New Book: Mothers should work

[MiaSRN62]

There are many of us who think it IS a put down to assume that women who stay home are too stupid to think of the long term ramifications of their choices.

disykat,
I don't think "too stupid" is what the book is trying to say---nor any of us here ? But if that is what some of you feel, then can't change the way you think or feel ?

I just think alot of people feel they've planned enough....thought it out enough.....and this book gives us some other things to consider that may not have been when the decision was made. I know SAHM's who have not thought everything out. I have two in my family who are finding this out now after being SAHM's for years.

Also, even though I work, my salary goes towards things other than the main bills. So we could "make it" without dh's salary but it was be very very tight and would possibly need to reconsider college. We don't have a huge nest egg. Had too many years in our early marriage where dh was laid off and we lived pay check to pay check. So we got a late start with savings....yet another reason I'm glad we have my salary but I fully realize everyone is not in the same situation. I have a friend who's dh is an MD and never had to worry a bit about being a SAHM. This is why I feel there are HUGE variances when looking at this debate.
I also know an MD whose wife has breast cancer and is not doing well at all. He's been able to take off 2 years of work and stay with her. It's wonderful he can do this and still be ok with bills and all. But he lived off an MD's salary for decades so I'm sure he has a really nice nest egg. But if my husband or I had to face this same situation, we would not be able to take all that time off from work despite the fact we have disability insurance and a 401K.

So each and every situation is uniquely different. None of us can make judgements about anyone. I haven't. But I hardly think anyone is looking upon anyone else as if they're "too stupid". I still think the book is a way for both SAHM and working moms to learn and empower themselves. Many jobs that pay decent, are the kind that require some recent experience and just can't be walked back into after a decade or more of not working at all. At least this is my experience. I know there is a waiting list in my area for mom's who used to be teachers and are trying to reenter the teaching profession. There are several I know that end up "volunteering" just to try and get their foot back in the door. These schools want new grads and those with recent experience. I see/hear people struggling with this. This is just one example.

 

[princesscj]

Whoever started this and wrote the book --- just gotta say each and case is different.

This is a topic like religion and politics - don't go near them!!!!

 

[DVC Sadie]

There is a third option. My husband and I both work and we live primarily off of one income. The second income goes into savings/college funds/ and things we can easily give up (like - believe it or not - vacations). (We also pay taxes up the yango and as two income high wage family - taxes would drop significantly if we had a single income). I'm very risk adverse financially, and this is the least risky plan for our family.

I read a piece in Parade about this, and the author says the average age of widowhood for women is fifty five! That made me think - when I'm fifty five my kids will be freshmen/sophomores in college. One of her big concerns is "what do you do when your husband is gone" - either through death or divorce. Many women are younger than their husbands, and many of us had our children later in life - a much higher risk situation for kids than having them at 22 with your 23 year old husband.

I think its great that women have choices, but I think women should make educated choices - and that includes understanding what the future may hold - what they are giving up economically in order to stay home (and what they are giving up to work).

Great Post and ITA!

We also lived off of one income when we both worked and saved everything for both retirement and college funds. For us it was imperative to have financial security in the event of any unforseen emergency.

 

[luvmy3jewels]

This is such an interesting debate....and there are so many varied opinions. To be quite honest, I've never really thought about working from the veiw point of this book's author.

I work outside of the home and hate it, but I have to in order to pay the bills. I will honestly admit, at this point in time it would be financially devastating to our family if dh or I would not be able to work. (If it were any other way, I would have quit my job a long time ago). It seems like no matter how much we make, we are barely making ends meet.

However, I am reminded of my grandmother who married at 14, had two kids by the time she was 17, and then was abandoned by her husband by 18. Her ex ended up owning a huge farming corporation on the Eastern Shore and never gave 1 dime towards taking care of his first two children. (He even shredded all of their clothes when he first abandoned them).

My grandmother ended up eventually getting married to another man, who I suspect was abusive towards her and her kids, but she was pretty much stuck in that marraige because he provided for her family. I can't imagine ever being in that kind of position. It is amazing the tales that our grandmothers can tell about what life was really like 50+ years ago.

 

[Scornelius]

I spent quite some time writing a very long response to this, then decided I couldn't withstand the potential flames and deleted it. So here's my scaled-down opinion. And let me preface this by saying it's meant to apply to 2-parent households.

I personally think kids should have a parent at home with them. Mother, father, whatever. Just someone whose main role is to care for and nurture that child. I know there are some tremendous child care providers out there, but IMHO, parent trumps babysitter every time. Parents can offer both love and discipline that can't come from a CCP. I completely respect the fact that some families can't get by on one income, but I belive that is due in great part to people living way beyond their means.

I'm not a parent yet, but my husband and I intend on having children fairly soon, and have set up our life and finances accordingly. We both have terrific educations with lots of earning potential, but we live an existence that requires only one income. I only work part time, and we never use any of the money I make for necessities, because we refuse to fall into the 'two income trap'. We don't NEED the dual vehicles or the huge house or the Hawaiian vacations that, technically, we could afford. Instead we share a car, bought a sensible home and go to Disney during the free dining. And I promise you, it hasn't killed us yet!! When the time comes that we need to go down to one income, we'll barely notice it. And my children will have their mom around, which to us is the most important thing.

So there you go. I'll get down off my soapbox now.

Edited to add: this isn't directed at anyone or inspired by anything other than the article in the original post! Just wanted to make that uber clear!

 

[hollyb]

The author must not be a mother. A mother dosent put money before her children. I work nights so we will never use a day care and my kids will never be without a parent.

 

[allison443]

These issues are one of the reasons we feel it is so important for us to pay for our girls to get their college educations right after high school. I know many people who say, their kids can go part-time and work, or work now, save money and go to college later. Most people I know who tried to do that, well, "life gets in the way", they get married/have kids, and wind up trying to finish a degree while working and raising a family. That is so hard and I admire people who can do that!! I know so many people who regret not having gotten more education when they were young, before having a family, responsibilities, etc. Just my opinion!

 

[allison443]

The author must not be a mother. A mother dosent put money before her children. I work nights so we will never use a day care and my kids will never be without a parent.

If you read the link, the author is a writer for Vanity Fair who is a married mother of two. I believe she lives in NYC. Just FYI.

 

[DVC Sadie]

And let me preface this by saying it's meant to apply to 2-parent households.

I personally think kids should have a parent at home with them. Mother, father, whatever. Just someone whose main role is to care for and nurture that child. I know there are some tremendous child care providers out there, but IMHO, parent trumps babysitter every time. Parents can offer both love and discipline that can't come from a CCP. I completely respect the fact that some families can't get by on one income, but I belive that is due in great part to people living way beyond their means.

I'm not a parent yet, but my husband and I intend on having children fairly soon, and have set up our life and finances accordingly. We both have terrific educations with lots of earning potential, but we live an existence that requires only one income. I only work part time, and we never use any of the money I make for necessities, because we refuse to fall into the 'two income trap'. We don't NEED the dual vehicles or the huge house or the Hawaiian vacations that, technically, we could afford. When the time comes that we need to go down to one income, we'll barely notice it. And my children will have their mom around, which to us is the most important thing.



I commend you and your dh to having the foresight to plan for your future and your childrens financial and educational needs. You are so correct in assuming that a lot of families spend more than they can afford on incidentals, vacations....etc.

I don't think that this article was discussing people in your situation, but were asking that all single and married women check themselves to be sure that they are "protected" in any circumstance.

 

[Chicago526]

I spent quite some time writing a very long response to this, then decided I couldn't withstand the potential flames and deleted it. So here's my scaled-down opinion. And let me preface this by saying it's meant to apply to 2-parent households.

I personally think kids should have a parent at home with them. Mother, father, whatever. Just someone whose main role is to care for and nurture that child. I know there are some tremendous child care providers out there, but IMHO, parent trumps babysitter every time. Parents can offer both love and discipline that can't come from a CCP. I completely respect the fact that some families can't get by on one income, but I belive that is due in great part to people living way beyond their means.

I'm not a parent yet, but my husband and I intend on having children fairly soon, and have set up our life and finances accordingly. We both have terrific educations with lots of earning potential, but we live an existence that requires only one income. I only work part time, and we never use any of the money I make for necessities, because we refuse to fall into the 'two income trap'. We don't NEED the dual vehicles or the huge house or the Hawaiian vacations that, technically, we could afford. Instead we share a car, bought a sensible home and go to Disney during the free dining. And I promise you, it hasn't killed us yet!! When the time comes that we need to go down to one income, we'll barely notice it. And my children will have their mom around, which to us is the most important thing.

So there you go. I'll get down off my soapbox now.

Edited to add: this isn't directed at anyone or inspired by anything other than the article in the original post! Just wanted to make that uber clear!

Don't worry, this isn't a flame!

I grew up in the 80's, my friends and I were some of the first kids who, as a generation, had parents that both worked full time. We've talked about it (my friends and I), and we've all said that we really didn't notice/mind that they both worked.

I can only speak for me, but looking back I think my childhood was better overall because my mother worked and brought in the extra income. According to them, my parents said they could have lived just on Dad's income, but things would have been so tight, it really would have been miserable. My mom was a SAHM for my brothers before I was born (I'm the youngest of 3) and they tell talls of having to drink powdered milk all the time, because they couldn't afford real milk, and of haveing to wear coats inside during winter because it was too expensive to heat the house over 55 degrees. And it wasn't because they were living beyond their means, my mother could squeeze a penny so hard Abe would scream! So, my mother went to work part time until I was in pre-school and then worked full time from there.

The extra income meant potato chips in our lunches, and ice cream for desert after dinner. It ment family vacations to a cabin on a lake each summer so we could go fishing and swiming, and once, even a trip to WDW. It ment mom and dad could save for their retirement so my brothers and I don't have to support them, even if they get sick or disabled (we'd be happy to if it came to it, but it's such a blessing not to have to worry about it, let me tell you). It meant that they could help pay for our college should we choose to go (they paid half, we had to work for the rest!). It meant that if my father got laid off, we'd still have health insurance and income until he could find a new job (thankfully, it never came to that, Dad was never laid off).

And they were both still there for my brothers and I. All the socer games, all the choir concerts and school plays. They could help with home work or listen if we had a bad day. They went to all the parent-teacher conferances and baked for the school bake sales. In short, they made sure that when they were at home, they were there for us!

All this is to say that a couple can really have two incomes and still be there to raise happy, healthy, normal children. It does take more effort on the home front, but it can be done!

Just my opinion, of course!

 

[crisi]

I personally think kids should have a parent at home with them. Mother, father, whatever. Just someone whose main role is to care for and nurture that child. I know there are some tremendous child care providers out there, but IMHO, parent trumps babysitter every time. Parents can offer both love and discipline that can't come from a CCP. I completely respect the fact that some families can't get by on one income, but I belive that is due in great part to people living way beyond their means.

I appreciate your concern, please take this in the spirit intended.

I LOVE my kids. I'm glad I had them. They bring joy to my life. But I'd be a lousy SAHM - I don't have the patience for small kids. I'm not a playdoh mom or a fingerpaint mom - makes too much mess - my kids got that at daycare. Having them be my responsibility for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and my mental health and my children would suffer - seriously.

I'm a great 5:00pm -8:00pm to bedtime and weekends Mom. We bake cookies and bread. We go to the museum and bikeriding and ice skating. That is my tolerance for it. Changing diapers for 16 hours a day, screaming children, toddler tantrums, toys all over the floor, potty training - thank God for my wonderful daycare staff!

Now that my kids are older, I'm a better Mom - elementary age kids are much more rational, and I cope better. But now, they don't need me home because they are in school.

When you say everyone should stay home with their kids, you are condeming a bunch of kids to stay at home with Mom's like me - and worse. For some kids, daycare provides the stability in their lives.

I suppose you could say "I shouldn't have had them to start with." Fair enough - you have any idea where the return counter is? (kidding, I'd NEVER give up my kids). Until you have kids, you really don't know if you will be a good 24x7x365 mom - I'm doing the best I can. Thank includes working outside the home.

 

[NemoMOm]

I'm sure this is going to set someone off on both sides.

But every family situation is entirely different. To each their own.

For us, we are financially stable. We have planned on what would happen if Dh ever got hurt, (extra disability coverage) laid off (nest egg), God Forbid dies (life insurance) or other scenerios. I wasn't going to lose my income and my career without covering my butt financially first. I understood fully what I was giving up when I decided to stay home...but I also knew what I was gaining. I didn't decide to stay home until my dd was 2.5, and I know for those first few years, I saw the other side of the coin and thought "what was I missing?" Either way, the grass is always greener.

Will I have a tough time finding a job when I'm ready to go back? Maybe. Will I regret those years I was at home? Not on your life.

Kids are only young for so long. This is what was important to our family, and we've made it work. For the first child it was a choice. However, now that we have a 2nd child and another on the way, it's actually MORE COSTLY for me to work than stay home, so now the coin is flipped.

Again, to each their own.

Very well written. I think that if you do not have these things (insurance,disability, will, and retirement funds) you could be in a bad situation wether you are a sahm or a working mom. Just because there are 2 working parents does not mean there will always be 2 working parents. You need to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[srgibbs]

I really think it is a personal choice and no one should judge whatever you decide is best for your family. My husband and I waited 5 years to have children so we could enjoy each other and save money so I could be a SAHM one day. I do have a college degree (social work) and was able to save most of my income for 5 years so we would have a good savings account when I quit. I really did not want to have kids if I could not be with them which again was my choice. My husband has several life insurance policy's and I also have one as our attorneys said there would be expenses if something happened to me also which was a great idea I never really thought about. It is all about what you want to do and sacrafice. Our children are also in a Christian school which takes money away from nicer cars but that is much more important to us. We built our house and now have 11 years left to pay on it which is the only debt we have. The kids have 529's and my husband puts money in his 401K. Are we Rich? Absolutely not just decide what works best for us and choose not to spend money on a lot of material things that we will not take with us when we die and don't make us happier. You only get one chance to raise your children the way God instructs us to. Of course, this does not mean you have to stay at home but being a Mom is an awesome privlege and a huge responsiblity and one we will all answer for one day.

 

[Mono~rail]

Too many "ifs" in that article. If. If. If. If grandma had a set of peaches, she'd be grandpa.

My job is taking care of my family and making our house a home. In our eyes, I'm the *only* person who can do that job. We'll cross bridges as we come to them -not before.

The way I see it, my kids want *me* -not to be dumped off in a daycare center so I can earn more money to buy as much random, useless, disposable stuff as we possibly can to ease the guilt of dumping them off all day.

 

[Scornelius]

Too many "ifs" in that article. If. If. If. If grandma had a set of peaches, she'd be grandpa.

Ok, thread closed. That is officially the funniest thing I think I've ever read on this board!

 

[Schachteles]

I appreciate your concern, please take this in the spirit intended.

I LOVE my kids. I'm glad I had them. They bring joy to my life. But I'd be a lousy SAHM - I don't have the patience for small kids. I'm not a playdoh mom or a fingerpaint mom - makes too much mess - my kids got that at daycare. Having them be my responsibility for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and my mental health and my children would suffer - seriously.

I'm a great 5:00pm -8:00pm to bedtime and weekends Mom. We bake cookies and bread. We go to the museum and bikeriding and ice skating. That is my tolerance for it. Changing diapers for 16 hours a day, screaming children, toddler tantrums, toys all over the floor, potty training - thank God for my wonderful daycare staff!

Now that my kids are older, I'm a better Mom - elementary age kids are much more rational, and I cope better. But now, they don't need me home because they are in school.

When you say everyone should stay home with their kids, you are condeming a bunch of kids to stay at home with Mom's like me - and worse. For some kids, daycare provides the stability in their lives.

I suppose you could say "I shouldn't have had them to start with." Fair enough - you have any idea where the return counter is? (kidding, I'd NEVER give up my kids). Until you have kids, you really don't know if you will be a good 24x7x365 mom - I'm doing the best I can. Thank includes working outside the home.

I second this!! You just described me!!

I stayed home with my oldest for about 17 months...though I liked it in the beginning, then I got LAZY and hated it...I am a MUCH better mom going to work each day and that makes me NO less of a mom then someone who stays home!

 

[gaelic grace]

I think part of the problem is using the language like "dumping". I have worked part-time since the birth of our daughter because I know I am a better mother doing it that way. I was home for 16 weeks and woke up one morning knowing that I needed another outlet. I am a Christian and I prayed about it and called the only person I would have ever considered allowing to keep my child. I knew if she didn't have a spot open that I wasn't meant to work and God would just have to change my heart and that I would become happy or if she had a spot that I was meant to work outside the home. She had a spot. Our Mimi is a part of our family. My daughter begs to go to her house. I have friends who have made all sorts of different decisions at all different stages of their lives. I don't question them because I know that they prayerfully considered their options as well. We could live off my husbands salary but my income provides an additional layer of security but that's not my primary reason for working. I need to work to fulfill a part of me that wasn't fulfilled in the same way at home. My best friend has always stayed home and has never had felt that way. There are days that I would just as soon not go to work just as their are days that she would just as soon not be at home! I believe that most of the time that children are going to be fine if their parents are happy. My daughter is happy and secure because both of her parents are happy. We don't all live in the same type of house or drive the same kind of car- we aren't going to live cookie cutter lives. What can be the same is that we can all be happy and fulfilled in each of our decisions and encourage others to be the same.

 

[mookie]

Also many families only insure the working spouse. What if the SAHSpouce gets disabled or died. How would the workign spouse pay for daycare etc. now on the same income?

Please insure all spouse, working or not.

Still got to finish reading through the thread, but another thing to consider is NOT to just get disability insurance through your spouse's company....you will probably need more to back that up.

We see a financial planner who helps us map out every "worst case" scenerio. It helps to get a glimpse as to financially what the future would hold should any of those situations occur. Knowledge of these is the power to make an informed and smart decision if it's beneficial for a spouse to stay home.

For us, we piggy-backed my DH disability. Pricey? A bit. But worth the piece of mind that everything was covered if we did lose his income.

 

[Ratpack]

Wow! Yet another topic that does nothing but break down women and mothers and our self worth. It is so sad that articles like this (that I have read before) depict how EVERYONE should live their lives.

I am a teacher- I get the best of staying at home in the summer with my children, and working around their busy school schedules. However, I couldn't do either one of these full time. I love seeing the summer come..and I love seeing it go. It is my personality and our family style. I have always wanted to be a teacher, even when I was a little girl. So, I could have the time at home and time to work. Our family does benefit a little more for my job, but we have always been accustomed to 2 incomes. We could live off of one, but we would choose to give up some 'wants'. (Which wouldn't kill us!)

In our society, we need both women who work and stay at home. I see benefits to both of these types of homes. I see the downfalls of both of these types of homes. Her article brings up great points: "What ifs" and all. However, I see that we can't always live in "What ifs".

Ladies, stop defending yourself, your beliefs, your family's lifestyles, and children! Just respect that everyone is not like you for a reason. We would all be fighting for good day care positions and jobs...or we would all be waiting on lists for mommy and me classes. Some don't have to work- some do. Some choose to stay home- others don't. It is okay to vent, but not okay to slander- so hug your children- tell them that you are doing the best that you can do as a mother- and you will always be there for them.

 

[mookie]

.

If I meet a mom who made her decision to stop work or to continue work without carefully thinking through how it would affect her future, then maybe I'll buy her the book. I've never met one. I'm guessing if there are people out there who don't give it a thought, they're not going to be out there buying the book either. IMO, the book has a small audience, WOHs who for some reason want ammo to support their own choices and have it be seen as the BEST choice - something I don't think exists since it would be different for every circumstance.

I know many, and I'm a SAHM! Many people think "it's only for a few years, what could it hurt?" as well as some who think financially, they could do it on paper, but IRL there is no way it could work. To many unknowns come up. Or they think they can cut back expenses when not really taking a good look at their spending habits. Then, when they quit their job and see what it's really like to live off that money, it's a wake up call.

I'm not defending the author by any means, trust me. But I do think anyone who decides to make such a change as losing a career/income must look at every possible financial scenerio first, and I don't think that everyone does that.