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
Thanks, but St. Luke's is way too far afield for us, we see a group at Barnes.
Actually, my last one stuck pretty well, but the baby developed hydrops, so she still didn't make it, turned out to be T21. I've been advised at this point that my best option is donor eggs, but IVF just isn't a realistic option for us, for the same financial reasons. We'd like to have a second living child, but our world won't end if we don't, so we've opted to let nature mostly take its course.
City Hospital was old, and had wards instead of rooms. It was originally built before the civil war, and even the "new" incarnation had become pretty ragged by the 1960's. Regional was built with an eye to replacing it after the slum clearances of the 50's, when the number of concentrated poor shifted to the north side. Regional is still a useful hospital building, though it had a hard life; it just ran out of money when the state pulled the plug.
I would be old enough to remember City Hospital, had I lived here then, but I moved to STL in 1988, when I was 27. When I first moved here I lived in Soulard; I passed CH every day on my way to work; and every day thieves took away a little bit more of the copper roof -- I watched it gradually disappear over the course of about 8 months. They are renovating the building as office condos, now that the high-rise projects that stood behind it have been torn down.
SS was never meant to be the main source of retirement income for anyone. It was supposed to be the fall back, the cushion. The just in case.
People were always supposed to be able to save for their own retirement. I mean, is anyone even really entitled to "retirement"? If you really think about it?
See, a lot of my family is downtrodden as well, but it *is* their fault. Bad, bad choices. Came from the same stock, had the same opportunities.
I will never feel guilty for 'sitting pretty' and you shouldn't either. Feel blessed, of course. But not guilty.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The more we debate this, the more I'm convinced that the haves and have nots will never understand each other's perspectives for one minute.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages