- This topic has 95 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM #779642October 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM #779643
CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=UCGal][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=UCGal]My husband is convinced he’s the sex object in our relationship. I don’t dissuade him of this notion. LOL.[/quote]
Typical Pisan…
😛
CE[/quote]
Mio marito è molto maschilismo. Lui è molto bello… nella sua testa.(Can you tell I’m acing my Italian 101 class? – I can use present tense verbs, adjectives, prepositions – and possessive pronouns.)[/quote]
Oh man… You are challenging my limited Italian…
Right now my phrase of choice is…
“CHE PUTZ BAMBINO! Oh Ma’ron!”
😛
CE[/quote]
I just realized I wasnt even spelling it correctly and using the slang version anyway…
Should be Che Puzza!
CE[/quote]
Cool – I just learned a new Italian verb – puzzare. I can see it being a useful verb. 🙂
And I’m sure the mini CE bambino is not so odorific as you imply.
Il tuo bambino e’ fortunato avere dei genitori come voi.[/quote]
molto grazie… y tu!
October 30, 2014 at 6:06 PM #779721
svelteParticipant[quote=flyer]
Romance novels have grown in popularity over the years, and have always represented a huge percentage (over 50%) of all fiction sales. Currently, 84% of Romance readers are women, 30-54, generally with advanced degrees, and an average income of $60K. 16% of readers are men.
46% of Romance consumers are binge readers, and read at least one book per week, in comparison to the typical American who reads five books a year.
Around 1.5 billion Romance novels are sold in the US each year, and many more worldwide, with CA representing 50% of purchases.
After the kids were grown, my wife started writing Romances under a pseudonym a few years ago as a hobby, along with her career in the film business. She’s able to work from home most of the time, and really enjoys both.[/quote]
We have a female friend who writes adult romance novels – as in closer to Penthouse Letters and not sold in stores. She tells me stories about the conventions she and her fellow ARN writers go to. Did you know the male strippers flock to those conventions? Makes sense, but I had never thought about it before!
She also tells me she wrote me into one of her books. So I bought it and read it. Not sure I would have recognized myself in it, but hey if that’s her view of the world. 🙂
October 30, 2014 at 6:20 PM #779722svelteParticipant[quote=njtosd]
When I met my husband, we did the same job and earned the same, with the same education. Because he wanted me to relocate, and because we wanted to have kids soon after marriage (both of us were in our 30s), and because we both thought our kids would do best with a stay at home parent, we decided that I would stay home. I deliberately developed a well paying career, beginning in college, out of fear of being influenced by someone else’s paycheck. I out-earned most of the guys I dated.I feel like I’ve followed my values – I may not have a funny bone (although I think I’m a stitch), but not all women are out for a success object.[/quote]
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable approach to life. One parent staying home until the youngest is in preschool or 1st grade.
We have friends married to each other who were both execs in this town for companies you all know and love. They decided he would stay home the first few years (she made way more) and then return to work part time, which he has. Worked out very well for them.
Was thinking the other day about the disagreement on “most” women seeking out men to support the family. I think maybe it all has to do with what folks think the question is that determines the answer.
If it were rephrased “are you looking for a spouse to support you entirely, without you working, through your life” I think the “yes” percent would be low for both men and women. (most women in the US work)
If the question were “are you looking for a spouse to HELP support the family, with you working when it makes sense” I think the “yes” percent would be high.
Hell, I would have answered “no” to the first and “yes” to the second…and so would my wife.
October 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM #779724CA renter
Participant[quote=svelte]
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable approach to life. One parent staying home until the youngest is in preschool or 1st grade.We have friends married to each other who were both execs in this town for companies you all know and love. They decided he would stay home the first few years (she made way more) and then return to work part time, which he has. Worked out very well for them.
Was thinking the other day about the disagreement on “most” women seeking out men to support the family. I think maybe it all has to do with what folks think the question is that determines the answer.
If it were rephrased “are you looking for a spouse to support you entirely, without you working, through your life” I think the “yes” percent would be low for both men and women. (most women in the US work)
If the question were “are you looking for a spouse to HELP support the family, with you working when it makes sense” I think the “yes” percent would be high.
Hell, I would have answered “no” to the first and “yes” to the second…and so would my wife.[/quote]
This is where things get interesting. When you say that one spouse is relying on another spouse supporting them entirely, you’re suggesting that the SAH spouse isn’t *also* contributing to the household.
I’ve shown earlier on this thread how many women are working for a negative income (and that’s working full-time!), especially if they have young children or if the second income-earner makes a low wage. Still waiting to hear from BG about her findings…
And even if the second income-earner is making *some* money after paying all the expenses related to working outside of the home, is it $500/month, $1,500/month, or $2,000/month? And is it worth the extra stress and strain on the marriage and family relationship? In a family where the primary earner has irregular days/hours (like salespeople who travel at least two weeks/month, for instance), is it better if they have a parent available to both that spouse and the children whenever it works best for them? There is no right or wrong answer here, it depends entirely on the beliefs and desires of the individual families.
You can also look at the links that show how the monetary value of a SAH spouse’s contributions can be calculated.
Again, these numbers will fluctuate depending on the opportunity costs and contributions provided by the SAH spouses (a parent who is a nurse who can care for a child with a severe illness, a teacher who can work with a learning disabled child, someone from the financial industry who can make more money by managing the family’s investments him/herself, etc.). It will depend on the larger, and local, economies, too, depending on the field a parent is in, or whether it would cost more to hire someone from the outside to fulfill these tasks. And the value received by the family will fluctuate over time within any given family depending on how many children are in the house, how old the children are, whether or not they are helping to care for elderly parents or other relatives, and how the parents value having a parent watch over the kids vs someone hired from the outside.
As for the majority of households with children having both parents working outside of the home, it is a majority, but not a large majority. And this includes people who work PT.
The share of married-couple families with children
where both parents worked was 59.1 percent.October 30, 2014 at 9:02 PM #779731FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=CA renter] In a family where the primary earner has irregular days/hours (like salespeople who travel at least two weeks/month, for instance), is it better if they have a parent available to both that spouse and the children whenever it works best for them? There is no right or wrong answer here, it depends entirely on the beliefs and desires of the individual families.
[/quote]I can understand irregular hours.
The problem for workers who don’t have set hours, is that labor laws are screwed up. Unless workers have unions representing them, the employers would almost always require their employees to be on-call all the time, but only pay them part-time.
Employees should be notified of their schedules well in advance so they can plan and not have to wait around without getting paid.
See, I’m not anti-union at all. 😉
October 30, 2014 at 11:22 PM #779734Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] In a family where the primary earner has irregular days/hours (like salespeople who travel at least two weeks/month, for instance), is it better if they have a parent available to both that spouse and the children whenever it works best for them? There is no right or wrong answer here, it depends entirely on the beliefs and desires of the individual families.
[/quote]I can understand irregular hours.
The problem for workers who don’t have set hours, is that labor laws are screwed up. Unless workers have unions representing them, the employers would almost always require their employees to be on-call all the time, but only pay them part-time.
Employees should be notified of their schedules well in advance so they can plan and not have to wait around without getting paid.
See, I’m not anti-union at all. ;)[/quote]
IIRC there is some energy behind legislation that would require employers to give employees their schedule at least a week ahead of time. Haven’t followed up on it much, but have heard about it.
Still, some people have such irregular hours that, even if they know in advance, they would not be able to find someone who would also be “on call” to respond to their schedule changes.
A person who’s taking care of the children of someone who has an irregular schedule cannot take classes, work, participate in activities of their own, etc. if those activities take place on a particular day of the week…unless they try to hire someone else who can cover these times. The problem keeps getting pushed to someone else down the line.
October 30, 2014 at 11:56 PM #779737svelteParticipant[quote=CA renter]
This is where things get interesting. When you say that one spouse is relying on another spouse supporting them entirely, you’re suggesting that the SAH spouse isn’t *also* contributing to the household.
[/quote]Not suggesting that at all.
I think I’ve clearly stated that a stay at home spouse can be appropriate when the youngest child is younger than preschool or 1st grade.
After that, my opinion changes. After that, the spouse’s contribution is better maximized in the workplace.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion. And I’m welcome to mine. 🙂
November 1, 2014 at 7:22 AM #779776ParticipantYes, as posted above.
[quote=CA renter]
Again, these numbers will fluctuate depending on the opportunity costs and contributions provided by the SAH spouses (a parent who is a nurse who can care for a child with a severe illness, a teacher who can work with a learning disabled child, someone from the financial industry who can make more money by managing the family’s investments him/herself, etc.). It will depend on the larger, and local, economies, too, depending on the field a parent is in, or whether it would cost more to hire someone from the outside to fulfill these tasks. And the value received by the family will fluctuate over time within any given family depending on how many children are in the house, how old the children are, whether or not they are helping to care for elderly parents or other relatives, and how the parents value having a parent watch over the kids vs someone hired from the outside.[/quote]
Every family’s situation is different, and every family will have to decide what works best for them. The point, of course, is that they should actually run the numbers to see what the second income-earner is *really* making, and then decide if that is worth all of the additional stress and strain on the marriage and family. For some, having a SAHP will be the best decision; for others, having both parents in the paid workforce will suit them better. There is no right or wrong here.
November 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM #779788svelteParticipant[quote=CA renter]Yes, as posted above.
[/quote]I don’t think you can read.
November 4, 2014 at 2:55 AM #779792ParticipantFeel free to explain if you think I’m not getting something.
If you think that the SAH spouse’s contribution is always (or in most cases) maximized in the paid workforce, you’re not living in the real world. There are many variables that would make it detrimental to both the family and society, in general.
As recommended to BG, you should read Elizabeth Warren’s book:
We’ve done a lot of damage, in many different ways, by pushing this lifestyle on everyone without taking into account any of the consequences.
Here’s a lecture by Ms. Warren where she discusses some of the issues:
November 4, 2014 at 11:15 PM #779832bearishgurl
ParticipantCAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.
In any case, mortgage lenders will loan more money to couples who have a higher income, regardless of who earns it. Conventional lenders don’t use “child-care expense” in calculating their front-end or back-end ratios for mortgage qualification. Having a second income enables dual-income parents to qualify for a mortgage on a better home and/or in a better area than similarly-situated single-income families.
Also, you are skirting the issue of the (very heavy) “opportunity cost” of a parent staying home for 5+ years when they had the qualifications to participate in the FT workforce. And you also need to take into account the negative effect to the family’s credit any deferments on a student loan that a new mom takes and then decides they’re not going back to work (and possibly lets it/them go into default).
This happens all the time and the new moms “do it to themselves.”
November 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM #779834Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.
In any case, mortgage lenders will loan more money to couples who have a higher income, regardless of who earns it. Conventional lenders don’t use “child-care expense” in calculating their front-end or back-end ratios for mortgage qualification. Having a second income enables dual-income parents to qualify for a mortgage on a better home and/or in a better area than similarly-situated single-income families.
Also, you are skirting the issue of the (very heavy) “opportunity cost” of a parent staying home for 5+ years when they had the qualifications to participate in the FT workforce. And you also need to take into account the negative effect to the family’s credit any deferments on a student loan that a new mom takes and then decides they’re not going back to work (and possibly lets it/them go into default).
This happens all the time and the new moms “do it to themselves.”[/quote]
No, I am not skirting the issue of the *very heavy* opportunity cost of staying out of the paid workforce. Not at all. It’s why I am totally opposed to recent changes in divorce law that don’t take this into account. It’s why I’m not a “feminist” in the same tradition as you.
Mortgages aren’t the issue, and I would argue that having a lower mortgage is better than having a large one, especially if people feel entitled to get a larger mortgage because they “make more,” even when they don’t really make more (due to all of the things I’ve listed earlier). The assumption that a family is making more with a second person in the paid workforce is, all too often, an illusion — and one that has been artfully crafted by those who benefit most from the corporate culture that we live in.
November 5, 2014 at 11:17 AM #779845spdrun
ParticipantCA-Renter: the best idea would be for BOTH people in a couple to be able to stay in the workforce while having the same total working hours as a family in the 1960s. Say 60-70 hours, assuming a full-time employed husband at 40 hr and a part-time wife at 20-30 per week.
So split the difference and structure legislation to encourage more jobs to have 30-35 hr per week schedules and flexible time. Plus adequate time off to spend with family in summer or whatever.
We’d of course need health insurance and most benefits to be divorced from employment (to reduce fixed hiring costs) for this to work.
November 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM #779844scaredyclassic
Participantmaking more over a one year period or over a 20 year period?
I know a SAHM, who, frankly, is pretty bad at it. she’s been out of the workforce for about 20 years and has become kind of unemployable, based on her mindset, expectations, and general lack of skills.
is the family richer now 20 years out? no. they’re a hell of a lot poorer. there might have been a few good years there for the kids, but IMO they wouldve been better off in day care.
she can get longterm alimony i suppose if they split, but the guy can work under the table, and probably will, and work a lot less, if its all going to her.
seems like the savings were primarily over the first few years, adn the return got smaller and smaller and then went negative.
the other problem of course is when the SAHM truly is not good at it. bad housekeeper, lame with money, not so great with kids, les and less necessary as they get older, spends a lot of money, etc…seems like not a partner. encourages divorce…in its own way…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.