Affording to Stay at Home

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-01-2007
Affording to Stay at Home
1968
Wed, 12-12-2007 - 12:20am

Ever notice that those moms that SAH are usually (although not always) more well off than mothers who WOH? It seems to me, based on what I have seen, that while most women enjoy working their jobs and having a professional life outside of the home, some women prefer to stay home with their kids for a certain amount of time - whether it be 1 year or 10 years - and those women have the option to do so, while other women wouldn't even consider the option because they feel they can't afford it.

Well, it has been my experience that most women who do stay at home have

1) husbands who support the idea

2) Husbands who probably earn enough (or almost enough) to support the family.

3) Enough money to support themselves without working.

**Now I am not talking about people who get help from government agencies, I am speaking about women who do it with no outside help - just seems like most women can't because of financial reasons. So, is being a SAH mom now an "upper class" phenomenon - in general? Of course there are many SAH moms that are middle class, but if they chose to have paying jobs, they'd probably move right back up into that higher income bracket.

Blythe

http://beaworkathomemom.blogspot.com/

Working on being...Supermom!

Blythe http://beaworkathomemom.blogspot.com/ Working on being...Supermom!

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 1:58pm
No one has said that this is in any way an ideal situation. Just that the only options are not renting roach-infested apartments in terrible school districts that will cause lasting damage to the kids or defaulting on a loan so as to be able to buy a house in a good school district.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:10pm

Saying that there is no more of a moral issue in your mind in killing a basically healthy, young pet and slaughtering a chicken DOES make it look like you see pets as disposable.


I havent said anything to you about how you treat your pets, other than to say that if you are not willing to shoulder the responsibility of the financial part of pet ownership, you really shouldnt own them. I'd say that to anyone who has a pet. To consider euthanasia for NO OTHER REASON than cost is irresponsible, imo. I dont think that is *slamming* at all.


Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:16pm

Sorry, no.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:17pm

Considering the cost of general vet care, one should be aware that spending $2k on a pet can happen quite easily. Thats why they have pet insurance these days. Pets can be an expensive luxury, and while I dont think one should go into excessive debt to pay for pet care, I also think one should really stop to think about potential expense before getting a pet at all.


I dont think the sky should be the limit (unless one is very wealthy-I recall one actor spending $9,000 on surgery for his 11mo dog. Not outrageous, imo, because he could afford it and the dog still had a long healthy life ahead) but I also dont think its right to have no moral issue with putting down a young and otherwise healthy animal because they *cost too much*.


Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:19pm
And I've tried to point out that while roach-infested places in crappy school districts might be avoidable, a so-so apartment might still be very pricey and not in as good a school district as one would wish.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2007
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:20pm

I think what she is saying is that she has kids who need a roof over thier heads and food to eat and she didnt foresee this cat needing a grand worth of medical care. Not that she sees the cat as being a pain and wants to kill it b/c she doesnt like it.


Now, myself, I wouldnt put it under. I would see if any local shelters could take him and home him out instead.


I have an issue with inhumane treatment of cats also. My mum has 30 cats/kittens on her farm right now b/c people drop off thier kittens on her farm, AND b/c she has 12 of her own cats that she ""Couldnt afford"" to fix. But now I bet she pays alot more to feed all those cats kittens. That is abuse to me, dropping them off in the middle of no where and not fixing the cats you have so they keep having more babies.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket">


              *Praying for my best friend, my Dad*


 &n

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:21pm

However, if people were willing to care for their pets the way they should be cared for, including shelling out $ where necessary and keeping the pet for the duration of that pets life, shelters wouldnt be so full.

Dj


"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~


Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:24pm
There's no moral question involved at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:27pm
Wrong again; shelters are full because people won't spay and neuter, and they abandon their pets.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-31-2007 - 2:29pm

Going by what has been posted here, it isnt about choosing between feeding ones children and spending $1500 on a surgery for a cat. Its about simply not wanting to spend the $.


And I agree that pets should not be dumped. I would certainly rather see an animal humanely put to sleep than dumped on a roadside. And one can get a pet spayed or neutered for a nominal fee through most humane societies, so not being able to *afford* it makes no sense to me.

Dj


"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~


Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

Pages