# of SAHMs on the rise (m)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
# of SAHMs on the rise (m)
23
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 11:44am
Charlesmama and others, I stand corrected. I didn't realize the number of SAHPs was so low.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/135013095_moms170.html


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 11:47am
But look at the number of SAHDs too.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for cindytree
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 11:57am
I thought this was a great article that showed views from both sides as well as accurate statistics, but brace yourself. Many will likely read it and pick apart what certain people said in the article on both sides of the issues. Nature of the beast here. Objectivity doesn't count for much at this board, only what "proves" one view or the other.

Cindy

Avatar for tickmich
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:02pm
It was an interesting article. I really dont see how anyone could get inflamed from this article. It mostly presented people's opinions on why they chose to stay home. The article didnt make a value judgement on SAH.


Edited 6/20/2003 12:03:56 PM ET by tickmich
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:14pm
I'm not inflamed and don't especially want anyone else to be, but did you all notice this stat?

"For instance, about 16 percent of children with stay-at-home moms lived in poverty, quadruple the rate of those with moms in the work force, O'Hare found. And 14 percent of children with married, stay-at-home mothers lacked health insurance, compared with 8 percent of those with employed moms"


I guess I'm more shocked than anything else that 16% of SAHMs children live in poverty. Do you think staying at home in these cases is because they can't get a job or can't get one to cover childcare costs? The poverty level is so low - isn't it something like $15,000 for a family of four - surely they don't stay home by choice in this situation?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:21pm
Actually I thought it a little unclear of the number of children who are watched by SAHDs WRT total children in the US. It only said that the # of SAHDs were up 18% of how many SAHDs there used to be. Not 18% of children. (But still, you're right, there are quite a few)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:25pm
I'd wager a guess that anyone under the poverty level probably couldn't work for much above minimum wage and probably couldn't afford childcare. (Or is on welfare and really doesn't want to work whether they have children or not)
Avatar for cindytree
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:32pm
Oh, I agree. It was an excellent article.

Cindy

Avatar for biancamami
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:45pm
I'm interested in the Hispanic angle actually...I don't quite understand it. From what I have observed, many Hispanic women would LOVE to work but they just wouldn't make enough money to cover child care costs...not even close. I don't necessarily think that working is against our culture but rather that MANY of these women have several infants close in age and unless their extended family is over here, who is going to take care of these children? I'm seeing women with 3 or 4 kids under the age of 6....if they can only earn minimum wage what is the point in entering the workforce?

I do think in our culture we place an emphasis on the children being taken care of by the family and the whole daycare center concept seems alien to many. But I think many Latino women would definitely enter the workforce if they had childcare resources available to them. Perhaps we operate differently in my country ....but I have not observed any stigma placed on Hispanic women who work. Especially among immigrants, getting ahead financially is probably the biggest priority for many families.

Ana
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:45pm
I am going to use examples from my own life and my friends of stay at home families that are under insured. I do NOT agree with the choices they made but it is their lives. I really do not understand the thinking.

1. DH is unemployed for over a year now. She was a CPA before she stayed home. They have a 7,5,3 and one due in January. They were uninsured for about 3 months before he got a temporary job. She stated that if she got pregnant during this time that she would just go on medicaid. She is doing some work at home but refuses to get a job outside of the home while her DH stays home. She stated that she is doing what she loves and she does not want to give it up. They got earned income tax credit this year. He has had 2 possiblities of a good paying position but took his name out of the running. They were not family friendly positions and required travel.

2. DH owns his own business and she was a special-ed teacher. She stays home and chose not to work for insurance. She would not take her children to the doctor when they had anything minor-croup, ear infection because she could not afford it. They have family friends that are a doctor and a nurse and they provided some free medical care. Tragically, she had a medical crisis and now owes over 100,000 in doctor bills.

Being uninsured or underinsured when you have children is irresponible. Medical crisis can happen at any time. DH did not have insurance when he first underwent brain surgery. He was working as a clerk for a bookstore and he was 24. He did not think he would get sick. The second time, we had excellent insurance. Why? He found a job that provided excellent insurance. We are always insured. He is getting laid off in October and we can go on mine. We have always made sure we have aquedate insurance.

Is staying home so important that your family should be underinsured or in poverty? I don't think so.

Off my soapbox now.


Edited 6/20/2003 12:46:44 PM ET by kmgalligan

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 12:50pm
This is the part that really struck me:

"They have a 7,5,3 and one due in January. They were uninsured for about 3 months before he got a temporary job. She stated that if she got pregnant during this time that she would just go on medicaid."

Why the IF? IF she got pregnant?

What happened to being responsible for your own fertility? With the availability of a WIDE VARIETY of birth control, there's really no excuse for them to bring another child into a situation where you can't afford it & have no insurance.

Pages