Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

I’d argue you did have generous maternity leave - through your spouse.

So many of the countries providing long, generous leaves do not have jobs paying the type of salary you likely earn. Most European white collar jobs earn way, way less and the long leaves are a necessity for women to have children. It’s essentially government welfare for women to have children.

My point is that you’re still better off given you were able to stay home and you returned to work.

Hardly, because in the US we also have to pay for our own health insurance, pay for our kid's health insurance, pay through the nose for childcare, pay for college, and prepare for our own retirement. In most EU countries, they don't have to do any of that. That's how they live comfortable lives on less money than we do here.

Also, you are assuming a mom who leaves her job to SAHM for a couple years will return at the same salary (she often doesn't, in part due to discrimination for having left the workforce, and in part due to the need for a family-friendly job). So the SAHM loses income during her SAHM years but then this is compounded by lower wages moving forward. A longer maternity leave and workplace protections would protect women from the high cost of leaving the workplace even for short periods of time in order to provide family caregiving.

Also, it is hilarious that you describe the long parental leaves in the EU (which are NOT just for women and in many companies are taken by men in large numbers as well) as "government welfare for women to have children." Like having children is a pointless hobby that women, and only women, engage in, and it's so weird these countries have chosen to subsidize it. In reality, these countries are dealing with plunging birthrates and started heavily subsidizing children because population decline is a critical problem for economic stability. They don't offer long parental leaves, subsidized childcare, or benefits like monthly checks for kids because they just want women to enjoy their mommying hobby. They view it as essential for a functional society for people to procreate and go to great lengths to make it feasible when other forces often discourage people from having more kids or having them at all.

Seriously: read more. You write as though you are an authority on these issues but you clearly have no idea.

Anonymous wrote:I would not have had 2 kids knowing what I know now. I love my kids but if you ask me for an honest answer - of course finances will take a devastating hit. Whether you SAHM or not, there's a price to be paid for being a parent, however you slice and dice it, sooner or later. It can't be about finances if you choose kids. It's a loss for finances 1000000%!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Well then there should be more community and government support for parents of young children. Instead, maternity leave is sh*t, daycare is exorbitant, employers are unforgiving of parents tending to kids needs/illnesses.
Raising children takes a village- always has. But sadly, the US has turned it into an individual responsibility over the last 60 years. Therefore women (and men) are saying it's too hard and expensive, so forget it.

This. People often perceive the choice not to have kids as selfish or as someone simply not caring about children or families. That might be the case sometimes, but often it's a conscious choice to avoid raising children in a society hostile to children and parents.

This is why I only had one kid. I realized after the first one that you are truly just on your own in terms of providing everything for your kid, including education and basic safety (things that other countries treat as social goods provided to all). Covid really hammered this home for me -- this is not a village. It's every family for themselves. Don't have kids unless you are prepared to provide everything they could conceivably need yourself (or via outsourcing you personally pay for), and only have as many kids as you can do that for. You will be *shocked* by the degree to which public schools are nothing more than daytime holding pens for kids -- you will be in charge of their education and socialization and there's no guarantee they will get this at school. Also public schools do not really serve as childcare and are structured as though it's still 1975 and stay at home moms are common, even though it is no longer possible for most families to get by on one income and also SAHMs are viewed with derision culturally. So get ready to pay for childcare until your kids are teens. Oh, you thought your responsible 9 year old could be home alone in the afternoon? Nope it may be illegal where you live and even if not it will be culturally discouraged -- you need to pay for aftercare or activities so that your child has adult supervision at all times, but also you can't provide that supervision directly because you have to work, and you have to work so that you can afford to pay for that supervision and enrichment (since obviously your chid didn't actually learn anything all day in school, why would you expect that -- get thee to a Mathnasium so your kid can do long division). Your pediatrician will expect you to do much of the legwork on diagnosing your kid and will largely serve as a prescription and referral generator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back to work when my kid was 6 months old. I worked 4 nights a week after my partner got home from his day job.
We did coop at age 3 for symbolic fee and then local public school.
DC was never sick, no expensive camps, aftercare, or classes.
My partner filed as HH and I filed single making way below $20k. I didn't really have tax expense after EI credit and saver's credit and I still don't. I was able to take lifetime learner's credit for years.
I was never going to have a career (long story). I invested 20-50% of my earnings into stock market and retired when the child finished elementary school. I received a finance degree when the child was few months old.
The biggest expense for the kid has been food, school PTA, few soccer camps, some travel in US and EU, and $200 a month for health insurance.
I think my kid is very cheap.

My kids were pretty cheap too.
I went back to work PT when youngest entered K which enabled me to pickup the kids afterschool. I gradually ramped up to full time by the time they entered high school.
They probably couldn't have gotten into the G&T programs, competitive middle schools and SHSAT high schools if I outsourced the parenting.
The biggest expenses were preschool, summer camps and activities.
Kids scored 1500+ on SAT, attending really great colleges without college consultant nor expensive test prep (they attended mommy prep which cost $0).

THIS. Hello, fellow NYC Parent! There is always someone on these threads who talks about the opportunity costs of SAHM solely in financial terms. There are so many other things to consider. I returned to full-time work when my kids were in middle school. I was lucky to be able to return to work in the field which I entered as a recent college graduate. I would not trade those years at home with my kids for anything.

+1000

Also, I spent a lot of time in ES/MS/HS driving kids to appointments (therapies/tutoring/etc) that ensured one kid was successful in life. Had we punted on that and just waited, they might not have succeeded in MS/HS/Beyond. Instead they attended a good college (T100), graduated in 4 years (with some bumps in the road) and have been gainfully employed at a great job since graduation (4 years). Had I been trying to work and manage all of that, it wouldn't have worked out well.

How do you think that makes parents feel if they have to work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of wise women get a license and earn amazing money providing high quality care for other children.

As a self-supporting single mother, I did this. It enabled my child private schools and annual summer camp in New England.

My rates were higher than the most competitive local preschools.

No screens, of course. You can do a morning program to start. Some families want that. I received payments one month in advance, just like schools do. You need written contracts.

Tell us more about this? I've always thought this would be a good way to earn money as a SAHM once your kids are in school full-time but I've never seen it done. How many children did you watch at once?

I was licensed for eight children in Montgomery County. Did it for ten years, and loved each of “my” children. In the beginning I had an assistant, but it wasn’t necessary as the children became older.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

I’d argue you did have generous maternity leave - through your spouse.

So many of the countries providing long, generous leaves do not have jobs paying the type of salary you likely earn. Most European white collar jobs earn way, way less and the long leaves are a necessity for women to have children. It’s essentially government welfare for women to have children.

My point is that you’re still better off given you were able to stay home and you returned to work.

Hardly, because in the US we also have to pay for our own health insurance, pay for our kid's health insurance, pay through the nose for childcare, pay for college, and prepare for our own retirement. In most EU countries, they don't have to do any of that. That's how they live comfortable lives on less money than we do here.

Also, you are assuming a mom who leaves her job to SAHM for a couple years will return at the same salary (she often doesn't, in part due to discrimination for having left the workforce, and in part due to the need for a family-friendly job). So the SAHM loses income during her SAHM years but then this is compounded by lower wages moving forward. A longer maternity leave and workplace protections would protect women from the high cost of leaving the workplace even for short periods of time in order to provide family caregiving.

Also, it is hilarious that you describe the long parental leaves in the EU (which are NOT just for women and in many companies are taken by men in large numbers as well) as "government welfare for women to have children." Like having children is a pointless hobby that women, and only women, engage in, and it's so weird these countries have chosen to subsidize it. In reality, these countries are dealing with plunging birthrates and started heavily subsidizing children because population decline is a critical problem for economic stability. They don't offer long parental leaves, subsidized childcare, or benefits like monthly checks for kids because they just want women to enjoy their mommying hobby. They view it as essential for a functional society for people to procreate and go to great lengths to make it feasible when other forces often discourage people from having more kids or having them at all.

Seriously: read more. You write as though you are an authority on these issues but you clearly have no idea.

PP here. I used to strongly believe in long parental leaves. Then I had children and I don’t think they are as beneficial as someone like you thinks.

I’ve also witnessed the careers of friends abroad and think the long leaves really hurt women professionally.

What you’re not understanding is that most American women outside of blue, urban areas don’t want government leave. They want a strong economy where they can stay home as long as they would like.

Yes I think the European leaves are government welfare. Most benefits are very low paid ($200-400).

I’m a career woman and didn’t want to stay at home for a year to collect $300 a week from the government. I was happy to return to work at 12 weeks and glad there wasn’t an expectation I stay home an entire year or two and then return to then be limited professionally because everyone assumes I’ll stay home another 1-2 years again soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Well then there should be more community and government support for parents of young children. Instead, maternity leave is sh*t, daycare is exorbitant, employers are unforgiving of parents tending to kids needs/illnesses.
Raising children takes a village- always has. But sadly, the US has turned it into an individual responsibility over the last 60 years. Therefore women (and men) are saying it's too hard and expensive, so forget it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

I’d argue you did have generous maternity leave - through your spouse.

So many of the countries providing long, generous leaves do not have jobs paying the type of salary you likely earn. Most European white collar jobs earn way, way less and the long leaves are a necessity for women to have children. It’s essentially government welfare for women to have children.

My point is that you’re still better off given you were able to stay home and you returned to work.

Hardly, because in the US we also have to pay for our own health insurance, pay for our kid's health insurance, pay through the nose for childcare, pay for college, and prepare for our own retirement. In most EU countries, they don't have to do any of that. That's how they live comfortable lives on less money than we do here.

Also, you are assuming a mom who leaves her job to SAHM for a couple years will return at the same salary (she often doesn't, in part due to discrimination for having left the workforce, and in part due to the need for a family-friendly job). So the SAHM loses income during her SAHM years but then this is compounded by lower wages moving forward. A longer maternity leave and workplace protections would protect women from the high cost of leaving the workplace even for short periods of time in order to provide family caregiving.

Also, it is hilarious that you describe the long parental leaves in the EU (which are NOT just for women and in many companies are taken by men in large numbers as well) as "government welfare for women to have children." Like having children is a pointless hobby that women, and only women, engage in, and it's so weird these countries have chosen to subsidize it. In reality, these countries are dealing with plunging birthrates and started heavily subsidizing children because population decline is a critical problem for economic stability. They don't offer long parental leaves, subsidized childcare, or benefits like monthly checks for kids because they just want women to enjoy their mommying hobby. They view it as essential for a functional society for people to procreate and go to great lengths to make it feasible when other forces often discourage people from having more kids or having them at all.

Seriously: read more. You write as though you are an authority on these issues but you clearly have no idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Well then there should be more community and government support for parents of young children. Instead, maternity leave is sh*t, daycare is exorbitant, employers are unforgiving of parents tending to kids needs/illnesses.
Raising children takes a village- always has. But sadly, the US has turned it into an individual responsibility over the last 60 years. Therefore women (and men) are saying it's too hard and expensive, so forget it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

I’d argue you did have generous maternity leave - through your spouse.

So many of the countries providing long, generous leaves do not have jobs paying the type of salary you likely earn. Most European white collar jobs earn way, way less and the long leaves are a necessity for women to have children. It’s essentially government welfare for women to have children.

My point is that you’re still better off given you were able to stay home and you returned to work.