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: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 7:56am

LOL, no in case you already forgot, you brought up stemcell research as an example of what you would like your government to focus on instead of dealing with family policy. Your tangent, not mine. I was simply curious as to whether you were pleased with your government's current focus in this area.

For the last time (I hope):

I never drew the conclusion that you claim I drew. I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that the preference to woh over sah is one that women in the EU express when asked. I posted the poll in question for you, a couple of times now. My conclusion that they prefer to WOH was NOT based on the number of women who WOH.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:17am

Man, for somebody who insists she's not judgmental, you're pretty. . .judgmental.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:38am
Do you approve or disapprove of your mom and your best friend being WOHMs?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:41am

"Many salaried jobs require this type of time commitment--or more--and I think many parents choose to SAH BECAUSE of the long hours their spouses work, and perhaps have to work for their careers."


In my experience, when a couple has their first child, 9 times out of 10, the mother has to change her hours or her job.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:43am

Sorry, I've been a WOHM since each of my two children was 3 months old, and I don't feel guilt.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:46am

Just how high do you think the taxes are in Sweden? Even at the highest tax bracket, the whole income is not taxed at that rate, only a part of it. I've compared what we would pay in taxes in California (total taxes, not just federal taxes, i.e. federal, state, local, ss) in our income bracket to what we pay in Sweden. Big surprise, it's only a few percentage points less. Given that we do not have to pay anything for health insurance, dental insurance for the kids or university for the kids, we come out way ahead financially in Sweden. To have even close to the same standard of living in most areas of the US where we could get jobs, we'd both have to work...and then a lot of the income would go to dc plus we'd have a lot less vacation.

The tax system in Scandinavia is a straight-forward system of individual taxation as opposed to joint taxation. For an interesting discussion of the two methods of taxation (and the question of who benefits from each), try:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7&sequence=2

"If a gov. makes conditions extremely favorable for employment (childcare, flexible hours) and taxes the single income earner highly for these things, more mothers are likely to work."

Again, how "highly" do you think people are taxed? I pay about 32% tax in total on an income that is significantly higher than the US median income (that percentage is for federal and local taxes and includes the Swedish equivalent of social security). From those taxes I get completely free health coverage and the knowledge that I do not have to save for college expenses. Dh and I together made about $30,000 per year 11 years ago in the U.S. Between state and local taxes, our tax rate was about 30%.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:47am

"I can agree with you here except that in the title of the thread and the OP go to the point that some people are not as dedicated to the raising of their children themselves as others are in that they are willing to abdicate that responsibility to someone else in order to provide nice or nicer or the nicest things."


WOHMs who use othercare no more abdicate their child rearing responsibilities than fathers who are gone from home 60 hours a week abdicate their responsibilities to their wives.


And how many times must we post that WOHMs work for much more, in many cases, than "in order to provide nice or nicer or the nicest things"?

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:50am

"The unemployment rate has not been a problem here for a while. Last time I checked (about a year ago), it was about 4 - 5 %."

Oh! you mean there is no longer any concern about the millions of people who are on welfare and no longer officially registered as unemployed? They're all employed now? Or else the government no longer has an interests in getting them into the workforce so that they can pay taxes and not just draw benefits?

"Even in the US where 2 incomes are very helpful, we have more mothers at-home than Sweden. 58% (or your 63%) is still substantially less."

Except when kids are over the age of 6, then suddenly the rate goes up to 78%, which is not so far off of the Swedish rates. I strongly suspect that dc costs have a lot to do with those numbers. It becomes financially feasible for women to go back to work only when kids are in school for a substantial part of the day. I wonder what those rates would be if dc were free or very cheap.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:52am
Interestingly, Sweden is one of the biggest investors per capita in stem cell research and has some of the most open laws regarding such research. Good thing it's a democracy, eh :-)?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 11-30-2006 - 8:54am
Naah, Swedes definitely know how to enjoy their vacations. Parental leave is just one extra long vacation (and for some strange reason, fathers seem to always snag the summer months at home with the kids :-)).

Pages