Do you think a SAHM should go back to...

Avatar for val10154
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-26-2003
Do you think a SAHM should go back to...
1368
Fri, 09-05-2003 - 11:46am

Do you think a SAHM should go back to work once the kids start school?



  • Absolutely, why shouldn't she? There's no reason why she shouldn't.
  • It's up to her & her family.
  • No, not really. What do the kids being in school have to do w/ her working?


You will not be able to change your vote.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 2:55pm
That is what my DH said in reading her posts. S.V.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 2:57pm
She should meet this friend I have. NEVER leaves her children's side unless they are sleeping. She cleans house at night because she isn't home during the day to be the maid. She definately spends much more time than a WOHM does w/her kids. How can she not?

S.V.

Avatar for mjdphd
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:05pm
No, you are reading it wrong. It talks about the spread outward from cities. The problem is that these ourward developments from cites were not designed to be public transportation friendly because of the abundance of cars.

There is a stigma in this country about using public transport that doesn't exist in other countries. That is what is a shame.

Avatar for mjdphd
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:10pm
If you think gasoline is getting expensive here, check out the prices in Europe. It costs close to $5.00 for a gallon of gas. They are far more motivated to use the public transportation systems available.
Avatar for mjdphd
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:13pm
Mostly, those who you do find on the public systems are the poorer people. The ones who cannot afford to buy or keep cars. At least inside of the cities. There are still a fair amount of people who commute to the cites, New York in particular, that use the trains and buses.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:22pm
Well, more like $4 something (and we have the highest gas prices in Europe except for Norway). Still, public can often be cheaper, though not always. It certainly encourages carpooling. Taking the train as a single person, for instance, can be a bargain compared to the gas costs. But once you have 3-4 people travelling together by car, then the gas is definitely cheaper than the cost of the train tickets.


Laura

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:24pm
You are likely correct. The data that is out there speaks to the current batch of WM's and what they are accomplishing. However, the point is still the same, WM's ARE improving their family's financial situations and that is a good thing. This is why I find this debate illogical. If one side can show that what they ARE doing IS good why do so many still insist that SAH is better when there is no evidence of it's superiority?

The evidence out there does not say that SAHM's should go to work but rather that the current lot of WM's ARE benefittng their family's through their employment. Logically, women with lower earning potential are more likely to SAH and going to work without the financial benefits isn't an improvement. Wouldn't hurt anything but it wouldn't improve it either. What we can glean from the data is:

1. SAH/WOH in of themselves make little difference. Yes there are some differences but the majority come out in the wash by the end of grade school and the ones that are left may or may not apply to you. Financial aspects aside, it's pretty hard to use the data to decide which is best. For most, finances aside, the decision has to be made based on personal limitations and special circumstances.

2. The financial aspects of WOH do make a difference but this only applies to the current group of WM's. You can't infer that the same benefit would be derived if SAHM's went to work and I am not saying they should only that WM's are doing something good. It is quite likely that the average earning power of the current lot of SAHM's is lower than that of the current lot of WM's as the more mom makes and the more educated she is, the more likely she is to stay in the work force.

3. Fathers whose wives SAH make more money than fathers whose wives WOH which means if the current group of WM's were to just quit working, the average income for their families would be lower than that of the current lot of SAHM's. Hence, their working not only improves their SES over what the average is for SAHM's but avoids a reduction in SES as well. People seem to ignore that 40% of WM's out earn their dh's when it comes to this debate. That IS significant.

These little tidbits are the reason I think this should not even be a debate. If you are not in position to positively impact your family's SES or it doesn't need improving and you want to SAH, go for it but it's not better for the kids in any general kind of way. It's just a lifestyle choice. If WOH does positively impact SES then it is a good thing because WOH/SAH in of themselves make so little difference. We're compaing preferences to actual benefits here and the actual benefits lie on the WM side of the equation. Yes there are exceptions as there always are but, on average, the current lot of WM's can say that they ARE positively impacting their children's lives via the income they bring into thier families even if someone else doesn't think they need to work.

4. There is little difference in the amount of parenting done in a household with a SAHP and one where both parent work. On averge couples where one SAH average 24 minutes a day more parenting than couples where both WOH. The actual time lost isn't anywhere near the time mom is away from home.




Edited 9/13/2003 3:40:17 PM ET by cyndiluwho

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:26pm
Um, statistically, they are. They go farther in school and are less likely to become teen parents. Having grown up poor, I find those things VERY significant. Does this mean every single one is better? No. You're just stacking the odds not buying a guarantee.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:29pm
I wish someone would give those two a good smack of reality. I can see how high SES benefited them....it gave them the ability to booze it up at the famous clubs while wearing nothing but designer dudes that they exhausted themselves shopping for.

Have either of them done anything worth their parents money? I don't even know if they went to college and if they did...what for..."party 101?"

What's the oldest...22 now? I would *think* she would be something more worthwhile with her life then trying to compete with her younger sister in all the hottest fashions at the best clubs.

Get a job and stop living off of mom and dad's dime.

(sorry, my pet peeve about this whole high SES is that I don't want my girls to be standing on MY feet, when they have two perfectly good ones of their own. And I am not just talking the wealthy, such as the Hiltons either. I have seen too many friends never do anything with their lives because mommy and daddy already did...so why should they when they can take a ride for free?)

Avatar for mjdphd
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 3:29pm
Yes, and there is also the idea that if the US would invest in public transportation systems instead of building bigger and more roads, the problems of the major traffic jams would lessen. They always think, Well there are too many cars on the road, let's just widen the road. A better solution would be to get some of the cars off of the road. There are those that argue that it would be a better use of funds.

Pages