Kids as an "excuse" to stay home
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 08-15-2008 - 2:16pm |
No one would likely ever admit to this...but what percentage of women who stay at home, and have no plans to ever return to the work force, or to do more than work PT...stay home because of the kids, but also for the major fact that they simply don't want to work?
I don't love my job every second, and there's definitely jobs out there that I don't think I could get out of bed for every day. But the idea of never working again, and being completely dependent on my spouse...kind of blows my mind. I realize not everyone's of the same ilk, and one's not better than the other.
I do wonder how many of the women who go on and on about how great it is to be home with the kids, are primarily just relieved to not have to punch the clock every day in addition to being mom.

Pages
YES
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
For some, yes.
I keep reading your posts about how *your* SOL requires 1 income and someone else's requires 2. Is there some sort of standard income you are referring? I don't see how either SOL would require a certain number of incomes- just that both need a certain amount *of* income. How you get it depends on ones earning ability and job/life choices.
For example: My family's net income is X. We have two families near us with essentially the same net income. One family has one income from one woh spouse. One family has two incomes from two pt woh spouses. The third has two incomes from two ft woh spouses. We all have the same SOL.
It isn't about how many incomes are "required". It is about how much the income is and does it cover what you need and reasonably want.
You'd have more choices, too, if you made $100,000 a year. The fact that you're not interested in those choices doesn't change the fact that you could save more money if your household had more income.
and i don't deny that.
I think we're both in agreement that for you and your family, you being a SAHP is the right choice.
I hope you're also saying that for me and my family, me WOH FT is the right choice for us.
"...but the values we place forth,the income for which my husband's provides is comfortable for our family.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
What values are you placing forth, that are based on income?
PumpkinAngel
PNJ *doesn't* need two incomes for her family to have the SOL they want. They could do it on one income if that income were high enough. It is not just about who works and who doesn't. It is about *where* one works and what job they do. PNJ *OR* her DH *could* work for an employer that provides the same total income they currently earn and as a result one of them *could be a sahp - with the SAME SOL and the same financial goals. If that were one of their priorities, they would have done it that way.
In our area, there are plenty of people with one income whose household income is greater or the same as PNJ and her DH. There are also plenty of families whose dual incomes add up to half PNJ's household income. For them, it would take 4 incomes.
It isn't about one or two or four incomes. It is about the total income needed (for their chosen SOL and financial goals) and what job(s) they want to do and what job(s) allow for a balanced family life - for them.
I am sorry, I am having a hard time understanding your question. Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted something. No one has to "admit" that her income is necessary to maintain the family's preferred standard of living, if that is indeed the case. It is nothing to be ashamed of. If a family chooses a standard of living that is based on two incomes, then that is what they choose, and I have a hard time finding anything shameful in that. I have heard numerous women on this board over the past few years saying things like, "My income goes toward....." and then naming some luxuries they wouldn't have without her income.
You have made choices for your family based on the fact that you want a mostly SAHM. There is nothing to defend there, either. It is your choice.
That is a really good question. Mind if I take a stab at it?
For me, if you are working for the basic necessities of life -- regular nutitrious meals, safe, adequate shelter, basic transportation, access to health care, that sort of thing, you are working because you have to.
If you have all those things and are working in order to upgrade those things, maybe have a nicer, newer car, or a bigger house or in a better neighborhood, you are working because you choose to.
If you are working for luxuries, you are definitely working because you choose to, not because you have to.
Pages