Opt out or left out?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Opt out or left out?
430
Mon, 05-13-2013 - 3:31pm

This article says that most SAH moms do so, because they can't afford to work (i.e. couldn't make enough to cover their childcare costs).  Or that their husband's income is in the top 5% of earners in the US.  So SAHMs are at the two extreme ends of income.  This seems to me to be pretty much what we've found through discussions on this board.  Do you think that there should be programs in place to make it easier for SAHMs in the lower income brackets to go back to work?  How could this be accomplished?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/opt-out-or-left-out-economics-stay-home-moms-1C9881635

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2013
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:32pm
springfever2013 wrote:
<p>You DO realize that these are OLDER children in this article, right? MOST people are looking to adopt babies and that is why, unfortunately there are so many kids in the foster care system. </p>

You DO realize that some people don't fall on hard times until their children are older, don't you? Someone's financial situation during a pregnancy can change for either better or worse as life moves on.

Yep, absolutely, BTDT

We were talking about adopting kids though, mainly babies

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:37pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
But you see, Some couples get gifts towards home purchases too, Sometimes in the neighborhood of $100,000+.... If you don't believe it exists it does.

Of course it exists, as does giving financial gifts to adult children each year and it's not based on need all the time either, but rather a gift from a parent to an adult child, plus it's a tax planning tool.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:37pm

What is the intention of welfare? I see people always make the disclaimer that they're OK with welfare usage as long as it's being used as intended.

I thought the intention was as an economic buffer, much like unemployment, to help stave off the further downward spirals of regular and expected shifts within the economy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:40pm

<<Really? I have a friend who has been trying to adopt for years and it must not be THAT easy to adopt in the U.S. if the majority of people I know who HAVE adopted have done so out of the country. Others waited for so long for a baby in the U.S.

Did that statistic (which I am not sure where you got) deter your dsd to put her child up for adoption? <<

It is, there are a thousands of children in the foster care system waiting to be adopted in the US, right now.  Friends of mine are a foster family and they have had numerous infants over the last couple of years, some staying longer than others, some going back to their parents and some being adopted.  I know a number of families who have adopted children in the US out of the foster care system.  

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:42pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
<p>There's enough ASSumptions to go around spring, It's not just you, Lol.  And yea, Wouldn't it be nice to just write a check and adopt a kid in this country, No.  It's not that easy, In fact it's easier to abort than adopt which makes me sick.  There's a real dysfunction with welfare and those that can't see the forest through the trees. </p>

I see, adding smug and consending to passive agressive.  It's not a pretty combination.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2013
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:42pm

What is the intention of welfare? I see people always make the disclaimer that they're OK with welfare usage as long as it's being used as intended.

I thought the intention was as an economic buffer, much like unemployment, to help stave off the further downward spirals of regular and expected shifts within the economy.

Intended meaning someone is in dire need of services because they have lost their job or something happens to them that they are getting no income or a limited income. Something that is for a short period of time, not years. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:43pm

<<Yep, LOTS of assumptions. My view is soooo wide it is unbelievable. I don't think your views are narrow because you explain how YOU do things. I think it is narrow when you don't see that not everyone helps themselves and others have to pay the price in life because of it.>>

....and yet you have failed to address the topic at hand, instead choosing to go wild with the assumptions that don't fit your narrow view of a plan on how to have parents.  


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:44pm

springfever2013 wrote:
Again because my view ARE wide, I know that. It is hard to debate a snip-it of this woman's life. There are too many questions that are unanswered. I know women how are in this same situation. Some who truly can't work because of their dh's hours but dh's who work overtime or 2nd jobs to cover the wife's paycheck she is losing. Some who could work but decide not to and struggle and have others help them. There are many other stories than just these 2 but I have a wide view of different families and what they do after kids.

Except the debate prompt I posted had nothing to do with this one particular woman's life.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2013
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:45pm

....and yet you have failed to address the topic at hand, instead choosing to go wild with the assumptions that don't fit your narrow view of a plan on how to have parents.  

Nope, I have said what my company does for mothers who want to go back to work. 

What was your solution?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2013
Tue, 05-14-2013 - 4:46pm

Except the debate prompt I posted had nothing to do with this one particular woman's life.  

One of many in the same situation. I have indicated how my company deals with this situation. What would your solution be?

Pages