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
Well that narrows it down and clarifies the definition.
PumpkinAngel
No, I don't think I missed a great deal of the discussion.
PumpkinAngel
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
How do you feel about men being accessories to their wives' success?>>
Actually my dh quit his high paying job and stayed at home for three months while i went back into the work force, once we had the nanny and things in order he opened his own buisness. He was indeed behind me and played a very supportive role, a subordinate? No, i do not see like that. We are equally ranked in our marriage,and in raising our children. in fact my role as sah was ranked in order as higher on dh's list if he had to rank it but we do not do that. In no way do i or dh view my sah as secondary to his career or of less importance, he is not my superior b/c he made more money than i do or b/c i stayed home or he stayed home. we have a equal partnership. We are now parnters in a buisness. :)
We just disagree then. I do think a parent who gets another 40+ hrs/wk with preschool kids and doesn't spend any of it with them is not a very involved parent.
It's true that we all give up some time with our kids, but that doesn't mean that time spent has nothing to do with our involvement. Time is not the only factor, but it's an important one, and I disagree that the first five years of a child's life is an "extremely small" timespan. As my kids get older, I see that I will never again have the same amount of time with them that I had when they were small, regardless of work status.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<>
No offense but i do b/c of your last few post's.
Edited 3/22/2007 4:39 pm ET by xenozany
Pages