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 can see where it would be.
Robin
"And, actually I know several dozen SAHM's through the moms group at my church and my dd's schools and most haven't even considered their futures."
Perhaps the moms from church have faith in Jesus' words in Matthew 6: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. . . Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?" :)
Christian consolation aside, I have to agree with other posters that your discussion of SAHM's you know is not persuasive. Considering recent research stating that the average American only has 3 close friends, I find it highly unlikely that you've been able to poll 24 or more SAHM's about their retirement accounts.
I said nothing about one being better than the other. I think its a personal choice best made within each family, and I would not presume to judge others based on work status.
Your posts dont just talk about one being better than the other-your bias against sahps is very very clear, and always has been. That has nothing to do with research. Its just a prejudice.
You also seem to be under the assumption that anyone who is a sah will always be one, and will never have any earning power. I think one can be a sah for a period of time, while still planning for their future. My stint as a sahp did not hurt me or my family financially at all-we are in fact better off now than we've ever been. I credit having that time to re-evaluate my career and future as a big part of the level of success we have today.
Edited 8/10/2006 9:31 pm ET by djknappsak
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
Wake me gently
If you can
Wake me gently
Just touch my hand
Wake me gently
Pull my sleeve
'Cuz where I'm at
Is where I wanna leave
"Wake Me Gently" Alice Cooper
There are a few people on this board who don't think there is anything positive. I was asked what was "valuable" about spending the first 14 months of my kids lives with them full time. Honestly, I don't even know how to relate to someone who would *ask* that question!
MM
Logically, you have more to save if you actually have an income to save from. Given that SAH families earn less, on average than DWP families, they have less to start with."
Bull hooey. Much of the census data is skewed by single mom families. Which sadly are the worst off financially. And honestly there is more to the equation than the finances. Most people posting here, if not almost all, are well above the poverty line. They can actually *afford* to have a SAHP. Your issue is you don't see the value in SAHP'ng, period. So why not just drop the subterfuge and call a "spade a spade?"
MM
Someone as familiar with statistics and research as you should easily be able to see the fallacy of your argument.
You argue that research shows that SAH/WOH makes no difference in how kids turn out, and therefore it makes no difference which is chosen. Even if one were to accept as true that research shows no difference, would that mean that there was no difference for each and every child in the study? Of course not. You know that. If you were to look at the data, you would see a bell curve of data points: some showing no difference, most showing slight difference, some showing more significant difference one way or the other. The net effect might well be no statistically significant difference, but the effect for a particular child might be far different.
So of course the heart has to figure into it. Parents know their children. They know what will be a better fit for their children. They also know what will be a better fit for their families. To say that "SAH won't make a difference" is just silly. Of course it will for some.
Jennie
Pages