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
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
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.
"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" />
Either a spouse would feel subordinate in the AH role, or not.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<>
we see this in totally different views.
<>
I think it is great!
My dh has alway's been a part of my success.
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.
No, I don't think I am taking it out of context.
PumpkinAngel
Pages