Being a SAHM/D with "help" from the government?

[Nikel]

WIC is perfectly fine. SSDI if applicable, also fine. Any other form of assistance, is not fine. Even if childcare is expensive - work separate shifts from your spouse.

And if said spouse is already working 2 jobs or 1 job with a lot of hours, and there's no time left to work a separate shift?

 

[LadyJeanPirateQueen]

I think if both parents are able-bodied and at least one of them can find a job that allows the other to stay home, then that's what they should do.

Then again, I'm not one who believes that SAH status is the be-all and end-all of parenting. I'd much rather have a job and a paycheck so I don't have to sacrifice a pleasant, comfortable life with room in the budget for extras.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there.
It is not the be all end all of parenting BUT...I am one of those people who believe that if it is possible for you to stay home with your kids you should. I would rather sacrafice those 'extras' than miss out on this precious time with my child.
DH and I haven't been to a movie theatre in almost 4 years. We rarely eat out and when we do, it's usually because somebody has offered to take us out (like the In-laws..they do this about 2X per month). We usually don't go anywhere that's not free or will be low-cost. We have cable, but it's the second most basic pkg they offer (the most basic pkg is only local channels we could pick up with an antenna anyway if we wanted). We have DSL, but only because DH needs it so he can work from home part time.

If both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet, that's one thing. If both parents CHOOSE to work so they can have those niceties, those extras, then that's your bag. I won't criticize you for it because that is your decision. I've made my decision and I'm happy with it. If you are happy with yours, then good for you.

Ladyjean

 

[smartestnumber5]

I think it depends on the situation. If we're talking about someone who had a perfectly good job (one which paid a living wage and benefits which they could actually reasonably raise a family on) and quit it because they simply preferred to be a SAHP then no.

But I highly doubt that is the typical situation. Here's an website with statistics that show that women on welfare tend to be have little education and few job skills. Of those who did get off of welfare and maintained employment 41% of their employers reported an absentism problem--and 64% of the time the problem was childcare, 41% of the time it was transportation, and 34% physical health, 8% domestic violence, and 5% mental health.

Of those who were receiving welfare in 1995 and by were employed 1998-99, 65.7% were earning wages that were below the the poverty line and only 58% received health benefits for their family. Of former welfare recipients 46.1% had been unable to pay their mortgage, rent, or utility bills at least one time, 25% worried they might not have enough food to last until their next paycheck, 32.7% skipped meals or cut the size of meals to save money, and 14.6% ran out of food and had no money to buy more.

So it seems obvious from the statistics that what happens to most women when they get off of welfare is that they are still impoverished, they still have no healthcare (or must depend on the govt for it), they often can't pay major bills, they sometimes don't have enough food to feed their children, and chronic problems with child care and transportation tick off their employers. One of my dissertation advisers was recently telling me about sociological work that has found one of the big problems for former welfare recipients in employment is that the great majority of jobs they can get do not allow them ANY contact with their children during their work day--i.e. they cannot call home to make sure the kids got home after school okay, they cannot take a call from the babysitter saying little Suzy broke her arm, etc. (My father actually has this type of job. He gets demerits everytime someone calls for him--whether it is an emergency or not. When his elderly mother kept falling and needing to go to the ER my mom would call him. He eventually told her "Look, unless my mom is dying or in need of surgery you need to stop calling me and handle it on your own. My bosses are NOT happy." Luckily my mom was a SAHM though, so my brother and I could always get in touch with her. I don't know what a kid does when their one parent or both of their parents work jobs like my dad's? What if the kid forgets their house key? Or they miss the bus at school? Or they break their arm? Guess they have to wait until 5pm.)

Seems to me that the most smartest thing to do is just keep receiving welfare as long as one can. If your choices are--go to work, live in poverty, get no benefits, not have enough for food, have no contact with your children for 8 hours, possibly pay someone else a huge chunk of change to watch your kids OR stay on welfare, live in poverty, get food stamps, and stay home with the kids and watch them for free--it's a no-brainer. And statistically it is clear that for most welfare recipients, those are the choices. If I were in that situation, I wouldn't get a job either.

If we want to change the situation of welfare recipients it seems the first thing is to make it the case that there are actually very high incentives for employment, education, and various kinds of training as well as subsidized childcare and transportation to school/work subsidies. Make employers pay a living wage that one can actually support a family with. Instead of taking benefits away when people begin to work, continuing offering benefits so that working + welfare benefits is a significantly better situation than just welfare benefits. As far as I know, the govt often provides bonuses to companies that higher former welfare recipients; if they are giving bonuses they can also provide oversight. Make it a requirement of these companies that the former welfare recipients be allowed to take and make calls from their children. Require the company to provide health care to the worker and her children. Give extra bonuses if the employer provides low cost childcare onsite.

 

[MosMom]

I think it depends. Childcare is ridiculously expensive and if you can only get a minimum wage job you may end up losing money working. Perhaps a better solution would be to provide the "welfare" in child care assistance. That way, the person is working but still receiving help.

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

It is not the be all end all of parenting BUT...I am one of those people who believe that if it is possible for you to stay home with your kids you should. I would rather sacrafice those 'extras' than miss out on this precious time with my child.

Sacrificing extras is one thing. Staying home while accepting food stamps is another, don't you think?

 

[Christine]

I think if both parents are able-bodied and at least one of them can find a job that allows the other to stay home, then that's what they should do.



I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there.
It is not the be all end all of parenting BUT...I am one of those people who believe that if it is possible for you to stay home with your kids you should. I would rather sacrafice those 'extras' than miss out on this precious time with my child.
DH and I haven't been to a movie theatre in almost 4 years. We rarely eat out and when we do, it's usually because somebody has offered to take us out (like the In-laws..they do this about 2X per month). We usually don't go anywhere that's not free or will be low-cost. We have cable, but it's the second most basic pkg they offer (the most basic pkg is only local channels we could pick up with an antenna anyway if we wanted). We have DSL, but only because DH needs it so he can work from home part time.

If both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet, that's one thing. If both parents CHOOSE to work so they can have those niceties, those extras, then that's your bag. I won't criticize you for it because that is your decision. I've made my decision and I'm happy with it. If you are happy with yours, then good for you.

Ladyjean

So how do you feel about people going on public assistance to be SAHM/Ds?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

And if said spouse is already working 2 jobs or 1 job with a lot of hours, and there's no time left to work a separate shift?

I have never seen this happen. One call work overnight at a call center, Target, diner etc. There are jobs out there.

What I will never get is why people are having MORE children when they cannot afford it.

 

[Aidensmom]

WIC is perfectly fine. SSDI if applicable, also fine. Any other form of assistance, is not fine. Even if childcare is expensive - work separate shifts from your spouse.

I agree with this. I'd also add that if the assistance is temporary (receiving goverment funded insurance temporarily while trying/waiting to get private insurance as a previous poster did) doesn't really bother me either.

I would love to be a SAHM, I do think it is a benefit to young children to be able to stay home with their mom or dad rather than go to daycare, but we need both incomes to pay the bills. We actually did the separate shift thing when our child was very young and we really couldn't afford daycare.

 

[KristiKelly]

No, I don't think you should qualify if you're not looking for a job. If you have a job & still need more money then I think it's ok for gov. assistance to help.

 

[rie'smom]

What program sends non WIC money to an average family? This is what I am not understanding.I know of many people who make too much money to qualify for WIC/AFDC who cannot get any help from the government because I worked with a private social welfare agency that sought to fill in the gaps for those people and it was HARD to find money for that help. And what help did come came from private sources (usually churches). Moreover, none of the 'needy' were living 'average lifestyles' -- they were all seriously struggling (even if the gov't said they made too much money to qualify for assistance).

So, I'm scratching my head wondering where these mysterious checks are coming from. And if you tell me, I'll happily tell that social welfare agency so they can get on this gravy train.

Many people who don't even have average incomes can't qualify for assistance, so something here isn't right. I mean I know someone right above the poverty line who could only get 20.00/ month in food stamps, so I can't imagine these people would even get that.

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

We actually did the separate shift thing when our child was very young and we really couldn't afford daycare.

DH and I did that too, and while it was good for us financially it really put a strain on the marriage. We didn't see each other.

 

[rie'smom]

What program sends non WIC money to an average family? This is what I am not understanding.I know of many people who make too much money to qualify for WIC/AFDC who cannot get any help from the government because I worked with a private social welfare agency that sought to fill in the gaps for those people and it was HARD to find money for that help. And what help did come came from private sources (usually churches). Moreover, none of the 'needy' were living 'average lifestyles' -- they were all seriously struggling (even if the gov't said they made too much money to qualify for assistance).

So, I'm scratching my head wondering where these mysterious checks are coming from. And if you tell me, I'll happily tell that social welfare agency so they can get on this gravy train.

Many people who don't even have average incomes can't qualify for assistance, so something here isn't right. I mean I know someone right above the poverty line who could only get 20.00/ month in food stamps, so I can't imagine these people would even get that. Are they married or just living together? Maybe they could get away with gov't assistance that way but they do ask about household income, so even then, I don't understand how they qualify.

 

[shirleyb]

I agree... if you are at home and getting assistance while genuinely looking for a job, then I won't say anything. Or if you are disabled and home, I have no right to say anything at all with that. Something along those lines I am okay with.

But two able bodied people and one choosing to stay home. Nope, don't see the need. And this comes from a SAHW. It is our choice to have me stay home.

Absolutely. My DH and I both work to provide for our family. Why should we also have to provide for someone else's, just so they don't have to work?

 

[Crankyshank]

And if said spouse is already working 2 jobs or 1 job with a lot of hours, and there's no time left to work a separate shift?

Then day care should be minimal cost, unless the spouse works 24/7. At the very least work from home or work part time. I know plenty of people out there managing to do it. It's not easy, or ideal, but it's definitely doable. I live in an extremely high cost of living area, so I am very well versed on the difficulties of raising a family on a working class income.

 

[BellePrincessBelle]

And if said spouse is already working 2 jobs or 1 job with a lot of hours, and there's no time left to work a separate shift?

How about opening a home daycare? My Dh & I worked opposite shifts for 4 years. Rotating ones at that. Wasn't easy & we did pay some family members to fill in(wasn't cheap) the gaps when needed.

 

[poohandwendy]

Seems to me that the most smartest thing to do is just keep receiving welfare as long as one can. If your choices are--go to work, live in poverty, get no benefits, not have enough for food, have no contact with your children for 8 hours, possibly pay someone else a huge chunk of change to watch your kids OR stay on welfare, live in poverty, get food stamps, and stay home with the kids and watch them for free--it's a no-brainer. And statistically it is clear that for most welfare recipients, those are the choices. If I were in that situation, I wouldn't get a job either.

If we want to change the situation of welfare recipients it seems the first thing is to make it the case that there are actually very high incentives for employment, education, and various kinds of training as well as subsidized childcare and transportation to school/work subsidies. Make employers pay a living wage that one can actually support a family with. Instead of taking benefits away when people begin to work, continuing offering benefits so that working + welfare benefits is a significantly better situation than just welfare benefits. As far as I know, the govt often provides bonuses to companies that higher former welfare recipients; if they are giving bonuses they can also provide oversight. Make it a requirement of these companies that the former welfare recipients be allowed to take and make calls from their children. Require the company to provide health care to the worker and her children. Give extra bonuses if the employer provides low cost childcare onsite.

The problem I have with this sort of solution is that all of the 'requirements' seem to come in the form of require nothing of the recipient, require much of the employer. Making employers pay a living wage is going to bring a rise in unemployment, defeating the purpose.

Seems to me that the answer is to make it less comfortable to be on assistance than not. How about requiring work from recipients, in order to get benefits? That cuts to the chase, when it comes to incentive to not being on assistance. If you had to put in 40 hours per week for assistance, the obvious choice would be to get the most out of your 40 hours...most jobs are going to be more money and freedom (choices) for the work.

 

[Arielle22]

I also think it is up to you to provide for your family. I am not sure why dh and I should pay for programs so some other parent can stay home.

When our dd's were young dh and I combined daycare with opposite shifts. There was a time when I didn't see my girls awake from Friday morning to Tues morning. It wasn't pleasant but that it what it took. On the plus side, dh was able to bond with dd's which resulted in some great memories for him.

We waited 8 yrs to have children because we couldn't afford them. On the other hand BIL and SIL were teen parents who deliberately had my niece and nephew. They received welfare and other govenment assistance.

I am not talking about temporary assistance as a previous poster mentioned getting help between jobs. I don't see a problem with that and think that is the appropriate way to use the programs.

 

[VAN]

I really don't see why someone would want to be taken care of by the government. As I tell my kids, nothing is for free. In order to accept help from the government (me, as a taxpayer) you have to open all your personal information and they will have a say about what you can and cannot do.

Additionally, my children would suffer and also learn that it is okay to live off other people even though they have the ability to support themselves.

I really believe, that you would do EVERYONE a disservice. If the goal is to provide a better life for your children, I think you are going about it the wrong way.

 

[mickeyboat]

I am not sure welfare programs are encouraging people to work. Do they lose funding if they don't spend all their available money?

I am speaking in a purely anecdotal sense, but I know a family with two small kids who was working their butts off to provide for them, but just couldn't make ends meet. The counselor showed them what was available - food stamps, fuel assistance, day care assistance, but in the end recommended they both quit their jobs so they could get more welfare!!! They did for a while, but decided it wasn't the example they wanted to set for their kids, and they both have started working again and are receiving some assistance to get them over the hump.

The abuses of the system sure do make a bad taste in my mouth.

Denae

 

[disykat]

What program sends non WIC money to an average family? This is what I am not understanding.

I don't think the OP said the family was average - just that they chose to take checks from the government as opposed to working outside the home. She said she wasn't talking about WIC money or insurance programs - not that the family in her example didn't qualify for them.