Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
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.”
Participant[quote=CA renter]I appreciate your story, UCGal, and agree with everything you’ve said. My problem isn’t with you nor with your version of feminism. My problem is with BG’s version of feminism…where choice is NOT AT ALL on their agenda. Not only that, but they have pushed the message that women are no more than men with breasts; that childbearing, child-rearing, and homemaking are not valuable or worthy of any sort of recognition, credit, or respect. They are perpetuating the myth that only “men’s work” (paid labor) is valuable, and that women contribute little to nothing in their traditional roles. That is the antithesis of genuine feminism that would seek to improve women’s lot in life.
Some of us do NOT have the same choices that you and your husband have had, for a variety of reasons; but we have other options that work best for us. As a fellow numbers person, we have run the numbers, and it was very obvious which option would work best for us, just from a financial perspective. We also considered what we wanted for our family in the short, medium, and long term. We discussed all of these things at great length before and during our engagement. Mr. CAR was the one who chose the SAHP option, as I told him I would either be childless and work outside of the home, or have children and work inside the home…the choice was 100% his. This discussion happened **before** we were even engaged.
In our case, I could have gone part-time, but there was no way my DH would have been able to do this, not that he wanted this option in the first place. But my pay would have been so low, we would have been one of those families who would be *paying* in order for me to work outside of the home (the negative income thing). We also knew we didn’t want to send our kids to public school (just our personal choice, not judging people who choose other options…I know BG is going to spout off about this), and private school is too expensive, so we opted to homeschool, which is a nice compromise that has worked exceedingly well for our family.
We also have very complex scheduling issues, and my being home, and homeschooling — having a completely flexible schedule — is the only way we could get any reasonable family time together. All of our decisions were calculated after a lot of thought, running the numbers, and taking many other variables into consideration. And in addition to giving up my job, I had to move to a different city/county in order to be with my husband, so gave up all of my long-term friends and my professional networks in order to accommodate his work and lifestyle. And San Diego has a horrible job market for those outside of telephony or biotech (I was not in either).
To say that people like myself are getting a “free ride” is absurd and incredibly offensive. SAHPs do a tremendous amount of work, and this work is incredibly valuable to society, even though it is unpaid labor. To suggest otherwise is totally ignorant of the facts, and it perpetuates the denigration of women. I’ve bitten my tongue on many occasions while BG goes off on one of her anti-woman diatribes, but her posts here were the straw that broke the camel’s back. I will no longer stay silent when she makes these attacks.[/quote]
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.”
Participant[quote=kev374]Two interesting videos to add to this conversation, since we are on the topic of marriage and feminism anyway…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1isJvsTCw
[/quote]I’ll cop to being a “feminist.” But I’ve been wondering over the last few years why we tried so hard to “pave the way” for our sisters in succeeding generations as we did. Gen Y, in particular, doesn’t seem to appreciate it. The young female workers of today seem to be dropping like flies from FT jobs once they have kids. If they can’t get the exact “flex-schedules” they want after coming off maternity leave (unreasonable in my mind and unheard of in my day), they walk. Given that most of them have varying amounts of student loan debt gathering interest by the month, it is all incredulous to me.
OTOH, employers don’t want older, very experienced workers, even though WE know how to get up in the morning and dress properly for business and actually have a work ethic when we get to the office (we don’t text and stare at our phones all day).
It seems employers would rather play games repeatedly replacing Gen Y, only to get another employee asking for 6 months of FMLA after only six months on the job!
Go figure….
Participant[quote=CA renter]Please read that post again. I included the costs for both preschool AND after-school care for when they were all in “free” (not free…somebody else is paying actual money for that!) school.
And the prices were not just for in-home daycare. They included both in-home and care at the school site or other institution (like the YMCA’s own preschool).
The numbers are all there, but the taxes were understated (by quite a bit, if the other spouse earns a decent income) because I didn’t count the first income. You keep insisting that you don’t see them, but all you have to do is look. I’ve done all the work for you![/quote]
[quote=CA renter]Edited to add some quick, back-of-the-envelope numbers. Please double check my numbers, as I did this quickly.
If a woman has a gross income of $45,000…[/quote]
Okay, I found the above edit to your post near the top of the page before this one. It was not there when I first read it and I have a couple of appts tomorrow morning so can’t address it now.
Just a couple of observations: Your “subject” makes $45K (a grunt worker/worker-bee salary) yet you stated:
Childcare (3 kids)
, with one infant, one toddler, and preschool…and this is one of the less expensive options, as most professionals would want a “better”/more prestigious preschool option (using North County Coastal numbers…weekly expense X 50 weeks/12 to get a monthly number, allowing for 2-week vacation)
Childcare: $3,118.05/month
A “better”/more prestigious preschool (Montessori?) is clearly out of this worker’s league. A $45K worker is not in the group of “most professionals” and is not even a professional at all! Regardless of what you say here that they “wanted,” they wouldn’t be able to afford what you consider a “better” preschool option. Your subject worker makes $10K LESS than my subject worker who has 3 kids of similar ages and takes home at 30-50% of their gross income. Your subject likely needs to get at least one kid in school most of the day (1st grade) before attempting to work FT if the salary level they can command is $45K. It is even possible (depending on partner income) that this worker can qualify for a childcare subsidy and most certainly to use $6,000 of their childcare expense to claim the childcare tax credit on their Federal return.
I haven’t checked your payroll taxes or any of your figures yet but will attempt to do so tomorrow afternoon. What is the filing status of your subject?
ParticipantCAR, I’ve never “dictated” how anyone should live their life. Everyone has their own path and far be it from me to suggest anyone stray from their chosen path. I believe in cause and effect (karma?) and that everyone makes their own bed, including myself.
I don’t know where you have read anywhere on this blog that I have “stubbornly insisted” that “professionals” should move to South County. Actually, the opposite is true. Since we already have more than enough “professionals” living here (and everyone else for that matter) and more than enough real estate “suitable” for “professionals” to live in, I feel there are about 200K too many people down here and would never suggest people move here. I would have preferred that no residential construction had occurred here after about 1992 but, alas, the damage is done.
I beg to differ with you in that there is little to no difference between longtime career women making $40 – $80K vs “professional” women. We all have the same hopes for our children and most of us want the same or similar things for ourselves.
I do agree that most longtime low-income working women (ex: housekeepers, hotel maids, etc) mostly do not have the same aspirations as their higher-earning counterparts. But I don’t see myself (as a semi-professional) as any less smarter, more poorly dressed, worse looking, less lucky, to have poorer taste, less resourceful, a worse communicator, etc than a woman who makes twice what I do or even a woman who makes more than $150K per year. In many ways, I am more fortunate because I am now a bit freer in regards to my time.
CAR, the only breakdown you posted here was the YMCA daycare chart (mostly for licensed daycare homes). The chart by itself doesn’t account for the worker-parent taking home only .30 on the dollar as you are asserting unless they make less than $55K gross annually and have three kids in daycare simultaneously … all under school age.
And even then, as scaredy pointed out … the kids will outgrow the situation quickly. One goes to school half day first, then full day. Then the next one goes to school half day, and so on. The ones in school are only using afterschool care (about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of FT daycare). Meanwhile the worker parent is in line for promotions and raises while their kids are aging out of FT daycare. Their raises compound on themselves when it is time for another raise.
All of this can’t happen while the worker-parent’s (expensive) college degree is gathering dust in a drawer at home for years and no employers are even aware of what they can do.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.[/quote]
Um…I’ve never said the costs were out of line, only that they were on the low end. A woman who makes $80K+/year (and that would likely be the lowest-earning spouse) is not likely to have her child in the Y’s preschool or after-school program. It also mentions the on-site and “home-based” (where kids are taken to a caregiver’s home) prices. I used the lowest rates. There is no mention of sibling discounts, so you’d have to look into that yourself.
Additionally, a person earning $80K would have much higher clothing, food, and other costs, including childcare (most people earning that much would not be able to pick up their kids by 6:00 p.m. every day, and they would probably have to arrange for morning care, as well). The tax hit would be much higher, as well. And if a person is earning $80K/year, and assuming that it’s the lower-earning spouse, it’s highly unlikely they would be driving a $20,000 car (all expenses included) for 8 or more years.
The link to the Y’s after-school program is in the original post. That’s where the ~$800/month comes from. I added no other costs for transporting them (if necessary) to after-school care; the cost is only for the after-school portion of childcare.
As for Head Start (and other similar programs), the income eligibility for a family of 5 is $51,005 or lower. A second income of $45,000 would make this family ineligible in almost all cases.
http://www.cdasandiego.com/SitePDFs/Nutrition/income%20guidelines.pdf
You can look up the different zip codes for the YMCA, but their prices don’t differ all that much based on location. Not enough to make it worthwhile for the second spouse to work outside of the home, and it would still be a negative income in most cases.
You’re really stretching with your examples of daily bus-riding, brown-bagging, PX-shopping, “choosing” an employer’s location, etc. Most college-educated mothers earning a decent income will not be doing any of those things. My numbers are on the VERY conservative side. The reality would prove my point even more.
And if you can’t see how these costs would reduce a person’s income by 70% or more (even though I painstakingly broke it down for you), then I can’t help you.[/quote]
Wow, just wow to the italicized quotes. While $80K is not an entry-level salary, it’s far from being an “upper middle class” salary. Some paralegals actually make $80K. Yes … in San Diego.
Women making $80K don’t need any better clothes or groceries than women making $40-$60K.
I must be missing something. I’ve seen VERY high paid professionals and managers bring their own lunches most workdays and drink their coffee from the office coffeepot. LOTS of workers … 50-60%? (yes, even “professionals”) drive older vehicles (worth <=$10K) to work. That doesn't mean it's their only vehicle. But it's the one they drive to work. The YMCA accepts both market-rate children AND sliding-scale children for their child care programs. Almost all daycare homes (and certainly the Y) have morning care as well. Some will make your kid's breakfast and at some of them your kid has to bring his/her own breakfast but they will prepare it. Is there something wrong with a licensed daycare home? I've worked past 6:00 pm many times and got someone else to pick up my kid(s). It's called planning ahead. The Y's vans bring kids to school in the morning also ... even kindergartners. They send an early van to go get them after school ... before the older students are released for the day. The wheel was invented long ago for the working parent, CAR. You speak here as if you believe "(semi) professional women" are somehow "exhalted" above lowly worker-bee women because they make $10-$30K more. If truth be known, even the women who make $100K+ are just like us! Unless they have to show up in court, have a speaking engagement or a meeting with a politician, they wear the same clothes, go to same gyms and exercise classes and put their kids in the same daycare situation as a lowly $40K “worker bee.”
LOL …
Agree about the Head Start eligibility. But I want to add that many heads of households fall into this range and it is a great benefit for these families.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]kev’s ex needs a 90k signing bonus to pay off debt.[/quote]
LOL…
ParticipantThanks for your diatribe, svelte. I can’t believe I’m saying this (to you!) but I concur with all of it. I also believe everyone goes through life changes and it is all part of our personal journey.
I believe in personal and financial responsibility for all adults. And I do agree that every parent (unless severely disabled) has a fundamental duty to financially support their children. If they are not, then they are in a “tacit arrangement” (no matter what their marital status) and that is okay, too. I have met people (all females) “after the fact” who admit they married for money. Since I didn’t meet them until after their relationships were over, I can attest in all cases that it didn’t end well for any of them. I’m not saying I think anyone on this forum is, but I’ve met several women who I thought were completely delusional about what they thought they were “entitled to” both monetarily and percent of child custody timeshare in their family law case and in all cases they were way off base. You can only split a 50/50 community so many ways before there is nothing left. That includes the community debt. The vast majority of (former) FT or nearly FT caregivers of their children believed that they were the only ones who could deliver the kind of care to them to keep them happy, healthy and well-adjusted. But they figured wrong. They figured the other parent wouldn’t fight the fact that they petitioned for 85-100% custody timeshare of the child(ren) and figured they could just remain in the family home with their children (which they couldn’t afford) and somehow a little elf was going to pay all their bills.
As I posted before, the way the child support formulas are written in CA provokes and invites the family’s primary breadwinner in nearly all cases to petition for their 50%, as it their right. It doesn’t matter if they have NEVER taken care of their own children. It is much cheaper for them to have a garnishment for CS that is 100% less than they would have had if they had just settled for every other weekend and one weeknight per week with their child(ren), as was once the norm. The child support burden on these payor-parents is so heavy (esp if there are 3+ children) that there is no way most of them can even live themselves unless they can find a way to take their children 50% of the time. And they do. And the payee’s CS is never enough to live on (in any case it is intended for the child[rens] support). If the CS payee isn’t making enough to live on and is not severely disabled, it is purely a function of the choices they made while living in the “tacit arrangement.”
This reality was a very difficult concept for some of these women to accept.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]Yes, it was the right decision, CAR. I now have a pension and a generous healthcare allowance until I die. I also have another small pension and investments. I divorced in CA (a community property state) and thus everything we owned got split down the middle. I am thankful we made good investments, had no debt but mortgage debt and lived well below our means. I am very thankful for all the decisions we/I made in the past.
I hope none of your “well-educated” friends who opted to throw their degrees away to stay at home have to try to dredge up their (now dated) degree they haven’t used in years and actually try to sell it to a prospective employer in attempt to survive. Especially if they wait until they are 50-ish to do so.
I don’t believe your “highly educated friends” would only keep 30 cents on the dollar of their wages if they worked FT. Especially those who were making $100K+ before they decided to quit and stay home. That seems very low to me. Without identifying anyone, can you furnish a breakdown of their former salaries and expenses which caused them to keep only .30 on the dollar?
It doesn’t cost that much to work. Even an attorney can buy dress suits at a consignment shop for pennies on the dollar. I have kid(s) in SF who buy (expensive-when-new) designer duds and shoes/boots in those places regularly. Believe it or not, attorneys actually ride the bus and trolley to work (at $72 mo), brown bag their lunches most days and have their own “coffee station” in their offices. That is just an example of a full-time San Diego area professional’s lifestyle. Yes, many have minor kids. Like everyone else, their children also have relatives, day camp, horse camp, overnight camp, home daycare, pre-K, spouse on a slightly different schedule and so on. They make it work to continue their chosen careers without interruption.[/quote]
You really need to read this book, BG.
And while it’s great that you would brown-bag it and ride the bus everyday to work, while keeping your kid in after-school care, most professionals don’t do that.
Again, what you chose for yourself is NOT what’s best for everyone else…whether about housing, career decisions, child-rearing, etc.[/quote]
Actually, most “professionals” do. My kids’ daycares and after-school care centers were full of “professional parents” picking their kids up.
My kid is currently going to college out of county with two kids they have known since they were in pre-K together! Both have/had “professional” parents (one is now retired). My kid’s dad is a “professional.”
FWIW, I never rode the bus to work. I drove every day because I did errands on my lunches and after work. And I never lived very far from work. I don’t know if I would drive today, however, because parking cost has increased 1000% in some cases. If my employer didn’t pay for parking, I would probably take the trolley.
So CAR, I take it then that your “friends” (who purportedly only netted .30 on each dollar of their wage) commuted long distances alone in a vehicle and bought their lunches every day? If so, those expenses add exponentially to the cost of showing up for a FT job 4-5 days per week … especially a job paying <$50K. That choice plus the daily frustration of commuting long distances is a function of deciding to live too far from work (or work centers) ... another unwise decision if the parent(s) expect to be able to consistently keep earning a decent salary month after month and year after year.
ParticipantYes, it was the right decision, CAR. I now have a pension and a generous healthcare allowance until I die. I also have another small pension and investments. I divorced in CA (a community property state) and thus everything we owned got split down the middle. I am thankful we made good investments, had no debt but mortgage debt and lived well below our means. I am very thankful for all the decisions we/I made in the past.
I hope none of your “well-educated” friends who opted to throw their degrees away to stay at home have to try to dredge up their (now dated) degree they haven’t used in years and actually try to sell it to a prospective employer in attempt to survive. Especially if they wait until they are 50-ish to do so.
I don’t believe your “highly educated friends” would only keep 30 cents on the dollar of their wages if they worked FT. Especially those who were making $100K+ before they decided to quit and stay home. That seems very low to me. Without identifying anyone, can you furnish a breakdown of their former salaries and expenses which caused them to keep only .30 on the dollar?
It doesn’t cost that much to work. Even an attorney can buy dress suits at a consignment shop for pennies on the dollar. I have kid(s) in SF who buy (expensive-when-new) designer duds and shoes/boots in those places regularly. Believe it or not, attorneys actually ride the bus and trolley to work (at $72 mo), brown bag their lunches most days and have their own “coffee station” in their offices. That is just an example of a full-time San Diego area professional’s lifestyle. Yes, many have minor kids. Like everyone else, their children also have relatives, day camp, horse camp, overnight camp, home daycare, pre-K, spouse on a slightly different schedule and so on. They make it work to continue their chosen careers without interruption.
ParticipantI want to add that it doesn’t cost that much for a parent to take a $30K yr FT job, say 6-14 miles from home if they have “reasonable” child care expenses (<$800 mo). It's still worth it due to being in line for eventual raises/promotions. We will assume the worker doesn’t have a student loan to pay because they are only a HS grad or certificate holder (obtained “free” from ROP) and are a 24-yr old parent. Their spouse or parent pays the rent/mortgage and they drive an older paid-for vehicle but can ride the bus directly to work for $72 month if they have someone else to pick up kid(s) or a relative to keep kid(s) a little longer in the afternoon. No weekly gas fill-ups are necessary:
http://www.sdmts.com/fares.asp#bus
CAR mentioned clothing and lunch for workers being expensive and that may be so for attorneys but is NOT SO for 90% of worker bees. In actually, for women, the lined skirts we regularly drycleaned in yesteryear (weren’t allowed to wear pants to work) have now been replaced by black Dickies, (a little more expensive) Dockers and a cheap ($5-$10) top or shirt (no jacket). The expensive haircut has been replaced by a pony tail or bun. I’ve seen this new “uniform” even in high-rise law offices for at least the last 12 years and law offices tend to have better-dressed employees than other businesses and corporations. Even gubment workers don’t dress very well anymore … at least not the “clerk-helping-the-public” variety (which are 90% of gov worker-bees).
Got a new ~$30K job?? Here’s an economical place where you can buy 5 pairs of pants in dark colors on the cheap. They are clean, permanently pressed, and comfortable for San Diego:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/dickies-and-athletic-chula-vista?osq=Dickies+Outlet
Situated right in front of the TANF office and State EDD (Unemployment Dept), it’s the same place that school uniforms are sold.
Having taken my lunch 99.9% of my workdays for decades, I can attest to how cheap it is to make your lunch at home. I can assure you that there is a frig to keep it in in every workplace and likely a microwave as well. I made my lunches for between .25 and .80 day (that’s “cents”). Yes, there was protein in it, sometimes it was leftovers and I often put it together the night before. 80% of my co-workers took their lunch everyday as well. If you finish your lunch quickly and want to use the rest of your lunch hour for errands, you can do that if you drove to work.
I realize groceries are higher now but you get the drift. It’s MUCH CHEAPER to pack your own lunch than to buy lunch every day and always has been. I worked less than 2.5 miles from the Navy Commissary, which was on the way home. I could shop there once weekly, stand in a 20+ minute line to check out and still be home by 6:30 pm with groceries for the whole family for a week+! Also, you don’t buy $3 – $5 coffees at work or on the way to work. You bring your own travel mug from home with coffee in it and then chip in the monthly coffee fund on your floor to whoever brought in a coffeemaker if your employer does not provide it free (some do).
Except for daycare for kid(s), a worker-parent can take all of their earnings home and work themselves into raises and a better job. It doesn’t matter if they even went to college or not. It’s all relative because a young worker who didn’t spend anything for higher education and their parents’ couldn’t afford to help them can still work FT. It’s just not a $50K – $100K job … at least in their early years. (There’s no guarantee that a college grad will even land a $50K job, anyway.) The workers who opted for a FT job instead of college are gaining valuable work experience while most of their demographic is in college (full or part-time) and thus can’t work FT. BUT … they don’t have student loans and they have at least four more years FT work experience than their college-bound peers.
Who hires these young HS and ROP grads? Retail sales and mgmt, restaurants (incl mgmt), insurance companies, gubment offices, collection agencies, banks, auto dealerships, shipyards, auto service centers, non-profit agencies, construction companies, factories, medical offices, etc.
I see these kids going to work every day to support their own kid(s). The whole argument about it being “too expensive” for an unemployed parent to take a FT job (I’ve read it here and elsewhere on the internet) is wa-a-a-y overblown, imho. The public aid agencies and family court judges don’t see it that way. They feel that EVERY PARENT, regardless of gender, has a personal responsibility to financially support their kids. The “village” is in place to support these young parents’ lower daycare expenses as they start out working FT and their wages are insufficient to pay the full amount.
“Cost shifting” was brought up here that “somebody has to pay for it” in regards to public school and publicly funded daycare agencies, etc and therefore that’s another excuse for a parent not to seek FT employment. The reality is that publicly funded child daycare IS “free” to the people who need it most. Public school IS “free” to all residents. Even if you are a property owner who doesn’t pay more than $8-$9K year in property taxes, if you have more than one kid in public school simultaneously, ONE of your kids is attending for “free.” It’s “free” to you because your kids’ “tuition” is being redistributed to the many thousands of property owners paying property taxes who do not currently use the public schools. If a parent chooses to purchase all of their kids’ textbooks themselves and homeschool (or pay for private school), that is their choice. These parents are voluntarily running up their own household expenses all the while their kids are eligible by law for a “free” public K-12 education. In the case of YMCA and scouting daycare discounts and camperships, these agencies’ donors are paying for an income-qualified child to have the experience. Taxpayers don’t subsidize these programs.
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).
[end of rant]
Participant[quote=CA renter]It would make all the sense in the world if you would take off the blinders of your preconceived notions. These highly-educated, intelligent women are doing what’s right for their families (what may have been right for you is not necessarily what’s right for them). After realizing that we can’t “have it all,” and after calculating how much it costs to work outside of the home, along with the emotional costs to the family of working outside of the home (more stress, more resentment, etc.), these *families* (not just one spouse) have opted to make a choice that provides the greatest benefits at the lowest cost for themselves.[/quote]
That’s all well and good if it truly was a “joint decision.” But why go through the trouble and expense of going to college and graduating, only to drop out of the workforce shortly after graduation … especially with student loan debt looming.
Ballooning student loans in the background don’t mix very well with attempting to raise a family on one salary. Sorry, but that’s not a wise choice to make for the family whose future the SAHP purportedly cares so much about. It actually jeopardizes the family’s financial future so the cost is way too high, imho.
You don’t need an expensive college degree to be a mom, let alone a $200K+ graduate degree that some of them are laying to waste by “choice.”
Participant[quote=CA renter]Agreed, but let’s get rid of the extremely sexist “gold digger” moniker. Is a man who seeks to be paid for his services denigrated as a “gold digger”? Women intrinsically understand that they are providing a list of services. That they want to be paid for providing these services should not compel us to look down our noses at them. Men would do it no differently if the roles were reversed.
The men who seek out “gold diggers” know exactly what they’re getting, and why.[/quote]
You’re right, CAR. The term is denigrating but I always associated it with women who can’t support themselves or refuse to (at least in the style in which they would like to become accustomed). In short, women who are seeking a “sugar daddy.”
Agree that many men are attracted to the “gold-digger” type but I think some are too dumb or blind to know what they are getting into without an unbiased opinion from a concerned onlooker (friend/relative).
A surrogate mom is usually paid pretty handsomely for their services (as well as getting all their medical bills paid … even if covered by insurance). She is offering a legitimate service and usually she has an agency who takes a cut for her successful pregnancy. It’s not prostitution and it takes a healthy, emotionally strong woman who knows their own mind to successfully pull it off.
Scaredy’s idea doesn’t differ very much from a surrogacy arrangement.
-
AuthorPosts
