THE WOES OF THE WORKING MOTHER
Find a Conversation
THE WOES OF THE WORKING MOTHER
| Wed, 04-01-2009 - 12:06pm |
On the economical side of things, a comparison needs to be made between the homemaker and working-wife families.
Latest from the board
- Meal plan for the week of June 16:
- Working Moms Are to Blame...Really? 21
- Is the gender pay gap a myth where you work? 4
- Do you think your choices illustrate your priorities? 1
- How do you define success as a SAHM? 9
- Do you think that SAHDs are stigmatized? 3
- Family Friendly Professional Organizations 6
- Opt out or left out? 430
- Gender wage gap 6
- Women Not Taking Full Maternity Benefits 3
Memeber Support
Visit our Member Support area or browse the iVillage Help forum
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
Pages
That's what I'm guessing.
PumpkinAngel
++++++++++++++++++
Why hide your light under a bushel of bears, I ask you?
Why hide your light under a bushel of bears, I ask you?
The SAHMs I know shop more. A lot more. They have more free time to buy stuff, go out to lunch (especially the ones who have nannies or school-age kids), cruise the aisles at Target and Bed, Bath and Beyond, and pick up extra items they might need for their homes. So I'm guessing they spend just as much or even more than WOHMs do on work-related expenses.
It's a myth that working mothers have more disposable income and spend more money, at least in the little bubble where I live.
So much of this has no logic and certainly doesn't hold in many cases. But this sentence in particular cracks me up:
"It has also been shown that in the homemaker's family they spend as much as 50 percent less on clothing, transportation, recreation, and retirement over that of the working-wife's family;"
In what world is it good to spend less on retirement? By spending on retirement I can only guess they mean the money a family puts away to support themselves when they retire? So families with sahms save less for the years for when they retire? I don't think that is something to brag about.
My mil in fact was a sahm and worked later once her dh died (out of necessity). It is very true that they saved absolutely no money for retirement. Her dh did not need any money for retirement because he died before he ever retired. So he's good (in the financial sense of needing no retirement funds). But my mil now has to live on his social security (she didn't work enough to qualify). That's a pretty sad lifestyle to be bragging about to have to live on the puny amount she gets per month. And everyone knows that social security is not expected to be around when we retire . . . so a sahm should feel good that her family saves less for retirement so she will have little or no income to live on once her & her dh could no longer work? Yeah I'd be bragging about that!
Look at the very first sentence of the article. It presumes that a one-earner family and a two-earner family will have THE SAME INCOME.
"A comparison needs to be made between the homemaker and working-wife families. If the two families have the same amount of income per month, the homemaker's family total income will be higher than the working-wife's family income."
So what we are comparing here is families where the man brings home, say 80K a year as opposed to both bringing home 40K a year. So yeah, in that case, the single-earner family WILL have more disposable income because there will be few or no child care costs. DUH.
&nbs
Pages