Shouldn't the poorest moms WOH?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Shouldn't the poorest moms WOH?
19
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 5:44am
Lots of SAHP families here do without a lot of material things just to SAH. Recently in the news in the United States, many housing advocates and SAHMs who live in public housing have complained about the federal government's requirement that they perform 8 hours/month of community service in exchange for their low rent apts. That totals only 96 hours a year. They say it's unfair because other SAHMs don't have this community service requirement despite receiving some federal benefits, such as deducting mortgage interest from taxes.

I didn't realize any right-thinking, single woman in public housing would chose to SAH when only through working can she improve her situation and get her child/ren out of public housing. Shouldn't the poorest, single moms in US society WOH? For instance, the fed'l gov. should require real pt employment (more than 2hrs/wk) in exchange for housing. How would you feel if you and your DH are working an extra month or 2 each yr. to support these women?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 6:26am

First, let me say that I don't mind putting money into the welfare system (and yes I do, I claim every penny that I make) and neither does my husband.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 6:30am
I would agree if such Moms had access to good quality childcare, but more often than not, they don't. The poorest working folks have the most difficult time finding childcare and it gets worse when Mom tries to work non-traditional hours (the kinds of jobs that tend to pay a bit more for low skill or for accepting and training unskilled into skilled jobs).

When childcare--good quality, affordable childcare--is available to such women, then I will probably be less likely to accept welfare/workfare women who SAH.

But as a single WOHM who can VERY easily say, "there but for the grace of God go I" i simply cannot fault them for finding SAH a better option. When you already aren't sure if your funds won't last you through the month, paying the average $250 to $500/mo in childcare might as well be trying to fund someone to fly to the moon. If you don't have the money, you don't have it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 7:41am
THese women (usually the fathers play little if any role in the children's lives) already accept (for their children) sub-par housing, sub-par health care (WIC and Medicaid), a limited choice of food (WIC), second-hand clothing for their children. It's not a stretch that they understand they will not get the good quality dc many WOHMs pay good money for. There have been lots of budget cuts, I know, but I believe there are still programs in the major cities and towns for federally-subsidized (and city-subsidized) safe and decent dc. Therefore, I don't think it's OK to assume ALL single moms in public housing SAH because they want the best for their children. I absolutely agree that some do.

Shouldn't they be working at least pt when there are so many hard-working WOHMs out there who would prefer to SAH, but can't afford to? Especially since those very WOHMs may be working for some part of the year to provide for these SAHMs in public housing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 8:00am
Often the people that have the most need to work to support themselves/families are the ones for who is it the hardest. Most people are not living in public housing becuase it is a fun place to live but because they do not have the skills to get a job that would make their life any better. Sometimes living on government assistance is doing the best thing for their families.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 8:10am
How would making these woman work have any effect on the WOHM's that prefer to be SAHM's? It is not going to allow them to SAH. Most people that are in true have to work situations are not paying a whole lot in taxes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 8:27am
So you equate crappy clothing to crappy childcare? if one is acceptable the other is too? I don't; I consider that kind of dismissal of the poor as the ugliest of ugly attitudes.

I DON'T think the poor should be willing to accept sub-par childcare just so hardworking WOHMs (LIKE ME) don't have to pay the .02% of our tax "burden" for them. frankly, i would be MUCH happier paying more to welfare Moms to stay home than I am paying Halliburton to overcharge for its services in Iraq.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 8:33am

First off,

Virgo
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 8:49am
You missed my point that to these women sub-par housing - by far much more important to a child than childcare could ever be - is acceptable if they SAH and don't work to improve their conditions. If sub-par housing is acceptable, certainly sub-par dc (which includes dc which is safe and non-abusive) for the short-term until they improve their conditions should be acceptable. No need to be so high and mighty. I have met and feel sympathy for these deprived children, and some sympathy for some of these women. And I feel sympathy for the hard-working WOHM who cannot afford to SAH and place her child in dc - and at the very same time is working in small part so that moms in public housing get to SAH with their own children. I disrespect the unmotivated.

Then how do you reconcile this with the fact that they are already willing to accept sub-par medical care for their children (WIC and Medicaid), sub-par housing, second-hand clothes and sub-par food for their children? I mean, those are basic human needs. DC is not. According to you, all of a sudden moms in public housing are focused on the best for their children where dc is concerned, at a time when lead paint, crime, rats and hunger are acceptable? Certainly these dangers are acceptable if they chose to SAH and not even work pt. to improve their children's situations.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 9:04am

But sub-par child care is by definition, not safe, not healthy, and may be abusive or neglectful.


Virgo
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 9:08am
You raise several issues.

1) I think that families who need welfare of any kind (I even include WIC here) but choose to have a capable adult member not work are irresponsible members of society. They are leaches.

2) I think anyone who receives taxpayeer paid housing/food/etc. and complains about being asked to volunteer for a measley 2 hours per week is really a pathetic person. Personally, I'd want to give back to the community that was supporting me, if I needed the support.

3) Deductibility of mortgage interest is not a tax incentive to SAHPs. All homeowners have that options.

Pages