The "cost of working"

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2006
The "cost of working"
961
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 2:53pm

Well then I guess I was confused by the first part of the statement where you talked about averaging the time over 18 years in that one didn't give up anything by woh?

PumpkinAngel

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:02pm
I was talking about grateful's time study, which she has often posted. It averages out time spent with kids over 18 years, which includes the school years when kids are not home. She uses that to argue that wohps only give up something like 20 minutes a day (I don't remember the number, but it is very small) with their kids by woh when the kids are preschool-age. Of couse the time you give up with kids when they are in school is much less, which is why her "study" is misleading.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:09pm

I

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:10pm

I wonder if that is less of a concern here (Canada), where maternity and parental leaves can equal an entire year? I have not heard stats that support a significant decrease in the hiring of women since these long mat leaves were introduced.

I also think that these comments might exist more in engineering or other traditionally male occupations.

Carrie

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:15pm
We are talking about a discussion we have had before about a study she has posted numerous times. Therefore, you are reading this out of context. My post had nothing to do with whether wohms can be involved parents. It's about her assertion that, in previous conversations we have had, that she did not give up any time with her kids by working ft when they were preschool age. She uses a study to bolster that opinion that averages out time spent with kids over 18 years, plus her own assertion that she would not have spent any more time with her kids when they were preschool-age if she had sah with them. IMO, someone who is given an additional 40+ hrs/wk *with* preschool kids and doesn't spend any of that additional time with them is not a very involved parent.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-15-2006
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:17pm

Im curious what is so negative about being a accessory to your dh's success. You know what they say behind every successful man is a women. ;)

I did not give up my career for dh to shine at work. He was perfectly capable of doing that on his own. I quit my job b/c we wanted to get married and have children he was offered a very high paying demanding position that would not be possible with a working spouse with young children, it made our lives easier all the way around with much less stress by my sah so we could live seasonlly and travel with dh. Im thrilled i did, the education and culture my children have recieved is pricless. He now has accomplished his goals in his career and has ventured out on his own.

I went on to recieve a higher education to study other things and travel the world with my family that we would have not been able to do had i worked out of the home.

The choice we made was healthy for us.




Edited 3/22/2007 3:37 pm ET by xenozany
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:17pm
A family that makes a whole lot less than hers.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:18pm
Probably so.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:20pm
You're looking at a gross number (which is unsupported, but I'm taking your word for it). The net number is much more relevant--and usually much smaller.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:27pm

"In fact, most people make career choices that cost them far more than that. A cost is only "too high" to the extent that it is "too high" for a particular individual or family."


And this is exactly right.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages