WOHMs - could you afford to take 3 mo...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
WOHMs - could you afford to take 3 mo...
1595
Mon, 11-05-2007 - 11:13am

WOHMs - could you afford to take 3 months of totally unpaid leave?



  • Yes, we have enough saved up for that
  • Yes, we could save up enough for that
  • Yes, DH makes enough to get us by
  • No
  • other


You will be able to change your vote.






Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 4:37pm
That's bad about the Christmas bonus but at least they told you! When I worked for a law firm we always got Christmas bonuses the first couple years. Then one year they just didn't, no announcement. I has to ask the office manager or someone in accounting, feeling kind of idiotic, to find out we weren't getting any. The reason was not economical, just that the partner attorney had read somewhere it's a bad idea to give out Christmas bonusus, because then the staff exepct them every year. And you wouldn't want that, so giving out a bonus based on merit is better (not that he gave any of those out over the subsequent years though!).

VickiSiggy.jpg picture by mamalahk

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2007
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 8:00pm
Still, it must be a small tank. My car only holds 15 gallons, which is about average, and it costs about $50 to fill it. If your gas costs a little less, to fill 3/4 of a tank with $25 is a tiny tank.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2007
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 8:10pm
That's what I was thinking... my county takes 3 hours to drive across... LOL.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 8:50pm

"I think that there's a problem in that people are completely willing to live and work in different communities, rather than working to make the community they live in a place they can work or the community they work in a place they can live."

This isn't a problem at all. In fact, doing things your way would be a monumental problem. It would require absurd duplication of services and changes in zoning laws which would help no one.

Consider cities. What you are proposing is that everybody who works in a large city should also live there. There just aren't highrises tall enough to make this possible. You are proposing that insane levels of overcrowding are actually preferable to a long commute for many workers.

Or consider duplication of services. Should every community be zoned to support every concievable type of business just so everybody can live and work in the same community?

What you are proposing is a VERY bad idea.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 8:54pm
Your ideal world doesn't include cities but does include duplication of services on an unfeasable scale. It would also be a horrible nightmare for many people. Probably including you because I don't think you've considered the implications of this beyond short commutes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 9:01pm
It sure as heck wouldn't be my ideal world. I like cities. I wouldn't want to live in a world where cities are no longer feasable because of a new ideal that requires everybody working in a city to also live in that same city. This is how it used to be done before cars made commutes feasable. And it was not a pleasant at all. There is a REASON people flocked to the suburbs once they came into existence because of cars. It's very unpleasant (apparently, by accounts I've read) to jam everybody into a city who also works there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 9:03pm
Do you think that the ONLY reason all the people who work in cities don't also live there is money? Imagine how crowded cities would be if EVERYBODY who worked there also lived there? This is how it used to be before cars (and therefore suburbs) were invented. And people RAN from cities the minute that new technology made it possible because overcrowding is very unpleasant to live with.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 9:11pm
A lot of people have more choices than to work at McDonalds or have a long commute. Many peoiple choose the commute not because they have no other choice but because they don't want to live near where their job is. Should airline workers live a short commute from airports? Should everybody who works in a city also live in that city (which would lead to hellish overcrowding). Should everybody who works in an industrial job also live near the factory? There are MANY jobs where people choose the long commute not merely because of price but because they would find it extremely unpleasant to live near their particular job. And no, it is not physically possible to make a city into a place where everybody who worked in it would also do fine living in it. Even making the absrd assumption that only people who WANT to live in a city should work in one, there simply isn't space.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 9:14pm
Yes indeed. And I would also wager that all of them who commute into a city would rather quickly transform that city into hell on earth if they all simultanously moved there (it would certainly require a lot of new urban construction). I keep bringing up cities because I don't think you realize just how many people around the US work in cities and what would happen to those cities if all those people moved there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 11-09-2007 - 9:17pm
Then you don't work for an airline. Because I have a friend who grew up near an airport and needless to say he grew up there only because it was all his parents could afford. Nobody actually WANTS to live near an airport. Yet airports and airlines employ an extremely large number of people.

Pages