What would you give up to stay home?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 08-05-2006 - 8:36am |
Hi everyone.
I have always said that staying home is so important to me that I would give up many things to be able to do that. We live in a very small home, I have no jewelry and we buy all our clothes at Walmart. I know that if I went back to work, we could afford more. But I would never trade being at home for a larger house or more luxuries.
However, after reading this board I have started to suspect that there are things I would not want to give up. If I couldn't send my kids to preschool a couple of hours a day, if I couldn't afford any after school activities like ballet lessons or if I could'nt afford any kind of summer program for them, I think I would have to find a way to go back to work. So basically, I'm perfectly happy to deny myself "things." But I would not want to take much away from the kids.
Of course I would probably have to find a new career becuase I could never work the 80 hours a week my old career entailed.

Pages
I noticed on this board that there are often posts "doing the math" as to how many hours a person spends at home. But I think that this would vary greatly depending on your occupation, the time you commute, how far your live from your daycare, if you and your spouse have different schedules ect..
For me it was: my son was in daycare from 7 or 7:30pm until about 5-5:30pm. I did the drop off and pick up because dh works downtown and takes the bus and I had the car.
I woke my son up at 6am and he went to bed at 8pm.
So really, for *me* - I only saw him about 1 hour in the morning (while rushing to get ready and off to work) and about 3 hours at night (while making dinner, cleaning up ect). And weekends. But often I had to go in on weekends since I worked in a lab. Plus I found that we would spend at least 1/2 of one day on the weekend catching up on house chores like laundry, groceries ect. It just was not optimal for us given our particular circumstances. I do find that now that I am home I have, what seems to me, to be a lot more time and a less "rushed" lifestyle, which for *us* works out better.
But that being said, some people have more flexible jobs, their kids are in school (my son is still only 2), they work shifts that allow for more time with their kids, ect.
So it probably varies a great deal. Also some people dont feel they need as much time. They prefer "quality over quantity" . I like quality and as much quantity as I can get while my son is still little and pretty dependent. But that is my personality and my preference, of course not everyone will feel this way.
What is your logical explanation for the finding? WHat about simply having a job would result in a dd being more career oriented and taking education more seriously?
It's actually quite a logical explanation. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
Why would you not have children until you can buy a home?
(We had ds while living in a rented duplex in a nice neighbourhood. It was fine. And we did eventually buy.)
Not my opinion. It is well known that income is one of the variables that impacts how our kids turn out. If affects where you live, where your kids go to school, who their peers are and other educational opportunities. How much a particular moms income impacts her family varies but it does impact the family even if her income just means they can more easily afford necessities.
One of the things corrected for by researchers is income because they know it matters.
You know, I shamefully have to admit - so did I! LOL
I do realize there are many women on this board with good jobs who chose to continue working after kids. But I've said before I live in a smaller town, not a large city where people probably need to work more demanding jobs that require more education in order to make enough money to buy and live.
If I continued to WOH ft after my kids were born, yes we'd be making tens of thousands more a year. But we have plenty of $ to live each month and still save. So I might retire a few years later... Or not. Who knows, I could still get a kickass paying job after the kids start school, in my field i can be paid a lot of money, and still retire at a decent age.
SAH does not usually determine your future retirement age.
That is the true benefit of research. Knowing what to look for so you can correct it. I don't think you'd necessarily see the same result if you did the same tests a generation later because people would put in place corrective measures.
Take the bf'ing/bottle feeding debate. One issue is the IQ difference so now we have formulas that seek to close that gap. IQ tests on kids in 10 years probably will show a much smaller gap if any because corrective actions are put in place.
You look at the research, dedide if what it shows matters and then act accordingly.
For a lot of people (many people I know), the more they make, the more they spend. So even if they do work - they just end up spending more (sometimes more then they make) and being in the same bad situation (or worse). They work and are able to get credit and use it till they max it out. When they were home, they did not spend and most couldnt get credit (this happend to a girlfriend, they were pretty bad when she SAH, but even worse when she went and worked - she spend more then she made AND wracked up a $26,000 credit card debt in 3 years!).
So either way - they are often scr*wed because they cant handle their spending habits or use smart financial planning.
Edited 8/9/2006 11:58 am ET by noah2004
Pages