminists” (those that started the movement are now aged 65-75 yrs old and I am a little younger than that) married young and had their kids in their 20’s. If you study their biographies and wiki pages, you will find that some worked FT while their kids were young and some worked PT or not at all. CA’s female judiciary is about 50% comprised of this age group of glass-ceiling-breaking women attorneys. Thus, the overwhelming support of CA’s 50/50 child custody preference (several other states have followed suit in recent years).
I for one am grateful for the inroads that the feminism movement and the NOW has made for equal pay for equal work among the genders. But I feel the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction in recent years and that the (mostly female) current crop of (Gen Y) FT workers’ demands re: flextime, job-sharing, time off, work from home, etc are wa-a-a-ay over the top.
For the most part, I feel this group is a bunch of whiners and many their blog posts, from what I’ve seen, are extremely disrespectful and ungrateful to their baby-boomer and early Gen-X parents (incl mom) for working FT and thus making the sacrifices such to be able to send them to good pre-K’s, daycare, afterschool care, summer camp and pay for all their extra-curricular activities, nice clothing and electronics and some or all of their college educations. This bunch of immature whiners are adults now and need to suck it up and go to work every day without complaint, just like their parents did, most of whom made it possible for them to have the life/job they have today. ESPecially those many whiners with looming student loan debt.
In the ’70’s and most of the ’80’s, if a female accepted a FT gubment position and gave birth within 6-7 months of accepting that position (not able to serve out a six month to one year probationary period without seeking the inevitable “disability” time off), the employer considered them as being hired under “false pretenses,” all the while well knowing that they did not intend to keep working but only wanted to be eligible to be paid for “maternity leave.” Once they started “showing” at work, their training all but ceased and they were questioned by supervisors as to their due date. Since these new employees couldn’t serve out their probationary periods in one continuous time block, it was cause for termination. I do not know if this practice is still public law.
CAR, I’ve wanted to run the numbers on your $45K parent-worker subject on this thread but have been a little swamped and I have to finish preparing/sending service of process items today before COB so will endeavor to work on this tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
Please don’t personalize this very interesting subject and fruitful discussion. It’s not about “mommy wars.”[/quote]
We don’t need to “feel better” about our choices. We know for a fact that our services are valuable. What the outdated feminists have to say about the value of our work has no bearing on reality. And it’s not “the system” that undervalues this work; it’s you and those who think like you. A very large percentage of the population (probably a majority, especially of those who actually have families of their own) disagrees with your perception.
And I’ve never stated what my spouse does for a living; not here, nor in any other thread (that was econprof). It’s not relevant to the conversation. I’ve only stated that we have complex scheduling issues. Doctors, nurses, pilots, truck drivers, salespeople, executives, entertainers, etc. all have these sorts of issues.
Again, what’s right for you may have been right for you. That is NOT necessarily what’s right for any other family. Yes, many secondary wage earners are working for a negative wage. That is a fact.
Run the numbers yourself, and be honest. Most parents who are earning a second income of $45K or above — and this would almost always be the lower of the two incomes — will not be riding the bus everywhere, and they’re not usually able to shop at the PX, and they will not qualify for “free” or “sliding scale/reduced cost” childcare programs (cost shifting — it still has value that you’re not taking into consideration), and they will not be able to choose a local commute (for that wage), and they will most certainly be eating more meals out than if one of the parents was a SAHP.
