Posted on 05/02/2005 1:10:49 PM PDT by sageb1
With all due respect to mother's and fathers. I think the tender years doctrine (despite the PC BS that demands courts rule to the contrary) is still important. The notion is that children need their mother in at least the first three (though I have heard five) years of their development.
A new developing child needs a mother in those tender years.
Then what was the point of a salary analysis.
I wouldn't want to make a bet on that one. I don't know any stay-at-home moms who get to work 9 to 5, then come home and put their feet up.
That's my dream job too. When I was married I was the money making, the wife, the mom and the house wife. Now that I am divorced I am the I was the money makin, the mom and the house wife (but not the wife anymore!).
I think you meant less problematic and yes, I agree. The problems this society is having with teen violence would begin to disintegrate overnight, as this is what caused them in the first place.
They would start taxing the working Dads for the highly valuable services of the stay-at-home Moms...
I would. I'm not devaluing the job that is being done by stay-at-home moms by saying it is not the same as that done by a CEO. Saying that it is beyond 9 to 5 doesn't get you there.
I could afford it either, but I did it anyway. You really can learn to live cheaper. And by cheap, I'm talking shoe-string. It CAN be done.
Well, it depends who you ask. On a good day, DH thinks it's a good idea. On a day when there are 2 grandchildren, 1 1/2 students and a couple of dogs running around while two phone lines are ringing....let's just say I've considered working outside the home just so I'd get a lunch hour!!
I've noticed another shift in how we think of money. It seems as if now, your standard of living is based upon how much credit you can get, rather than the salary you earn. I am struck now by how cars and houses are advertised with prices of x dollars per month. I don't recall seeing that when I was growing up. People get roped into monthly payments and then they are trapped financially, with real danger if someone ends up out of work involuntarily. No one seems to think about total cost, it's always "how much can I finance?" They end up upside down on expensive cars that are financed over 84 months and carrying huge mortgages at artificially low introductory rates or interest only payments...
We afforded it and we were as poor as church-mice. Home-canned fruits and vegetables go a long way. Also, a take-out burger back then was a real TREAT.
I have enjoyed raising my kids. We have sacrificed a great deal in order to keep me at home, but I know it will be worth it in the long run.
She didn't need to buy or care for work clothes. She didn't burn nearly as much gas. She loves to cook, and suddenly had the time, so we didn't eat/order out nearly as often.
Don't get me started on marginal tax rates...
Projecting ahead to daycare costs, we could see that we wouldn't be that far ahead if she did go back to work.
Which she didn't want to do anyway. Still homeschooling our ten year old!
100% of my wife's earnings cover our federal income taxes.
If taxes weren't so high, she wouldn't work even though we don't have children yet.
the only reason she works now is to pad our 401K's and our Roth's so that once we have kids we don't have to worry so much about our retirement!
Most liberals I know complain about the economy forcing women to enter the workforce. Most familys are a 2 income family nowadays.
I was at a party this weekend where there were a load of young kids. Quite a few had mommies my age. I am so glad I had children early and now can't wait for the next phase of my life and be a young grandma.
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.