Do women want to be stay at home mothers these days?

[HazelGod]

She is by no means struggling, however, the ability to save, pay off school loans quickly, and live comfortably demands two incomes.

These are choices they made, not demands that were put upon them.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

These are choices they made, not demands that were put upon them.

Saving and paying off debt is a choice? I disagree.

Living comfortably, in whatever that works out to be, could be considered a choice. However, there is nothing decadent about their lifestyle and I consider it a basic need to live comfortably and without struggling. Indeed, I believe a level of basic comfort is what most want to attain or work to maintain.

 

[TinyPrincess]

I'll be a stay at home dad for any lady earning $1M + per year.

Please apply with videos. :biggrin1:

Hmmm, should I take you out for a test drive???

(OK, OK, I'm not making $1M a year - but then $1M a year aren't that much - it's just a few pesos these days).

 

[HazelGod]

Saving and paying off debt is a choice? I disagree.

Living comfortably, in whatever that works out to be, could be considered a choice. However, there is nothing decadent about their lifestyle and I consider it a basic need to live comfortably and without struggling. Indeed, I believe a level of basic comfort is what most want to attain or work to maintain.

I wasn't referring just to those items. They chose to accumulate debt. They chose to take on the additional financial liabilities that come with children while still under that debt. They chose to live in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

None of these things were forced upon them.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I wasn't referring just to those items. They chose to accumulate debt. They chose to take on the additional financial liabilities that come with children while still under that debt. They chose to live in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

None of these things were forced upon them.

Yes, mortgage and student loans are debt, and they are doing fine, but live better, comfortably with two incomes.

Granted it is expensive to live in California. However, they are native Californians, in fact, live in the same area we grew up in. There's no need to cut those deep ties to the community for cheaper out of state housing. Nor should it seem their modest housing or lifestyle is a luxury. They are not decadent consumers, "leveraged to their eyeballs", irresponsible, nor living beyond their means. Though they do need two incomes to live comfortably, with a safety net, and without struggle. Imo, a stable way to live and conduct your financial affairs.

 

[StraightCock4Her]

Here's a thought Jovial... Ask your girl what her thoughts on the subject are..

 

[snoozan]

If I got married and my wife stayed home, one of my fears would be that she just spends the money on unnecessary things. Or that we had disagreements over the money. I'd hate to have to treat my wife like a child and only give her an allowance. Ideally, she would appreciate that the money comes from hard work and not just spend it arbitrarily. It would be nice to make enough money to not worry about it, but no matter how much someone makes, I'm sure there is another person that could spend it all.

It's all about trust and being wise about who you choose to marry. Regardless, money issues will come up, no matter who is working or not. It's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) things couples fight about. With that said, if you chose the right person, you can work through it like most everything else.

Ok, and then there are people like one of my closest friends who do need two incomes to just make it. She's in IT, works 60-80 hours a week and on call 24 hours a day, he is a medical Dr., together they make just over 200k a year.

Why have children? I know a lot of families like this and I never understand why they have kids because they really don't have the time that having kids demands. If you work 60-80 hours a week and if your spouse does the same, you don't have time for anything but work, and any protestation to the contrary I just don't buy. I know how much work a child is, and I also know how much my husband is home who is in a similar situation as your friend. There are a lot of families like this whose kids are raised by a string of nannies, au pairs, etc. Even if it's family that's doing all the childcare, is it really any better than the child being raised by his grandparents because his parents are out drugging and partying all the time? You cannot convince me that people like this are doing much to raise their own children, and in light of that I wonder why they even bother to have them. The case you mention is extreme, but it's not rare. I don't even understand where they have time for each other.

I've done some work with animal shelters, and a lot of them will not adopt out their animals, especially puppies, to families that have really hectic schedules. Why don't we show that kind of regard for our children?

They had kids because it was time for them to have children.

That's no reason to have kids. Kids need attention from adults, and if you have to hire people or slough your kids off on family so they get that attention, why bother? I'm not talking about a couple who work a combined total of, say, 80 hours a week, but the situation you're referring to where parents are working 140 hours or more between two people.

She is by no means struggling, however, the ability to save, pay off school loans quickly, and live comfortably demands two incomes. The school loans will be paid in the next few years, by the time the twins are in elementary school.

"Living comfortably" is something that is extremely subjective. It should mean living enough above subsistence that you can save money, have a few luxuries, live in house that is big enough for your family, and maybe take a week's vacation every year. For most people that's not enough anymore.

By the time kids are in school, they don't need their parents as much. It's in infancy and through the toddler years that all that physical affection and closeness are so important. There is no "quality time" when you're 2 and you haven't seen your mother or father for more than an hour a day. Truth is, that child is attached to his or her primary caregivers, not his or her parents.

I wasn't referring just to those items. They chose to accumulate debt. They chose to take on the additional financial liabilities that come with children while still under that debt. They chose to live in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

None of these things were forced upon them.

I agree with this. You've been to the dump that I call home, and the reason we're selling the house and downsizing is because we took on too much debt while I was working and now that I'm not it doesn't work for us anymore. I don't need a 3,000 square foot house, nor do I need 2 brand new cars and all the junk to fill said house. I think of it this way-- my son isn't going to care what neighborhood we live in or if we're driving late model SUVs, but he is going care if I'm not there. A child, especially a very young child, does not know or care that you have 4 plasma screen TVs or that you're a vice president at a Fortune 500 company. He or she just knows that mom and dad are two strangers that he sees a for an hour a day after someone else has taken care of his needs and given him or her appropriate affection (hopefully) all day.

I don't think everyone should do exactly what I've done, and I know a lot of people can't. However, a lot of people push it to the extreme and then justify how they have to have everything they want-- stuff, a career, kids, a huge house, vacations, etc. A good amount of time it's not a case of need, but of desire. Maybe if more people really took stock of what they really needed versus what they simply wanted they could figure out where their priorities are. Sadly, most of the time it's the kids that pay the price for mom and dad not knowing what their real needs are.

And by the way, how do you teach a child independence if you're not there to teach them anything in the first place?

 

[Mushroom Maniac]

What good is a 100k+ income if you needed several hundred thousand in student loans to get that? It doesn't make sense to me. But what I don't understand is why they had kids if they couldn't afford them. Your friends may need two incomes to raise three kids, but it was their choice to have those kids.

I saw a TV program talking about minimum wage a few years ago. The one couple had four kids and they were complaining that they couldn't get by on minimum wage. Well who ever said they were supposed to be able to afford kids at that income level?! If someone bought a $80k car and made $20k income, we'd think they were stupid for thinking they could afford that car. But for some reason people have kids, then complain that they can't afford to raise them.

Amen, Brother Jovial!
Contraception... what a concept! Let's hope it catches on!

 

[HazelGod]

You've been to the dump that I call home, and the reason we're selling the house and downsizing is because we took on too much debt while I was working and now that I'm not it doesn't work for us anymore.

Yeah, when it starts affecting your ability to keep yer bar adequately stocked, it's time to re-evaluate your priorities! :biggrin1:

 

[walla99]

I was just discussing this with a friend who stays at home. I work, but mostly that is because I am a single parent to one child and I have to. I do take time to go to school events though - that vacation time is there for a reason. I’m just not there quite as often as the sahm.

I think many women would stay at home if they were able to. There are also many women who are career women and that is very important to them. There are men who want a wife to stay home, there are men who want a career woman. There are many different viewpoints, financial situations, etc. I think we need a better balance though…I think many women who work want more time to spend with their kids, and many stay at home moms want more time away from their kids because it is stressful and they need some kind of other stimulation for their brain! If I had the chance, I’d stay home MORE for sure.

I truly do not believe one way is better than the other…although I don’t get it when both parents are working 60-80 hours a week…that seems too much to me.

I think throughout history, it isn’t necessarily moms being with kids 24/7…it’s more the idea of relatives/grandparents helping out. I mean, both my grandmothers had a lot of kids and one was running a farm and the other was just busy being a housewife. Yes, they were home but it’s not like they were spending tons of one/one time with their kids. In our society today, we don’t usually have the relatives to help out and that’s where quality daycare comes in.

I always thought I’d stay at home with my kids when they were little until they started school. It just wasn’t in the cards for me (at least for now.) I feel like I’ve missed out on some time I can’t ever get back. But I’ve done the best I can. Interestingly, I have a relative who worked more when her kids were young and then when she was more financially able and her kids were in jr.high/high school, she found a part time job where she could be home when the kids came home, be at their activities and feels it’s really important to be home with them (or available at least) now that they are older. So it’s all perspective and need.

I do agree consumerism is rampant and our kids don’t need the McMansions (nor do the adults for that matter) new cars and fancy trips to be happy and loved. Everyone’s trying to keep up with the Joneses and it’s ridiculous.

Yes, very important to find out if your partner and you see eye to eye on finances and other home life decisions!

 

[snoozan]

Yeah, when it starts affecting your ability to keep yer bar adequately stocked, it's time to re-evaluate your priorities! :biggrin1:

True dat, brotha.

 

[D_Prudence_Admonition_Drightits]

There has been a disconnect of the extended family. I admire cultures where the grandparents are in the home, being a part of the family. Not somewhere stuck in a nursing home. That is truly a tragedy in the United States. I was fortunate that my son was able to stay with his grandparents until he was 4 years old. They were retired school teachers. They were the ones who persuaded me to put him in pre-school so that he could have the skills to be ready for kindergarten. He still spends time with them on Fridays and Sunday after church. It is a very special moment for bonding. Memories that will last a lifetime.

My dad use to always say to me ...in the old days children were a big help and it was necessary to have many to do chores, but now in a more industrialized society, children have become more of a luxury. The more humankind progresses the worse we seem to become.

I think throughout history, it isn’t necessarily moms being with kids 24/7…it’s more the idea of relatives/grandparents helping out. I mean, both my grandmothers had a lot of kids and one was running a farm and the other was just busy being a housewife. Yes, they were home but it’s not like they were spending tons of one/one time with their kids. In our society today, we don’t usually have the relatives to help out and that’s where quality daycare comes in.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I'm still with an extended family, as my Sister and law and family moved out here. It's useful, and the sisterhood has been good for the wives, though I don't visit their house because of the cats.

The children are joys, not luxuries, and resources are pooled frequently. The fracturing of the American family has been through cars, TV, advertising, movies and the like. Everything that suggests progress instead of unity.

 

[MidwestGal]

I know economics play a part of two-income families, but if it's economically possible to have the husband work and wife stay home with kids why don't couples do it? Is it the husband or the wife that wants the wife to work?

I'm kind of old-fashioned and think it's best to have a parent at home full time raising the kids. I think that's best for the kids. Would a woman think I'm a jerk for wanting her to stay home, or would she think I'm great for working and providing for her so she can raise kids?

I definitely do. Mainly because I feel it is the parents responsibility to give that child a good start and a good moral compass. That is severely lacking in much of the daycare generation. Plus children need to be secure that their parents will be there for them. I am very old fashioned about raising kids and family interaction with involvement in my child's life.