The "cost of working"
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 03-15-2007 - 2:08pm |
I have been reading a lot of articles on this issue which claim that the cost of working is not worth your salary. One article claimed that it isn't worth it for a mom to work unless she is making at least 70K a year.
I don't see it at all. They cite things like work clothing, lunches out (instead of making your own at home), and gas.
The way I see it, gas money is always something you are going to need. When I wasn't working, I always went out and did things to combat boredom. Not only that, but there were errands to run. And if I did stay home with my children, I don't think I'd just want them at home with me all day just so I can save on gas (or just taking them along on errands). I'd want to take them fun places and do fun things. I would need gas to do that.
Work clothing is a null issue for me. We have to wear polo shirts with our logo and black or khaki pants. Pants I have always gotten at thrift stores. The company gives us the shirts, and if we want more than they give us, the shirts are $18. (Big deal).
As far as lunches go, I bring my lunch not to save money, but because our cafe is horrid and there isn't anywhere to really drive to on our lunch breaks. I only eat in the cafe on break if it's an emergency. I don't even like walking past it because of the smell.
It just doesn't seem to me like the "cost of working is not worth my salary" thing will really fly in my own life. I already know that I make more than the cost of daycare, anyway. I would only be breaking even there if I had three or four kids.
Does anyone else just not know where people get these equations?

Pages
Uh ,yes. That's how women quitting is often viewed. I've heard all kinds of derrogatory comments about women "just quitting when they have babies" and not being worth investing in.
I'm not talking about my views. I'm talking about how industry seems to veiw women who quit to SAH and wondering aloud whether or not men who quite to SAH are viewed the same way. They're not kind by any means.
Unfortunately, the work world does look down on women who "just quit when they have babies". I just wonder if it also looks down on men who do the same. Unfortunately, they don't exist in high enough numbers to know that any time soon.
Me too. There just wouldn't be enough at home to fill my day. If I tried, I'm afraid I'd end up micro managing my kids and they don't need that.
If I SAH, I'd go to work for Habitat for Humanity. That would be fun.
What "many years" did I SAH with my step sons? Care to tell me how "many years" I SAH? That's news to me but if I did SAH for "many years" which I didn't in spite of your insistance I did, I would not consider it the same as being a full time student, which I actually was for a few years. I was, however, not a SAHM for "many years".
I'm going to assume you are talking about the period of time I was out of the work force and not in school dealing with my psychpathic step son and the issues arising from his illness. Which, was NOT a period of MANY YEARS. Finances aside, there are some emergencies in life that must be dealt with. That was one of them. It wouldn't have mattered how much that time out of the work world cost me. There was no alternative. Day care for psychopathic children is in short supply but they MUST be closely supervised.
His condition, BTW had nothing to do with me deciding to quit my job and go to school. I returned to work in short order after that time off to pay his psychiatric bills and for a private school that would actually deal with is issues, for him. When my MIL decided to take that over for us, in the bill paying dept, and sent him to a boarding school, I quit my job and went back to school myself. While my youngest step son was still in school, I do not consider myself a SAHM for those years. I was rarely home. I was carrying a full load in college. Why anyone would confuse a full time student with a SAHM is beyond me.
it makes sense, but it really doesn't address my question. i'm not questioning someone who, like pnj, who is comfortable with 3h/d (under certain circumstances--in this case with in-home care from a nanny); i'm not agreeing that 3h/d is insufficent or that any longer or shorter period of time is appropriate.
i'm only questioning why someone who feels that 3h/d is not enough also feels that 1h/d *is* enough. for your explanation to answer my question, the op would have to believe that having a nanny care for her children in their home would be as acceptable as having a sahp, and i get the impression that she doesn't feel that way. i have never questioned pnj's opinion on the subject because there isn't any contradiction embedded in it; i'm asking another poster to explain how she rationalizes the contradiction in her comfort level.
I am a software engineer and I would NEVER think the above.
Pages