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
Yes, I like that one. It prooves what I've always known. That the time differences are very small.
It's nice when research backs up what you, intuitively, know to be true. But you woudln't know that feeling, would you?
Here's the link to YESTERDAY's post. Quit calling me a liar. You may not have found it but that does not mean I was lying when I said I posted it.
Edited because the link didn't get added the fist time.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-pssahwoh&msg=17631.310&
Edited 3/23/2007 5:52 am ET by gr8fulmom1
Some of it does for sure but with a $20K difference nowhere near all of it. Even if it were all of it, there's still pensions, 401K's and future earnings to consider. Plus the simple fact that Dh's of SAHW's make more than Dh's with WW's (from an article that ran in business week a couple years back and no I can't prove it but it's relevent to the debate here) so that $20K difference between SAHP households and DWP households would probably be greater if hte DWP households were converted to SAHP households.
Assuming my memory of that difference being $4K is correct, mom is contributing $24K on average to her household (which seems high. but maybe not. After all moms like me with well over three times that income are included in that average)
As to the dh's of SAHW's making more than the Dh's of WW's, that really stands to reason. The more your dh makes, the more you have a choice in the matter. Especially in women who have no real earning potential of their own.
No. People only really care about what they have.
Personally, I'm blessed to be able to contribute to my family the way I do. That my family can't afford to lose it makes it all the sweeter that I'm able to provide it.
Which is what I've been saying. Losses are proportional to earning potential, of course.
I was really surprised to see what mine would have been. I, honestly, didn't think I was highly paid enough to lose that kind of money taking time off to SAH. Both the loss in future earning potential (I know what rehires come back at and know what I make) and investment income on money that wouldn't have been saved were larger than the actual wages lost those years and that's before I consider buying health insurance and the value of my pension (which I'm not holding my breath on any more than I'm holding it on SS).
The time value of money makes years taken off early on very costly.
Most do. As I've said before none of this applies to the poor or the rich. The poor don't lose things like pensions and investment income. The rich don't care. It's so little compared to what they have it's meaningless. Those of us in the middle, however, do indeed have losses and they are greater than just the wages lost during those years.
Let's just hope that everyone who chose to give those monies up finds that when she's 60 is was a good decision.
Pages