Is there ANYONE looking out for homemakers/ stay at home moms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

Nobody thinks it’s easy. We realize it’s hard.

But it isn’t something meant to draw a paycheck.

And, perhaps more people should opt not to have kids or fewer kids?

NPR had some expert on a million years ago talking about how Americans go about this all wrong. In short: they suggested families would be better off (and women, specifically) if they married and has babies much younger and back to back, and then reentered the workforce once their kid or second of two kids went off to preschool. That way, they would still have time to invest in a career.

They also included higher earners, explaining how you could still go back to school and catch up if you had a baby in your early/mid 20s.

The expert pointed to all kinds of data. It makes sense.

While that does make sense, where are the jobs that can support a family on a single income? I guess the trades. But you’re not going to sell that to the masses. We live in a credential focused society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any party, lobby or an individual politician advocating for people who work without titles and compensations? Its been a traditional role serving nation’s most important units known as families, nation’s most important asset known as minor citizens and nation’s most important buildings known as homes. They fill so many voids in the society but get no recognition, no compensation or no one protecting this endangered species. Isn’t it about time for them to stand up for their rights and for others to acknowledge and support it?

Why should there be? I was a SAHM until my youngest was in 3rd grade. This was my decision so why should I expect anyone, other than my husband, to be looking out for me. You are ridiculous to want a nanny society for women who decided to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

Nobody thinks it’s easy. We realize it’s hard.

But it isn’t something meant to draw a paycheck.

And, perhaps more people should opt not to have kids or fewer kids?

NPR had some expert on a million years ago talking about how Americans go about this all wrong. In short: they suggested families would be better off (and women, specifically) if they married and has babies much younger and back to back, and then reentered the workforce once their kid or second of two kids went off to preschool. That way, they would still have time to invest in a career.

They also included higher earners, explaining how you could still go back to school and catch up if you had a baby in your early/mid 20s.

The expert pointed to all kinds of data. It makes sense.

While that does make sense, where are the jobs that can support a family on a single income? I guess the trades. But you’re not going to sell that to the masses. We live in a credential focused society.

Any job that pays roughly 100k per year can support a family- less than that if you move to a lower COL area. If you need more it is due to lifestyle choice, one everybody is free to make.

I’m not sure at all what you mean by the bolder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

Nobody thinks it’s easy. We realize it’s hard.

But it isn’t something meant to draw a paycheck.

And, perhaps more people should opt not to have kids or fewer kids?

NPR had some expert on a million years ago talking about how Americans go about this all wrong. In short: they suggested families would be better off (and women, specifically) if they married and has babies much younger and back to back, and then reentered the workforce once their kid or second of two kids went off to preschool. That way, they would still have time to invest in a career.

They also included higher earners, explaining how you could still go back to school and catch up if you had a baby in your early/mid 20s.

The expert pointed to all kinds of data. It makes sense.

While that does make sense, where are the jobs that can support a family on a single income? I guess the trades. But you’re not going to sell that to the masses. We live in a credential focused society.

Any job that pays roughly 100k per year can support a family- less than that if you move to a lower COL area. If you need more it is due to lifestyle choice, one everybody is free to make.

I’m not sure at all what you mean by the bolder?

By credential focused I mean that more and more jobs require a four year college degree.

Where are the jobs for 22 year olds that pay $100 K per year? $50 K? Why would women sign up to marry at 20 and stay home with kids when our educational system is more suited to girls, who are going to college at higher rates than boys? How do you “fix” any of this without basically forcing women?

And that’s where many of it predict GOP policy to be headed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

But how are they “marginalized”? Because some segment of people don’t approve of their choice? That is the way of the world.

What specifically are you asking for? A law that says people are forbidden to talk negatively about them? A nationally-recognized day or month of celebration? Like Black History Month?

Many in my family and community don’t approve of my choice to work out of the home, put my kids in daycare and aftercare, avoid PTA, etc. I shrug it off. My spouse and I made a choice. I’m not looking for a political party or the government to intervene on my behalf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person that should be looking out for SAHMs is their husband/wife. The tax payer should not be on the hook for an able bodied person who has decided they would prefer to stay home.

Exactly!

But you miss the point. Any man or woman serving as a full-time caregiver of very young children, is in fact working and quite hard at that. Any man or woman who cares for a disabled or terminally ill family member is working really really hard.

The posters here only conjure up the image of the SAHM with a rich husband, but the truth is many women make this decision due to lack of choices and support. They are fully dependent on their husbands and for all intents and purposes unemployable or relegated to low wage jobs.

I think we need to recognize the significant value their labor adds, that they are critical workers, that this is critical work. The current system is terrible for women; their choices are to not have children or do two jobs (out and in home) while still spending little quality time with kids or SAH and be marginalized.

We need to recognize the essential work of raising children, care for the sick, disabled and elderly. This can no longer be viewed as volunteer work, it is essential work.

True, but OP doesn’t seem concerned about people doing the essential work of caring for the elderly, sick, and disabled.

[Anonymous]

19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

So caring for children only has economic value when it’s not done by their parents?

I work and have three kids, but I can see the faulty logic.

In reality, we will get neither universal childcare or paychecks for care work. Instead, we will get a cratering birthdate and the continued unraveling of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

So caring for children only has economic value when it’s not done by their parents?

I work and have three kids, but I can see the faulty logic.

In reality, we will get neither universal childcare or paychecks for care work. Instead, we will get a cratering birthdate and the continued unraveling of society.

Where did PP say that?

The only way your logic makes sense if you define valuable as something you get paid to do. And I see that faulty logic.

Basically, that logic would do away with all charity and volunteering. We would as a society only do those things we are financially compensated for. Is that what you are advocating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

So caring for children only has economic value when it’s not done by their parents?

I work and have three kids, but I can see the faulty logic.

In reality, we will get neither universal childcare or paychecks for care work. Instead, we will get a cratering birthdate and the continued unraveling of society.

Where did PP say that?

The only way your logic makes sense if you define valuable as something you get paid to do. And I see that faulty logic.

Basically, that logic would do away with all charity and volunteering. We would as a society only do those things we are financially compensated for. Is that what you are advocating?

Charity and volunteering are for rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

Not OP, but I’d like better options to fund my own retirement.

[Anonymous]

I was funding a Roth IRA at some point. Did that have a work requirement? I mean, it’s not a ton, but we were putting the max in for both me and my husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was funding a Roth IRA at some point. Did that have a work requirement? I mean, it’s not a ton, but we were putting the max in for both me and my husband.

You can only save earned income in an IRA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19 pages in this thread and still not clear what OP wants? Do you want a paycheck? Retirement benefits? Basically, some form of payment from taxpayers?

That's not going to happen. What might happen, hopefully, is universal childcare, so that we can get more women into the workforce. But no, you're not going to get paid to stay home.

Not OP, but I’d like better options to fund my own retirement.

So you want well off SAHMs to have access to IRAs?