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: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:30pm
"Traditionally male," as in higher paid.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:31pm
Anything's *possible*, but this particular thread probably has the most meaning if it focuses on what's *realistic*. What's wrong with one parent holding down the fort at home while the other one goes for it professionally, even if the gung ho careerist parent ends up not being home too much? We don't all live in some ideal world where everyone in the family always gets just what they want.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:33pm

Um, I believe you were "confused" with being a sahm because you sah with your stepsons and didn't have a job. Not having a job is the definition of a sahm. As I recall, you got married at 19 and didn't finish college until 10 or so years later, so there must have been a fair amount of time that you were a sahm.

But I'm glad to see you're finally acknowledging your history again.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:33pm

"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. ;)'


Blech.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:35pm
It might be a negative to you, but you'll never convince a family whose financial success and stability seems to them to depend on that "subordinate" thing. Unfortunately, the way it's set up in this country, with so little public support for child rearing, that's the way a lot of families feel they have to do it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:38pm

Either a spouse would feel subordinate in the AH role, or not.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-15-2006
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:42pm

<>

we see this in totally different views.

<>

I think it is great!

My dh has alway's been a part of my success.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-15-2006
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:48pm

That's not the point as I understand it,

It is my point. I know it is anecdotal experience that has been my point also. I think you have missed a great portion of this discussion. There have been many many times that grateful has suggested that when one sah they lose in every way.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:58pm

No, I don't think I am taking it out of context.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Thu, 03-22-2007 - 3:58pm
Understood, but I also think there are elements of the "system" here that make it hard to avoid the "subordination" role, however one might feel about it.

Pages