Posted on 01/05/2007 8:32:57 AM PST by qam1
Yes, I've heard of this. However, unless the group also brought their babies, it's not the same as the author's situation. She told the babysitter to bring the baby to the coffeeshop (although she didn't tell him very clearly, because I also thought she meant he should leave the sleeping baby at home!).
If she's an employee of the coffee shop, her child should not be there when she's on shift. If she was meeting clients, the child still shouldn't be there, unless the clients expected it, and then what does she need the babysitter for?
carolyn
It's scary, isn't it? I worked with a life-and-health actuary who thought Hillary-care was a good idea!
Terrifying ... you'd think that a person who spent his time calculating health-care costs would understand that the costs aren't going to go away, no matter how the system is arranged.
Yet this woman undoubtedly considers herself smart.
Silly me. In this author's world, all adults have day jobs and parenting is a hobby.
That is the most perspicacious comment I've seen on this thread. (Not that all the others were bad ...) I'm putting it in the mental file to use myself at the first opportunity!
She said she had two successful "startups" so here is a perfect opportunity for her to start up another - Executive babysitting.
I've thought of going into that business myself, when I'm 60 or so :-).
I also liked the story about the German man who was a "relationship terminator"!
Ahhh. Common sense and realizing that life is not "all about ME." What an epiphany! ;-)
That is not what is being alluded to here. This nitwit WORKS at the coffee shop.
No. I've already gotten in trouble once for leaving my six year old at home alone for an hour, while I ran to the store to get her medicine. Never leave the child alone. Webcams don't count.
What bizarre instructions. Seems like the lawyer doofus did what he was told.
More fundamentally, why did this woman have a kid if she didn't want to be around it?
"As the kids get older, the opt-out revolution is about opting out of the absurd and inflexible hours that corporate America is demanding right now.
While, of course, demanding that her husband work more absurd and inflexible hours to "pick up the slack."
That is his responsibility of course. He is the bread winner and she is the MOM.
...and are therefore wrong?
I'm head of a single-income family, so structured in order that we can homeschool our children. Some people deliberately choose this life, even today, and it's not out of ignorance.
Agree in part, although a child should never be left sleeping in a bed, or close to an unguarded stairway.
Beds are dangerous, not only can the children roll off, but the baby can get tangled in the covers and suffocate (happened in a day care center at least once I remember).
We hired baby sitters from time to time, but they were kids we knew from the neighborhood, who had played with our children, or children from our church.
My wife didn't work until the kids were in school. Raising kids is a full-time job, and one of the parents should take that job, not hire it out. My wife beat me to it (she actually had stopped working several years before we had our first kid).
Nonsense. We live in an 'economically vibrant area,' 35 miles from NYC.
I stayed at home and raised all four of our children. Homeschooled the youngest. Never had a single problem with any of my kids getting into drugs, alcohol, tattoos, piercings, or any of the other 'fads' so many of their peers --children of dual-career parents-- fell for.
We did all this on ONE income --my husband's. And he doesn't have a fancy degree.
Don't tell me I'm the exception. Lots of stay-at-home/homeschooling moms live in my area. And they live well, if not opulently.
People who insist that you need two incomes to support a family are either lying or delusional. Too bad for their children.
Our company taps into top-tier stay at home moms regularly for all kinds of consulting work.
This lady's a whack job, but her point is valid. You don't need to go to work to maintain some sort of connection to your career, and you can do it in the context of staying home to raise your kids.
However, don't expect to CLIMB some sort of ladder while you are raising 0 to 5 year olds.
The technology available in the home is MOST DEFINITELY good enough for great talent to contribute in specific ways. We get talent we couldn't even discuss affording at incredible rates simply because we accommodate stay at home moms.
In large organizations, this is a nightmare. Small to medium, this is very workable.
I noticed your use of the PAST tense which means you are affiming my point about experiences from years ago.
We live in a different era today. For most people who want to buy a house today the ASP is staggering. If you want a house in a good area (low crime, decent schools) then it costs you something. If people can afford to have a stay home TODAY then it means one parent makes real money. If you want to make real money then you won't likely do it in a rural area economy unless you own a business. Since $150K a year on one income is hard to come by then it means that two people usually work.
Who said it was?
And this is a good situation for people and companies. What if I don't need 40 hours a week for someone to be a high paid employee but instead I need about 50 hours per month? I can get a talented person for reasonable cost and she gets to earn income and maintain her skills and sanity doing grown up stuff on the side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.