- This topic has 794 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2014 at 12:53 PM #779309October 23, 2014 at 1:01 PM #779310
UCGal
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. You can’t even get a teenaged babysitter to work just 40 hours/week for that money…and that’s just for keeping an eye on the kids. Good luck with that, whiner.[/quote]
CAR – again you suggest that working parents don’t do any parenting on weekends and evenings. I am largely sympathetic to your POV until you pull that crap.
If you are promoting the value added to the family of the choice to be a stay at home parent you need to compare it for the hours you would be at work. NOT 24×7.
As someone who worked – I was a full time parent from when I walked in the door in the evening, till I left in the morning, and 3 days of the weekend 24×3. (For non part timers it would be 24×2.) I managed to juggle sleepless nights because I was breast feeding – and even toted the breast pump to work for two kids… one didn’t wean till 18 months… Which meant I had a baby literally glued onto me from when I walked in the door… That time COUNTS as parenting. Yet you claim that only SAHPs get credit for after work hours parenting.
And I managed to take care of the house, pay the bills, and take care of all of the family business – including dealing with renters, etc.
Lets stick to a 45 hour week comparison. (To allow commute time and a quick lunch.) Even parents that work outside the home manage to parent their kids and pay bills during their non-work hours. Some even clean, do laundry, grocery shop, and invest during their non-work hours.
October 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM #779312FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
sounds about right to me.
October 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM #779316Guest[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, one minute you’re a feminist, and the next min you wish feminists would rot in hell.
You complain a lot about the past and present fate of women… but think about it a moment.
Women have the uterus and the eggs… they don’t need men. They can buy the best quality sperm for cheap; and in today’s tech world, they could cast men aside. Pretty soon, they could control the whole economy and write their own tickets.
By wanting to be a housewife, you’re giving men power. So stop bitching.[/quote]
I’ve not been a feminist, in the traditional sense of the word, for many, many years. I was fortunate enough to see the light early enough to change course. I absolutely advocate for women’s rights and for legislation/social norms to reflect the work that women do, but that’s a far cry from traditional feminism. Women are not men with breasts, we never will be, and we shouldn’t strive for this, IMO.[/quote]
There’s your opportunity to form a union.
Women have a competitive advantage that is making babies. Men used to take it from women by force but now they can no longer do that.
Women do hold the power if they would only use it, if not for them, but for future generations of women.
Women can be a choosy as they want and ask to be remunerated for their anatomy. Women can control the whole economy and make it work for them.
A great feminist was Catherine the Great. I’m a man, but I admire strength and intelligence when I see it.
October 23, 2014 at 2:14 PM #779318scaredyclassic
ParticipantTrue story. I actually worked as an au pair in Paris for a year in the 80s.. I escorted a 10 y.o. ballerina to L’Opera every day and picked her up watched her at home did some shopping and other stuff.
I got paid….
Zero. Just room and board.
Why the hell they trusted me I have no idea. But they were right to trust me.
October 23, 2014 at 6:15 PM #779329CA renter
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. You can’t even get a teenaged babysitter to work just 40 hours/week for that money…and that’s just for keeping an eye on the kids. Good luck with that, whiner.[/quote]
CAR – again you suggest that working parents don’t do any parenting on weekends and evenings. I am largely sympathetic to your POV until you pull that crap.
If you are promoting the value added to the family of the choice to be a stay at home parent you need to compare it for the hours you would be at work. NOT 24×7.
As someone who worked – I was a full time parent from when I walked in the door in the evening, till I left in the morning, and 3 days of the weekend 24×3. (For non part timers it would be 24×2.) I managed to juggle sleepless nights because I was breast feeding – and even toted the breast pump to work for two kids… one didn’t wean till 18 months… Which meant I had a baby literally glued onto me from when I walked in the door… That time COUNTS as parenting. Yet you claim that only SAHPs get credit for after work hours parenting.
And I managed to take care of the house, pay the bills, and take care of all of the family business – including dealing with renters, etc.
Lets stick to a 45 hour week comparison. (To allow commute time and a quick lunch.) Even parents that work outside the home manage to parent their kids and pay bills during their non-work hours. Some even clean, do laundry, grocery shop, and invest during their non-work hours.[/quote]
I’ve NEVER claimed that wage-earning parents don’t have any parenting responsibilities. I have no idea why you keep suggesting this. There is a value for what they do, just as a SAHP’s work has value. If the SAHP’s contribution is $15/hour for domestic work, the contribution of the wage-earner’s domestic work is also worth $15/hour.
And, as noted in the quote you’ve used, above, and in my post to scaredy, I’m not telling people to price this labor at 24 hours, 365 days/year.
Even hiring a teenaged babysitter (not nearly as qualified as many SAHPs, nor someone who will accomplish much outside of simply keeping an eye on the kids), it would cost over $30K/year if they make $15/hour (the going rate for a teenager to watch three kids in our neighborhood…one who does NOTHING else). That person would not be available on call (as a SAHP is if there is an emergency, or when the other spouse has to travel or be away for work), would not be taking kids to all of their activities and appointments, helping with all of their schoolwork, doing the laundry and cleaning, shopping, etc. If you were to find someone who would do all of these things for $15/hour, it’s highly unlikely they would stick around for more than a few months, if that.
Like I’ve said, a SAHP will do it for “free” with the understanding that they will have financial security in exchange for these services. If you were to inform them that they would be abandoned whenever the wage-earning spouse got tired of them, or when s/he didn’t need their services anymore, it’s highly unlikely that any of them would continue working under these conditions.
And if the wage earning parent(s) are gone from the house and children, somebody else is taking care of those things — these services are being outsourced. Even if a grandparent is willing to do it for free, there is an opportunity cost involved on their part. This work is never “free,” as somebody is always going to have to pay or sacrifice something in order to get it done.
October 23, 2014 at 6:23 PM #779330Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]True story. I actually worked as an au pair in Paris for a year in the 80s.. I escorted a 10 y.o. ballerina to L’Opera every day and picked her up watched her at home did some shopping and other stuff.
I got paid….
Zero. Just room and board.
Why the hell they trusted me I have no idea. But they were right to trust me.[/quote]
You were floating around, exploring a foreign country. I’m sure you had a fair amount of free time.
For this opportunity, you exchanged some services (and I’m willing to bet you only did a tiny fraction of what most SAHPs do). Did you have to share a bedroom and bathroom with the parents, as almost all SAHPs do, or did you get your own room? Did you have to cook the meals for the family, clean up afterward, and do their laundry, too? Did you have to have sex with your employer in order to justify your value to him/her? If the parents were sick, did you have to clean up their vomit, bathe them, and wipe their asses (as a spouse would for a sick spouse)? What if they were completely disabled…would you have stuck by their side to care for them for the rest of their lives for “free”? If you had to do all of this for your “free” room and board, would you have committed to doing all of this for 20, 30, 40+ years?
October 23, 2014 at 6:45 PM #779336Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]True story. I actually worked as an au pair in Paris for a year in the 80s.. I escorted a 10 y.o. ballerina to L’Opera every day and picked her up watched her at home did some shopping and other stuff.
I got paid….
Zero. Just room and board.
Why the hell they trusted me I have no idea. But they were right to trust me.[/quote]
You were floating around, exploring a foreign country. I’m sure you had a fair amount of free time.
For this opportunity, you exchanged some services (and I’m willing to bet you only did a tiny fraction of what most SAHPs do). Did you have to share a bedroom and bathroom with the parents, as almost all SAHPs do, or did you get your own room? Did you have to cook the meals for the family, clean up afterward, and do their laundry, too? Did you have to have sex with your employer in order to justify your value to him/her? If the parents were sick, did you have to clean up their vomit, bathe them, and wipe their asses (as a spouse would for a sick spouse)? What if they were completely disabled…would you have stuck by their side to care for them for the rest of their lives for “free”? If you had to do all of this for your “free” room and board, would you have committed to doing all of this for 20, 30, 40+ years?[/quote]
only a fool wouldn’t marry for a SAHP. Who could pass all this up.
I think kevs ex would a bailed on the contract before fulfilling these contractual obligations
October 23, 2014 at 7:10 PM #779337Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]True story. I actually worked as an au pair in Paris for a year in the 80s.. I escorted a 10 y.o. ballerina to L’Opera every day and picked her up watched her at home did some shopping and other stuff.
I got paid….
Zero. Just room and board.
Why the hell they trusted me I have no idea. But they were right to trust me.[/quote]
You were floating around, exploring a foreign country. I’m sure you had a fair amount of free time.
For this opportunity, you exchanged some services (and I’m willing to bet you only did a tiny fraction of what most SAHPs do). Did you have to share a bedroom and bathroom with the parents, as almost all SAHPs do, or did you get your own room? Did you have to cook the meals for the family, clean up afterward, and do their laundry, too? Did you have to have sex with your employer in order to justify your value to him/her? If the parents were sick, did you have to clean up their vomit, bathe them, and wipe their asses (as a spouse would for a sick spouse)? What if they were completely disabled…would you have stuck by their side to care for them for the rest of their lives for “free”? If you had to do all of this for your “free” room and board, would you have committed to doing all of this for 20, 30, 40+ years?[/quote]
only a fool wouldn’t marry for a SAHP. Who could pass all this up.
I think kevs ex would a bailed on the contract before fulfilling these contractual obligations[/quote]
True, and true.
(I know you’re being sarcastic about the first, but I’m not. That, and much more, is what I committed to when I married.)
October 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM #779338Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]It appears that the consensus it that it is worth 30k or less. More for prima donna stay at home parents.[/quote]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. You can’t even get a teenaged babysitter to work just 40 hours/week for that money…and that’s just for keeping an eye on the kids. Good luck with that, whiner.[/quote]
CAR – again you suggest that working parents don’t do any parenting on weekends and evenings. I am largely sympathetic to your POV until you pull that crap.
If you are promoting the value added to the family of the choice to be a stay at home parent you need to compare it for the hours you would be at work. NOT 24×7.
As someone who worked – I was a full time parent from when I walked in the door in the evening, till I left in the morning, and 3 days of the weekend 24×3. (For non part timers it would be 24×2.) I managed to juggle sleepless nights because I was breast feeding – and even toted the breast pump to work for two kids… one didn’t wean till 18 months… Which meant I had a baby literally glued onto me from when I walked in the door… That time COUNTS as parenting. Yet you claim that only SAHPs get credit for after work hours parenting.
And I managed to take care of the house, pay the bills, and take care of all of the family business – including dealing with renters, etc.
Lets stick to a 45 hour week comparison. (To allow commute time and a quick lunch.) Even parents that work outside the home manage to parent their kids and pay bills during their non-work hours. Some even clean, do laundry, grocery shop, and invest during their non-work hours.[/quote]
I’ve NEVER claimed that wage-earning parents don’t have any parenting responsibilities. I have no idea why you keep suggesting this. There is a value for what they do, just as a SAHP’s work has value. If the SAHP’s contribution is $15/hour for domestic work, the contribution of the wage-earner’s domestic work is also worth $15/hour.
And, as noted in the quote you’ve used, above, and in my post to scaredy, I’m not telling people to price this labor at 24 hours, 365 days/year.
Even hiring a teenaged babysitter (not nearly as qualified as many SAHPs, nor someone who will accomplish much outside of simply keeping an eye on the kids), it would cost over $30K/year if they make $15/hour (the going rate for a teenager to watch three kids in our neighborhood…one who does NOTHING else). That person would not be available on call (as a SAHP is if there is an emergency, or when the other spouse has to travel or be away for work), would not be taking kids to all of their activities and appointments, helping with all of their schoolwork, doing the laundry and cleaning, shopping, etc. If you were to find someone who would do all of these things for $15/hour, it’s highly unlikely they would stick around for more than a few months, if that.
Like I’ve said, a SAHP will do it for “free” with the understanding that they will have financial security in exchange for these services. If you were to inform them that they would be abandoned whenever the wage-earning spouse got tired of them, or when s/he didn’t need their services anymore, it’s highly unlikely that any of them would continue working under these conditions.
And if the wage earning parent(s) are gone from the house and children, somebody else is taking care of those things — these services are being outsourced. Even if a grandparent is willing to do it for free, there is an opportunity cost involved on their part. This work is never “free,” as somebody is always going to have to pay or sacrifice something in order to get it done.[/quote]
UCGal, there are some issues that I think you’re not taking into consideration, too.
Let’s take your personal situation. Both you and your husband had higher-paying jobs, relatively speaking. This enabled you both to cut back your hours so you could do more of the domestic work, but it wasn’t “free.” There is an opportunity cost that you don’t seem to be taking into consideration — the difference between what you made as PT employees, and what you could have made if you had continued working FT. There’s also the possibility that you both could have gotten further ahead in the long run if you were to have continued FT instead of taking that time off — in some industries/companies that would have been the case as they might have seen you as less driven, or less motivated, than your peers. That opportunity cost is real money.
There are parents who make far less than your family who also try to spend as much time as possible taking care of their families. I’ve known parents who fully staggered their shifts in order to do this. They would not have been able to drop back to PT, and outsourcing this work (especially childcare) was totally unfeasible, as noted in my “negative earnings” posts, which is why they staggered their shifts (one night shift, one day shift…or opposing days). But there was still a cost; there was essentially NO couples time and very, little/no time when they could do things as a family. I’m sure that if they could have afforded it, they would have gladly outsourced their work and/or had someone be a full-time SAHP…but there was no way to do this, because the numbers simply wouldn’t work. But “not being able to afford it” is not the same as something having little/no value. If a person can’t afford a new car, that doesn’t mean that the car has no value. Just because some families are not able/willing to outsource certain services, that does not make these services any less valuable.
Hope that makes sense.
——-
Also want to make clear on my post above about the cost of a babysitter who simply keeps an eye on the kids and will *maybe* clean up after their own mess, that is for ONLY 40 hours/week. For only that, you will pay over $30K/year.
October 23, 2014 at 7:32 PM #779339Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]certain tools may be very expensive but only have value toa particular carftsman. similarly, a nanny’s “value” is only relativeto the dollar value of the money the person who would have been the caretaker can earn instead of doing the care.
that value varies tremendously on the income of the employer/parent.[/quote]
Right, brian wouldn’t value the work of a SAHP very highly because he doesn’t have kids. A person who has one kid might not value it as much as a person with six kids. And a person who isn’t particularly nurturing, and who doesn’t care about the quality of care, probably won’t value it as highly as a person who does.
The links that I keep trying to get you to read address this. They discuss the different ways to value this work — either using a substitute (outsourcing various tasks), or using the opportunity cost of the SAH spouse (using what they could make in the marketplace), or some combination of those things…along with other thoughts and ideas on the topic. No matter how you slice it, these services have a very real value — yes, a monetary value — and it’s more than $30K here in SD County using any of these measures.
October 23, 2014 at 7:39 PM #779335Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
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.
October 23, 2014 at 7:49 PM #779340NotCranky
ParticipantNever marry anyone who’s parents don’t have long term care insurance.
October 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM #779341Participant[quote=CA renter]
Try to find someone who will take care of your kids seven days a week, and take care of your house, pay bills, manage all of your family’s business, etc. for $30K/year. [/quote]This is the specific quote that set me off. (I added the bolds.) It implies that working parents don’t manage tasks outside of work…. because you imply that you’re trying to hire a 7 day a week, babysitter, financial advisor, business manager, housekeeper.
***
to your other points
***
I agree that our professions gave us enough income to get by on 3 and 4 day work weeks. If we had lower paying jobs we might have had to work full time. Just like if your husband made less, you would have to consider working, or living in a lesser neighborhood than you do. Each family makes decisions in the context of their own financial situation.We also made choices not to buy new cars, install pools, send the kids to private schools, buy designer clothes. Heck I even cut my own hair and rarely eat out. By spending less (being a cheap b*tch) I was able to work less – and eventually pay off my mortgage, and save enough to stop working while my kids are still tween/teenagers. So, in effect, I’m a SAHM now. The difference, I guess, is I don’t feel that the world needs to value my choices – only my family’s opinion matters.
October 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM #779342Participanti like lifting weights. i could pay someone to lift weights for me, but it would kind of defeat the purpose.
i could have kids and pay someone else to raise them. but wouldnt that kind of defeat the purpose in a similar way.?
isn’t raising kids more like an art, a craft, a hobby and a purpose, than a job?
sure, if you were in a bind and needed to pay someone to watch the damned kids, it would cost you a pretty penny.
but that’s not the plan going in, right? the plan is it’s unpriced, priceless, and while it is hopefully appreciated, we can’t really pretend our kids are making the world a richer better place. they are a drain. a cost. like a hobby.
if id had 1 kid instead of 3, my wife woulda got back to work sooner, and we’d be quite a bit “wealthier” in terms of money. all the rich life satisfaction we got out of the other 2 would be missing though, and our lif would not be nearly as cool as it is, but…what about the unborn ones…the girl… she misses the daughter we never had.
but if we’d had that 4th kid, a girl, and she had had to watch the kids longer, we’d be even poorer, hell we wouldnt be living in this nice house probably. we’d have been screwed financially i think. 3 was the limit of what we could do to be in the situation we are in. even that was pretty hairy.
i know I would have been out even more money if we’d had that kid and had to pay a nanny to watch her. but if we’d had her, and my wife watched her, our net worth would be a lot lower.
imputed income my ass.
we would have had no house, and much much less savings.
but is this whole “savings” thing a moneymaking enterprise? you just can’t get rich having kids…
i concede the work is worth money, but not real money…. the plan is never to make money by having kids. and you seem to say that it’s a savings, JUST LIKE INCOME.
this kind of family planning is planning for bankruptcy…
if i make a big giant mess in the house on purpose, i could pay someone to clean it up, but i cant get richer by making messes and cleaning them up myself.
that’s what kids is liek to me.
it’s like having a big giant problematic mess you created with your spouse that somehow you ahve to deal with.
jst cause it would cost money to get someone to come in and clean it up doesnt mean yousaved money because you actually made the mess on purpose. you wanted the damned mess…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.