Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]
You just said that thing that’s bolded again. Then you claimed that there is sociological proof for that thing that is bolded that you just said that you never say.
And that men are catching up wouldn’t be a compliment or an insult if you didn’t first believe that women are better than men.
Then you pepper more anecdotes to prove what you aren’t saying. Your own dad is proof( big surprise there).
My childhood life was terrible but my parents are not proof any general truth about the comparative value of their respective genders and either is your father or any number of bad actors you want to cherry pick.
So you say all the time that women are better than men. It is a part of who you are. “Mask of political correctness” my ass. You are coercive. At least don’t deny that your position is that women are better than men and always have been.
You can bold it again, that’s still where you are at.[/quote]
Okay, where is your proof that men have always been good husbands and fathers? Where is your evidence that they have always helped out with domestic chores and caretaking?
Where is your evidence that men haven’t oppressed others, especially women?
And while my father was not a good husband, he was a good father (as stated). My mother was not such a good mother. I can be honest and objective about this subject…far more honest and objective than you are.
How about your family? Didn’t you say that it was your father who caused so much harm to your family?
And how about all of those other families where the father has abandoned them? Can you compare that to the number of women who’ve abandoned their families?
How about crime rates? Take a look at which gender commits most of the violent (and other) crimes.
So, yeah, I’m not going to pretend that everything has always been great between the sexes, and I’m not going to pretend that women haven’t been subjugated by men throughout all of human history. And I’m not going to pretend that the way “woman’s work” is perceived and valued isn’t almost entirely based on women’s status throughout human history.
Perhaps you’d like to live in some kind of intellectual fairyland, but I don’t.[/quote]
You are still doing it .
My mother abandoned 7 of 8 kids to marry a wealthier man and live an easier and better life, She took me with her at least in part because she was stealing my childhood to keep her company.
She is proof of nothing about the comparative value of her gender.[/quote]I’m pretty sure you’ve said that your father wasn’t the best, but I’m not going to search for it…that’s not my point here.
How about answering any of the other questions…have any evidence that men haven’t oppressed women, abused them, abandoned them and their children…especially more than the reverse?
ParticipantBG, you might want to ask teachers about those after-school programs. While they certainly help working parents by giving them a lower-cost option, most teachers would not want to put their own kids in those programs (unless it’s for a short time, and they are at the same school site…which is just a matter of convenience). These programs are not superior to a parent’s care in any way, nor are they better than most of the more expensive care options that most professional parents would choose.
ParticipantImputed income is like savings. That’s very real money. Best of all, it’s tax-free.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
Sorry, BG, but you are wrong about most of this. It’s the same kind of stubborn insistence that you have when you claim that professionals should live in a crappy old house in Chula Vista rather than live amongst their peers.
I’m not saying that class and status are the everything, but they do matter to a lot of people. Like you, I don’t idolize or look up to people who earn more or who’ve attained a higher level of education than I have (and I’m not including myself in one of the “higher class” categories…not by a long shot), but there ARE differences.
You need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that you can’t dictate to everyone else how they should live or how they should perceive things.
I broke down the numbers for you. It’s all right there in black and white, and I was VERY conservative. If you still don’t get it, then you need to look in the mirror for the solution to that.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]not sure if our trajectory was odd but it seemed like the more we made the cheaper we got.[/quote]
As a percentage of income, your basic needs will require less as you make more money. That would probably feel an awful lot like: “the more we made, the cheaper we got.”
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]care and such is important, but without money, the family is done. it’s over. it’s kind of sad, unromantic, seems harsh, but really, money is what it’s all about. not imputed income. like, actual money. the quality thereof, it’s nice. it’s extra.
but money. yes, money. that’s what makes a family go. or anyone, really. it’s a giant hungry machine that needs money thrown into it.
my dad told me this and i didnt beleive him but i now see it is true.[/quote]
And it’s every bit as true that without caretakers, the family is done.
And money is an artificial construct, though I would agree that it makes life a bit easier. Throughout history, many people around the world have lived without this same concept of money. A medium of exchange can exist without the bureaucracy and institutions that have grown up around it. The way it works now, those who control money flows (and it’s not the people who work) control everything.[/quote]
we can contract out caretaking but not moneymaking[/quote]
Sure we can. A “gold digger” does exactly that. A transaction is a transaction.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]
You just said that thing that’s bolded again. Then you claimed that there is sociological proof for that thing that is bolded that you just said that you never say.
And that men are catching up wouldn’t be a compliment or an insult if you didn’t first believe that women are better than men.
Then you pepper more anecdotes to prove what you aren’t saying. Your own dad is proof( big surprise there).
My childhood life was terrible but my parents are not proof any general truth about the comparative value of their respective genders and either is your father or any number of bad actors you want to cherry pick.
So you say all the time that women are better than men. It is a part of who you are. “Mask of political correctness” my ass. You are coercive. At least don’t deny that your position is that women are better than men and always have been.
You can bold it again, that’s still where you are at.[/quote]
Okay, where is your proof that men have always been good husbands and fathers? Where is your evidence that they have always helped out with domestic chores and caretaking?
Where is your evidence that men haven’t oppressed others, especially women?
And while my father was not a good husband, he was a good father (as stated). My mother was not such a good mother. I can be honest and objective about this subject…far more honest and objective than you are.
How about your family? Didn’t you say that it was your father who caused so much harm to your family?
And how about all of those other families where the father has abandoned them? Can you compare that to the number of women who’ve abandoned their families?
How about crime rates? Take a look at which gender commits most of the violent (and other) crimes.
So, yeah, I’m not going to pretend that everything has always been great between the sexes, and I’m not going to pretend that women haven’t been subjugated by men throughout all of human history. And I’m not going to pretend that the way “woman’s work” is perceived and valued isn’t almost entirely based on women’s status throughout human history.
Perhaps you’d like to live in some kind of intellectual fairyland, but I don’t.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]care and such is important, but without money, the family is done. it’s over. it’s kind of sad, unromantic, seems harsh, but really, money is what it’s all about. not imputed income. like, actual money. the quality thereof, it’s nice. it’s extra.
but money. yes, money. that’s what makes a family go. or anyone, really. it’s a giant hungry machine that needs money thrown into it.
my dad told me this and i didnt beleive him but i now see it is true.[/quote]
And it’s every bit as true that without caretakers, the family is done.
And money is an artificial construct, though I would agree that it makes life a bit easier. Throughout history, many people around the world have lived without this same concept of money. A medium of exchange can exist without the bureaucracy and institutions that have grown up around it. The way it works now, those who control money flows (and it’s not the people who work) control everything.
Participant[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.
As an example, one of my executive friends was paying over $65,000/year for childcare for four kids, and that was only for about 10-12 hours/day. That was just for childcare and *very* light housekeeping (no bathrooms, mopping, vacuuming, dusting…just picking up after kids, wiping down counters, doing a couple of loads of laundry a week, etc.).
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, showing how it can easily be NEGATIVE, even when using very conservative estimates), then I can’t help you.
ParticipantSvelte, I think you’re confusing “marrying for money” with wanting to marry someone who won’t destroy your marriage due to financial difficulties. That can manifest itself in many ways: flippant attitude toward debt, lack of work ethic or sense of responsibility, spendthrift ways, etc.
No offense, but (totally IMHO) a person would have to be a complete idiot if they didn’t take these things into consideration when choosing a mate.
And we definitely have different priorities at different stages in life. I’m sure many of us would have dated (maybe married) someone like you’ve described yourself at the age of 19 or even 21. Not so much at the age or 30 or 40. There is an expectation that people will have fun when young, but manage to find a foothold, improve their circumstances, and gain more responsibility as they get older. Might want to ask you wife if she would marry you *today* if you were still bumming around the CC campus, living with parents, and broke. 🙂
Money is just ONE of many variables that is taken into consideration when choosing a mate, especially when choosing one with whom you plan to have a family.
ParticipantJust realized that those tax numbers are too low. I forgot to include the first income. The increase in taxes would depend on the income of the first income-earner, but it would definitely be more than what I’ve stated above.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]You didn’t get in trouble with me for arguing over how much house work is worth. It’s your frequent insistence, perhaps barely weakening now , that
women are better than men and always have been. We have been around on this 3 or 4 times since this blog started and it’s always the same. I find it impossible to think that men are better than women or the other way around…so I don’t whine about it.Men are not “coming around’ finally any more than male rabbits or female kangaroos are.That’s a huge condescending insult. Culture changes more rapidly in humans and probably faster now than ever. We are animals and it is impossible that G-d made one sex better than the other.
Neither you or I had parents who were reasonably good couples cooperating in making functioning home and then supporting each other after, out of loyalty continued love and friendship or any other reasons .They were not mr,. and ms. UCGAL by a long stretch. We had no one show us to be grateful to one another and trust that it’s pretty easy to be o.k. with our partners. Whatever we saw was the opposite. Lots of crippled perception and insecurity from that gets transferred to our world view with the opposite sex /male female relations can come from that. It just fits the definition of how people get long term hurt from dysfunctional families. KEV might be in the same boat but that’s for him to say.
Apologizing for psychoanalyzing you, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of your energy and bias and stubbornness on this comes from that.[/quote]
Where, exactly, have I said the bolded part?
And it IS true that men have come around over the past couple of decades; every bit of sociological research out there will show you this. That’s not a criticism, it’s a compliment.
Edited to add:
While I think my family life was likely better than yours by a long shot (though we certainly share some experiences as wards of the state), I would agree that my perceptions have been colored by my experiences, as well as the experiences of many other families I’ve known…including my husband’s experience with his family, and my mother’s experience with her family, and my father’s experience with his family, etc., etc.
As a manager in the corporate world, I had to interview women in their 50s and 60s who had been abandoned by their husbands (who often left for women about the age, or even younger than their own children) after decades of raising many children and devoting their lives to their families. Sorry if you disagree, but that is flat-out wrong. The stories I’ve heard were completely devastating. After my parents divorced, my mother rented out rooms to make ends meet, and most of her renters were other divorced people (men and women) who had all kinds of similar experiences that have most definitely colored my perceptions.
In addition to this, and largely because of my experiences, I had studied family formation trends and their effects on the economy. I have thousands of pages of studies, books, etc. that back what I am saying here.
FWIW, I married my husband largely because he, too, had experienced the same things in his family. We have vowed to change the course of our family histories, and have been fortunate enough to have found our “soul mates.” Though we had to work through some very rough patches, especially in the beginning, we are stronger for it. There is nobody in the world who I respect or love more…nobody even comes close. I was also blessed to have a wonderful father, though he was a rather miserable husband because he was pretty emotionally stunted (an understatement), especially when it came to romantic relationships.
So, should we ignore everything that we have experienced and researched in order to wear the mask of political correctness, or should we be honest about what we have seen?
ParticipantLink for childcare expenses for young children:
ParticipantAnd THAT is why the notion that SAHPs “don’t work,” or that they provide no economic benefits to the family (much less emotional, or higher quality-of-life for the family as this person would be far more likely to do more things for the family than they could if wage-earning), is so utterly ridiculous.
-
AuthorPosts
