Working for Lifestyle/Extras

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-22-2005
Working for Lifestyle/Extras
3621
Mon, 11-20-2006 - 11:13am

Hi Ladies :)

This is my first time on this debate board and I have been dying to jump into some of the topics, but I feel as though they are sooooo long (one in particular is over 1000 replies, yikes!) that starting my own specific one might work out better.

Anyhow, a recurring theme here seems to be what Moms should and shouldn't be going to work for. It seems some are of the opinion that is OK for Mom to work if she must to pay her bills but NOT if its to afford a nice car, house, good neighborhood. This is considered keeping up with the Johnses (who are they???) and thats bad.

Well, I want to know what in the heck is wrong with a women working to have nice things? I don't mean working and leaving baby in child care 16 hours a day, everyday...thats pretty extreme.

I enjoyed a certain lifestyle before having a child, should I have downsized that lifestyle once baby came so I didn't have to work? What about me *wanting* to maintain a certain lifestyle for myself, my husband, and my child makes me a (a) workaholic or (b) striving to keep up with the Joneses?

Don't some people (like myself) simply enjoy living in a nice place with nice things and want their children to have the same experience?

So please, anyone who thinks a women is wrong for WOH if she is not doing so to financially survive but does it to maintain a certain lifestyle...whats wrong with this?

Thanks all :)

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Sat, 12-16-2006 - 9:40pm

Actually, if they invested after 9/11, they should be in pretty good shape now--I believe the market has rebounded quite nicely. DH's company stock finally hit its pre-9/11 price just last week.


When the market is in the toilet, it is usually a good time to buy b/c there are lots of bargains to be had! You just have to know how to play the game.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Sat, 12-16-2006 - 9:51pm

$1,000 to start an Emergency Fund--I guess if you have no savings, it's better than nothing, but 1K isn't much of an emergency fund to me.


Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball--meh--I think if you're using credit wisely and not paying interest, but your money is earning interest elsewhere, debt isn't such a bad thing.


Three to six months of expenses in savings--standard advice.


Invest 15 percent of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement--we invest over 30% straight off the top. But our investments are more diversified than just Roth IRAs and "pre-tax retirement."


College funding for children--see above


Pay off home early--we have a 15 year mortage, so we'll pay it off earlier than most, but we're milking that tax deduction as long as we can.


Build wealth and give! (Invest in mutual funds and real estate)--I think it is interesting that he's advising to invest in real estate (analysts are predicting that the real estate market could tank and it is declining in many areas) and not in the stock market. Diversity in your investments

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sat, 12-16-2006 - 11:23pm

I don't know anything about Dave Ramsey, but I always thought that a mortgage is considered "good debt." From what I understand it's because the house will most likely appreciate in value and at the end you will have something that is worth something. This is in contrast to cars, which depreciate, and CC debt, which is unsecured.

Jessica

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 3:21am

$1,000 to start an Emergency Fund--I guess if you have no savings, it's better than nothing, but 1K isn't much of an emergency fund to me.>>

You'd have to understand that the people who most use DR's advice are not people like you. They are people like me who never had an inkling about how to be fiscally sound. Our parents all were good in paying their bills. We figured we would be too but were irresponsible where our parents weren't. Today on the news I heard a statistic which said that 2/3 of Americans would not be able to pay their bills if they missed getting one paycheck. While you may think 1K is not much, it is to probably more of America than we'd like to think. Up until about 5 years ago, 1K was something we had to struggle to save--a dream to me.

The emergency fund is something a person sets up at the beginning of the program so that while paying off debt using the debt snowball they have something to pay for everyday type emergencies without having to struggle to get the money up and take away from paying off their debt. The idea is that most "emergencies" don't usually cost more than 1K. I haven't found any which have. If you already have a savings set up, it would be recommended that you establish a separate emergency fund so you don't touch the regular savings you have.

Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball--meh--I think if you're using credit wisely and not paying interest, but your money is earning interest elsewhere, debt isn't such a bad thing.>>

You are not who is using his advice because you are what you term to be fiscally sound. His focus are those people who are seeking financial advice and haven't or can't find a way out of their situation and need a way up, out of their situation. It's not like he's going door to door. If people want to listen and partake they do, if they don't they change the station. He's speaking to those who want to be in your position, to be able to say: "this is basic advice"

Three to six months of expenses in savings--standard advice.>>

Maybe, but most people can't even conceive of having 1K in the bank or elsewhere let alone 3-6 months savings. Take for instance our faith's belief that we should adhere to having 1 year's supply of food in addition to being fiscally sound and staying out of debt. People freak out and think we are busy hoarding food and for what? For a rainy day, that's what. For when it pours. So that when it pours you have food to feed your family and it is one less stress to have upon your shoulders. Usually, financially speaking, when it pours...people dig themselves deeper into debt and/or file bankruptcy if all other attempts to relieve themselves of the financial stress fail.

Invest 15 percent of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement--we invest over 30% straight off the top. But our investments are more diversified than just Roth IRAs and "pre-tax retirement.">>

His investment section goes much deeper than what you read on the baby step plan. It is in-depth and sound advice. I am starting the year off in January teaching this very concept to the kids in my class. 15% is a starting point for investments. It isn't a hard and fast rule of his.

College funding for children--see above>>

Pay off home early--we have a 15 year mortage, so we'll pay it off earlier than most, but we're milking that tax deduction as long as we can.>>

He'd agree with you on this one. He doesn't expect and will say as much for most people to be able to outright purchase a home, but it is something to work toward being able to do and take the money you'd otherwise spend on the monthly payment and invest it elsewhere.

Build wealth and give! (Invest in mutual funds and real estate)--I think it is interesting that he's advising to invest in real estate (analysts are predicting that the real estate market could tank and it is declining in many areas) and not in the stock market. Diversity in your investments is key.>>

His first love is the real estate market. He also recommends that as you invest that you study what you are investing in. Again, this is a tidbit of what he advises for building wealth.

Why is this guy guru exactly? He's not offering any new or particularly insightful info.>>

Perhaps not, but he's offering it to the 2/3 of Americans who are only a paycheck away from financial ruin. That's who he's a guru to. We were in those dire straits before by our own irresponsibility and following his advice has pulled us out of those straits and placed us in the 1/3 of America which is better off for having followed the basic, sound rules of financial health......and we did it by following his advice because we saw that he'd been there, done that and that he knew what he was talking about.

"Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life.&

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 3:22am

Thanks, but the boys are expected to go, whereas it is more of an optional thing for the girls? I am only asking because I do see some girls but nowhere near as many as the boys.

Edit: I see that you answered this already, so disregard.




Edited 12/17/2006 3:42 am ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 4:19am
so, now not only is sah better for the kids it is better for society. that is such a load of crap. can you please explain the horrible impact on society of declining inner cities. most of those households have a sahm,, yet the impact on society from that part of society is devestaing, not only to their particular communities but to society as a whole. and i am not saying everyone in the inner cities is to blame but there are large parts of our inner cities, remember, with predominately sahm's that are in pretty bad shape. when it comes to what is good or bad for society having or not having a sahp is so low on the list it doesnt even register.
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 4:23am
so you really think only kids with problems come from families with dual wohp's? you havent spent much time around kids have you. do you realize that at one of the columbine shooters had a sahm? i spend alot of time in our local school and have for the past 10-12 years, i have never been able to tell from the kids if they had a sahp or dual wohp's. what you can tell is if the kids have good parents, but that doesnt correlate to sah or woh
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 4:29am

of course you dont because i am a SAHM who doesnt buy the crap you are selling. on a debate board if one actually has a rebuttal they post it, so conversely, when they dont post a rebuttal you can pretty much be assured it is because they have none. the question is very simple,how do you know what is best for my child, whom you have never met? and NO, you have not addressed the question regardless of the number of times you have been asked - so i must go back to you have no answer.

just in case you werent aware, i too have lived both sides of the coin, i too prefer sah at this time, but i would never assume to play god and feel i could know what was best for any family/child other than my own. do you really think there is only one way to raise kids? because if that is the case one of us is doing it wrong because there is no way in he@@ i would raise my kids the way you are raising yours. that is not to say it doesnt work for your family but it is just not the way i want my kids to be raised.
Jennie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 4:51am
I agree. My dd is 14, so it is many years now that I have been in contact with a large number of families, through school, playground, extracurriculars etc. You can observe differences over time, but SAH/WOH does not seem to correlate to much. I do think that there are things which characterize successful parents in contrast to less successful ones, but I have seen people achieve good parenting under all kinds of different circumstances and ditto for poor parenting.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 5:08am

Thanks for that extensive answer, that helps.

You have a variety of things on your list. Knex, to me, is like lego and I do not think of it as educational. It is just fun. So, there our only quibble is one of classification.

The handhelds are where I do have a problem. It is not that I am against them in principle, but I think it is a cop-out and a mistake to consider them beneficial. IOW, the leap thingy is not appreciably different from the gameboy, and as you yourself say its main value is in saving your sanity on car trips. A fine and worthy goal, I agree, but nothing to do with edumacational in the end.

"The idea that our children have to learn only in a "natural" setting just doesn't make sense to me."

You are misunderstanding, I think. The example I gave in my original post was the difference between a baby learning letters, because the baby becomes interested in what mom (or dad) is doing and the baby sees the letters on a page in a context that has meaning, as opposed to a baby being flashcarded by a parent or having some toy that says the letters, for example. Surely you can see that there is a difference between those two situations.

As children grow and learn, they eventually reach a stage when they can take in info and assign it to the appropriate spheres as well as deal with abstract ideas and concepts. This is why multiplication flash cards may be helpful to a third grader actually learning multiplication, but would be a mistake and possibly downright harmful to a 3yo.

What I am saying here is pretty standard stuff, and as far as I know widely accepted among educators and other professionals who study and deal with children.

Pages