Does America want Moms to stay at home?
Find a Conversation
Does America want Moms to stay at home?
| Mon, 12-12-2005 - 11:28am |
It was actually dh that suggested that America (gov't I suppose) wants Moms to stay at home. From what I have learned from these boards daycare is hideously expensive and maternity leave is very short. Many have said they couldn't afford to work because of daycare costs. Compare this to Canada where we have $7 a day daycare and Quebec is increasing maternity leave to 2 years at 55% pay or 1 year at 75% pay in January. With the $7 a day daycare Moms can easily afford to work, and with the paid maternity leave Moms can easily afford to stay home. It seems that in the states you're 'forced' into situations because it's your only option. Can't afford daycare? Stay at home. Maternity leave too short or have to work to support the family? Go back to work. Would any of you prefer if it would be easier financially to make either decision like it seems to be in Canada or are you fine with how it is?






Pages
Gotcha.
In my day, I was actively *discouraged*.
Mondo
<>
How would you feel about your tax dollars going to help a hard-working tax-paying family buy health insurance? And is there a category of folks whom you would not totally support helping when beset with a catastrophic illness?
You don't agree that the exact same amount of money, invested conservatively in the stock market over the same amount of time, would have resulted in a greater return?
Pat
Pat
"If you need something done, ask the busy man. The other kind has no
oh dear. don't get me started on doctor bills. ds's delivery was itemized to the penny...something like a grand just for the needle that inserted the epidural? then another two grand for the anethesiogist (sp). etc. etc.........and i am a complainer when it comes to waiting to get in to see a doctor. the visit ends up being so much shorter than the wait etc. etc.
but your dh sounds like one nice dentist to wait for. especially after the one that we took our children too..
That presumes that it WOULD have been invested in the stock market. Big assumption, and mostly wrong. The most likely scenario for the avg. working-class person would have been that they would have put it in bank CD's or US Savings Bonds, *if* they managed to save it, and not use it to pay rent or utilities.
An example? My MIL and my GFIL. GFIL went into a nursing home at age 94. At the time, he had a net worth of $90K, plus the value of his house. Every CENT of his savings was in bank CD's &/or USSB's. He also collected SS and a traditional pension. By the time he died last year at 101, he had spent all but $30K of his savings on his nursing home care. MIL has a federal pension, she was a clerical worker for 10 yrs. after she was widowed. My FIL left no survivor's benefits other than SS. Fatefully, on Sept 1, 2001, DH finally convinced MIL to move her savings from bank CD's to the stock market. He finalized the investments on 9/10/2001. You can guess the rest. What survived has finally begun to make a decent return again, at a net of around 12%, but she complains CONSTANTLY that the accounts generate too much confusing paperwork, and she wants to put the money back into bank CD's, which she understands and is comfortable with.
SS was never designed to provide retirement funding for middle-class educated people who understand how investments work. It was designed as a universal insurance policy, so that people who don't handle money well wouldn't end up freezing to death in an unheated apt. once they got too old to work.
Pages