Divorce corp

[NotCranky]

Women can get criticized for staying at home…or working, both ways.My wife started full time work for the first time since we married, a lot of women are offering condolences as much as congratulations. I think most two working parent families wish someone could stay home with the really young kids. After they are 9 or 10 , it doesn’t hurt the kids one bit to spend more time in after school stuff with other kids from school. In some cases it’s a great benefit. They would be doing that at each others houses anyway. They start becoming more independent quickly(on their way to kicking us to the curb)

The problem with part time work with no out of school childcare is that it is difficult for many people to find anything decent on that schedule. We were really lucky that my wife’s part time work gave benefits and paid o.k. Also if the working parents job is unstable thats going to be terrifying and both are going to want to work ….just in case…It’s not an easy balancing act.

The only thing I find awkward is play dates.I don’t , and I think most men wouldn’t usually want young children not our own over at the house when the wife is not there.The exception is closer friends. Usually moms handle all of this….we are not in the habit of spending much time in parks at the beach or whatever with other people wives or with single moms. So if the mom can’t handle it , it either cuts into play date options,
or you just break with tradition : ). Usually women handle all the interactions with the primary schools which involves almost all women, teachers, staff and volunteers, again….break tradition. Men just don’t normally participate much in any female dominated aspect of this world.

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar]Women can get criticized for staying at home…or working, both ways.My wife started full time work for the first time since we married, a lot of women are offering condolences as much as congratulations. I think most two working parent families wish someone could stay home with the really young kids. After they are 9 or 10 , it doesn’t hurt the kids one bit to spend more time in after school stuff with other kids from school. In some cases it’s a great benefit. They would be doing that at each others houses anyway. They start becoming more independent quickly(on their way to kicking us to the curb)

The problem with part time work with no out of school childcare is that it is difficult for many people to find anything decent on that schedule. We were really lucky that my wife’s part time work gave benefits and paid o.k. Also if the working parents job is unstable thats going to be terrifying and both are going to want to work ….just in case…It’s not an easy balancing act.

The only thing I find awkward is play dates.I don’t , and I think most men wouldn’t usually want young children not our own over at the house when the wife is not there.The exception is closer friends. Usually moms handle all of this….we are not in the habit of spending much time in parks at the beach or whatever with other people wives or with single moms. So if the mom can’t handle it , it either cuts into play date options,
or you just break with tradition : ). Usually women handle all the interactions with the primary schools which involves almost all women, teachers, staff and volunteers, again….break tradition. Men just don’t normally participate much in any female dominated aspect of this world.[/quote]

Good post, Russ. My DH is also one of the few men who will gladly attend playdates and is totally comfortable chatting with all the moms there; though he usually goes with me if he’s able to go at all. There are a few men like this among the families we hang out with, but there aren’t too many. Totally understand how it would be uncomfortable without the wife there, too, especially if you’re the only adult in charge of other people’s kids.

And your comment about work (bolded) is key to why many families have decided to have more parents stay home. After decades of rising numbers of mothers entering the workforce, things started reversing around the year 2000. Like I mentioned in elsewhere, many of the second earners are working for negative income after all of the expenses of working are factored in (taxes, childcare, clothing, transportation, higher food costs, less time to shop around for deals, etc.). And the way many school years are scheduled these days (stupid half-days, more vacations during the regular school year, odd days off, etc.), it’s almost impossible to have both parents working in jobs that will pay decently because somebody has to be available to pick up kids on time, and stay home with them when they’re sick. Most high-paying jobs don’t allow for that, so even if both are working, somebody is usually taking a financial hit because they have to take a job with more flexibility, which is most often a lower-paying job.

[FlyerInHi]

The concept of working for negative income bothers me.

How about just saying expenses exceed income? That’s not just specific to child rearing.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The concept of working for negative income bothers me.

How about just saying expenses exceed income? That’s not just specific to child rearing.[/quote]

No, because the purpose of taking that second job is supposedly to earn more income, and the additional expenses are directly tied to working the second job. It’s literally working for negative income.

The sad thing is that so many people are financially illiterate, so they aren’t even aware that they’re doing it. You have no idea how many people I’ve known who never run numbers for things, not for housing, jobs, moving, investments, etc. All of their financial decisions seem to be based on emotions or they just follow trends and do what they’re told. It’s very scary when you think about how many people out there are doing this because their decisions affect the rest of us, like when housing (and other) prices are driven up by the biggest risk-takers who have the least to lose.

[UCGal]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]The concept of working for negative income bothers me.

How about just saying expenses exceed income? That’s not just specific to child rearing.[/quote]

No, because the purpose of taking that second job is supposedly to earn more income, and the additional expenses are directly tied to working the second job. It’s literally working for negative income.

The sad thing is that so many people are financially illiterate, so they aren’t even aware that they’re doing it. You have no idea how many people I’ve known who never run numbers for things, not for housing, jobs, moving, investments, etc. All of their financial decisions seem to be based on emotions or they just follow trends and do what they’re told. It’s very scary when you think about how many people out there are doing this because their decisions affect the rest of us, like when housing (and other) prices are driven up by the biggest risk-takers who have the least to lose.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. Lots of folks don’t do any financial analysis.

When I had my first kid, we had a well trusted babysitter (good friend with a daughter a few months older than my son who was looking for some extra income so she could stay home with her child.). The math was simple – even with part time nature of my return to work.

When I had my second kid it was less straight forward. We looked at all the childcare solutions and their costs. 2 kids ARE more expensive than one – especially if they’re both in diapers (pricier daycare). What the *net* income would be. Since I’m pretty well paid – it still worked out to make it worthwhile to go back to work. But for friends who had less lucrative careers (social workers, teachers, office managers, etc.) it didn’t always make sense.

Folks need to do the math AND weigh whether either parent has the temperment and patience to be a stay at home parent. I knew I’d be miserable at home full time- so was glad to find that a balance of 4 days a week work (80% salary) and 3 days a week as caregiver worked for our family. A friends family came to the opposite conclusion – the dad started staying home with the kids when the youngest was 18 months old. He’s one of the most awesome dad’s I’ve met. He coaches FLL, plays minecraft with his kids, coaches the school math club, and dotes on his kids like crazy. His wife freely admits she enjoys leaving the chaos at home and going to an orderly workplace. They did the math and figured out this worked for them.

[scaredyclassic]

its difficult for me to imagine what life would be like, not constantly thinking about the money.

probably nice unless there’s problems.

ma i recommend switching to Old Crow bourbon. at12.99 per1.75 l, ican make a Manhattan concktail for about .63 total.

faous people who drank OldCrow include Ulysses Grant and hunter Thompson. It in mentioned in songs by tom waits and the beastie boys.

the lifetime savings could be very very substantial.

[CA renter]

UCGal, you are definitely one of the few people out there who runs numbers for everything. It’s obvious in many of your posts. 🙂 You are 100% correct about different arrangements working out for different families.
———–

I would NEVER advocate for any one particular way of running a household. Some mothers are crawling out of their skin after spending a few weeks with their newborns, while other mothers literally feel like they would die if they relinquished their babies to the care of strangers…and some fathers feel the very same way. I applaud all families who are able to work out whatever arrangements work best for them. What I advocate in this thread is that ALL work be fairly valued, both paid work and “unpaid” work (you get “paid” in savings). Just because women have traditionally worked in certain sectors for “free,” it doesn’t mean that their work has no value. The risks taken by families in the early years need to be borne by all parties to the marriage contract in the event of a dissolution many years or decades down the road. We need to protect every family’s ability to choose whatever works best for them. That should be our official goal WRT divorce and family law, IMHO.

[NotCranky]

Don’t run the numbers on fishing. Very expensive per pound, even if you are cheap as can be. So far, in 4 trips we have 3 catfish nobody wanted to eat , 4 bass caught and released, 3 bluegill and 1 trout. About $500 into it and many man hours. That’s time I could spend gardening…still lose money but probably less.

[UCGal]

[quote=Blogstar]Don’t run the numbers on fishing. Very expensive per pound, even if you are cheap as can be. So far, in 4 trips we have 3 catfish nobody wanted to eat , 4 bass caught and released, 3 bluegill and 1 trout. About $500 into it and many man hours. That’s time I could spend gardening…still lose money but probably less.[/quote]
But the entertainment factor has value.

You’re saying it cost about a dollar per hour spent. That’s cheap entertainment compared to movies, etc.

🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar]Don’t run the numbers on fishing. Very expensive per pound, even if you are cheap as can be. So far, in 4 trips we have 3 catfish nobody wanted to eat , 4 bass caught and released, 3 bluegill and 1 trout. About $500 into it and many man hours. That’s time I could spend gardening…still lose money but probably less.[/quote]

LOL! My DH is a lifelong fisherman and used to claim that the fish we eat is “free.” Pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion when I ran the numbers for him.

It’s all about running the numbers! 😉

[Author]

Posts