• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stay-at-home moms: The sad truth behind those rosy media stories

Summerwind

Summerwind

Hot Flash Mama
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
11,010
Reaction score
5,149
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Stay-at-home moms: The sad truth behind those rosy media stories - latimes.com

“The share of mothers who do not work outside the home rose to 29% in 2012, up from a modern-era low of 23% in 1999,” Pew’s new report finds. The primary reason: economics. The cost of child care and the lack of job opportunities are forcing women to stay at home rather than go back to work after having kids.
Considering these findings, can we please kill the image of the modern stay-at-home mom clad in pricey Lululemon and instead focus on the kinds of precarious economic realities women face?

(snip)

The Pew report also attributes the rising costs of child care to the increase in stay-at-home moms. The Washington Post published a map last week that shows the cost of full-time infant day care in 31 states actually exceeds the cost of state college tuition. At the top of the list is Massachusetts, where the annual cost of having an infant in full-time day care is about $16,000. By contrast, a year at a public college in Massachusetts costs about $10,000. Now imagine the cost of day care if you have more than one child under school age. According to a 2010 Census paper, it is likely that unless she has very high earnings, a mother with more than one child under the age of 5 makes less than it costs to pay for her kids’ day care.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this. I'm glad someone has followed up on this "phenomenon," though 23 to 29% doesn't seem altogether phenomenal.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
I've been wondering about this. I'm glad someone has followed up on this "phenomenon," though 23 to 29% doesn't seem altogether phenomenal.
Click to expand...

That's a 26% increase, Summerwind. So for every 4 women who used to stay home after the kids were born, 5 are now staying home. It makes considerable changes in many things, and not just the daycare. It's gotta make changes in the way that companies see pregnant employees, wondering if they'll be back after the baby is born. It changes the entire economy and budget of the household without her income. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if this changes once the national economy eventually turns around.
 
Gathomas88 said:
:shrug:

"Day care" seems like kind of an unnecessary waste to me anyway. Is it really going to kill anyone to stay home for a few years until the kids are old enough to start school?
Click to expand...

Would it kill you to do it while your (future :)) wife worked?
 
Gathomas88 said:
:shrug:

"Day care" seems like kind of an unnecessary waste to me anyway. Is it really going to kill anyone to stay home for a few years until the kids are old enough to start school?
Click to expand...

Yes, it hurts the ability of a couple to earn income severely. You can't afford to have both parents not working, and if there is only one parent, that parent needs to work. The cost of daycare is much less than what you make at work but it still cuts into the income of a family which is why Quebec and France subsidize it to make it 7$/day. Besides we want people earning money.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
Yes it hurts the ability of couple to earn income severely. You can't afford to have both parents not working, and if there is only one parent, that parent needs to work. The cost of daycare is much less than what you make at work but it still cuts into the income of a family which is why Quebec and France subsidize it to make it 7$/day. Besides we want people earning money.
Click to expand...

Subsidy doesn't make it cheaper, it just shifts the cost onto strangers. Now those strangers are made worse off.
 
RiverDad said:
Subsidy doesn't make it cheaper, it just shifts the cost onto strangers. Now those strangers are made worse off.
Click to expand...

It makes it substantially cheaper for those with a lesser ability to afford it. It also brings down costs though the same principle as single-payer healthcare.
 
Carjosse said:
It makes it substantially cheaper for those with a lesser ability to afford it.
Click to expand...

I can't afford a Ferrari. Thanks for stepping up and not buying lunch one day per week to help me out.

It also brings down costs though the same principle as single-payer healthcare.
Click to expand...

What?? Explain that to me. What is being bought in bulk? Daycare is really nothing more than paying an adult to babysit. How is bulk buying and market control going to lower the cost?
 
americanwoman said:
Would it kill you to do it while your (future :)) wife worked?
Click to expand...

Trust me. She wouldn't want me too. :lol:

Carjosse said:
Yes, it hurts the ability of a couple to earn income severely. You can't afford to have both parents not working, and if there is only one parent, that parent needs to work. The cost of daycare is much less than what you make at work but it still cuts into the income of a family which is why Quebec and France subsidize it to make it 7$/day. Besides we want people earning money.
Click to expand...

The problem here is economic. It is actually cheaper for the woman to stay home than it is to pay for day care.

Seems like a self-correcting problem to me. Just stay home for a couple of years until the kids are old enough to go to school, and then work part time if you want. :shrug:

Sorry folks, but "having it all" is a myth.
 
RiverDad said:
I can't afford a Ferrari. Thanks for stepping up and not buying lunch one day per week to help me out.



What?? Explain that to me. What is being bought in bulk? Daycare is really nothing more than paying an adult to babysit. How is bulk buying and market control going to lower the cost?
Click to expand...

Well what Quebec does is broker deal with daycares to become 7$/day daycares. The government gets to negotiate a preferable price to pay and the daycare is assured full capacity. Couples and especially single parents benefit from this.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Trust me. She wouldn't want me too. :lol:



The problem here is economic. It is actually cheaper for the woman to stay home than it is to pay for day care.

Seems like a self-correcting problem to me. Just stay home for a couple of years until the kids are old enough to go to school, and then work part time if you want. :shrug:

Sorry folks, but "having it all" is a myth.
Click to expand...

I'm saying this form the Canadian market, it is impossible to afford a good quality of life without both parents working. It becomes even worse when you have only one parent, what are they to do? The income a parent can bring into a household far outweighs the benefits of staying at home. We want the parent to participate in the economy.
 
Carjosse said:
I'm saying this form the Canadian market, it is impossible to afford a good quality of life without both parents working. It becomes even worse when you have only one parent, what are they to do? The income a bring can bring into a household far outweighs the cost of staying at home.
Click to expand...

And how much of that is due to all the unnecessary bells and whistles (like day care) that modern society likes to insist are somehow necessary to raising children?

It most certainly isn't "impossible" to raise a family on one mid-range income, or one full time income and a part time income. It simply requires economizing a little bit.

If it's actually more expensive to have mom work due to the additional expense of childcare, she should simply stay home for a couple of years (for free!) so that those expenses can be cut down on a bit until the kids are old enough to start school and day care is no longer necessary. The answer isn't to get government involved in raiding other people's pocketbooks to subsidize your lifestyle choices.
 
Carjosse said:
Well what Quebec does is broker deal with daycares to become 7$/day daycares. The government gets to negotiate a preferable price to pay and the daycare is assured full capacity. Couples and especially single parents benefit from this.
Click to expand...

Oh, kind of how like if the Government of Quebec gave every citizen a copy of MicroSoft Word, whether they wanted it or not. The Government could negotiate a cheaper price with MicroSoft because MicroSoft realized that it would sell more copies this way than via the free market, in that this way everyone in the province is getting a copy whether they want it or not.

From the POV of a daycare operator, they have a fixed limit of children that they can care for. If it costs them $60 per day per child to provide care and they max out at 20 children, then their daily revenue is $1,200. If they can fill to capacity in a free market, then they get $1,200 per day. Under this government scheme they get $50 per day and if operating at capacity they gross $1,000 per day. This daycare operator is now worse off under a government scheme than under the free market.

What this government scheme does is it expands the number of daycare operators, each now operating at less than full capacity, and thus eager to entice more parents into the scheme to boost their children under care.

Subsidies DISTORT the marketplace. They distort decisions made by consumers. They harm the people who are taxed.
 
RiverDad said:
Oh, kind of how like if the Government of Quebec gave every citizen a copy of MicroSoft Word, whether they wanted it or not. The Government could negotiate a cheaper price with MicroSoft because MicroSoft realized that it would sell more copies this way than via the free market, in that this way everyone in the province is getting a copy whether they want it or not.

From the POV of a daycare operator, they have a fixed limit of children that they can care for. If it costs them $60 per day per child to provide care and they max out at 20 children, then their daily revenue is $1,200. If they can fill to capacity in a free market, then they get $1,200 per day. Under this government scheme they get $50 per day and if operating at capacity they gross $1,000 per day. This daycare operator is now worse off under a government scheme than under the free market.

What this government scheme does is it expands the number of daycare operators, each now operating at less than full capacity, and thus eager to entice more parents into the scheme to boost their children under care.

Subsidies DISTORT the marketplace. They distort decisions made by consumers. They harm the people who are taxed.
Click to expand...

Well considering the waiting list for the service is gigantic I would call it a success.
 
Carjosse said:
Well considering the waiting list for the service is gigantic I would call it a success.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for my Ferrari. I guarantee that that subsidy program will also have a huge waiting list.
 
Gathomas88 said:
And how much of that is due to all the unnecessary bells and whistles (like day care) that modern society likes to insist are somehow necessary to raising children?

It most certainly isn't "impossible" to raise a family on one mid-range income, or one full time income and a part time income. It simply requires economizing a little bit.

If it's actually more expensive to have mom work due to the additional expense of childcare, she should simply stay home for a couple of years (for free!) so that those expenses can be cut down on a bit until the kids are old enough to start school and day care is no longer necessary. The answer isn't to get government involved in raiding other people's pocketbooks to subsidize your lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...

We need daycare because of our society, one in which women want to work and single parent households are common. The cost of daycare is simply outweighed by the $40,000+ the parent may bring into the household. It is literally impossible to do that in a city like Toronto where the average home price is around 700,000$.
 
Carjosse said:
We need daycare because of our society, one in which women want to work and single parent households are common.
Click to expand...

And that's a problem too. There should be more stable marriages, and fewer single parents.

Again, the answer to people making stupid life decisions isn't to encourage them by raiding other people's bank accounts. It is to discourage the negative behavior in the first place.

The cost of daycare is simply outweighed by the $40,000+ the parent may bring into the household.
Click to expand...

In the case of the OP, it rather clearly is not, which is why they are not working. Their pay is not sufficient to offset the price of childcare.

It's basically a wash.

It is literally impossible to do that in a city like Toronto where the average home price is around 700,000$.
Click to expand...

Is there any particular reason someone should have to live in their own home?

My family lived in apartments until I was 16 years old.
 
Gathomas88 said:
:shrug:

"Day care" seems like kind of an unnecessary waste to me anyway. Is it really going to kill anyone to stay home for a few years until the kids are old enough to start school?
Click to expand...

Can Kill your CV.
 
Gathomas88 said:
And that's a problem too. There should be more stable marriages, and fewer single parents.

Again, the answer to people making stupid life decisions isn't to encourage them by raiding other people's bank accounts. It is to discourage the negative behavior in the first place.



In the case of the OP in the OP, it rather clearly is not, which is why they are not working. Their pay is not sufficient to offset the price of childcare.



Is there any particular reason someone should have to live in their own home?

My family lived in apartments until I was 16 years old.
Click to expand...

Apartments are not much cheaper either. Well single parent households are a product of society and culture which proper daycare may have helped to prevent. Daycare can be really cheap and unless you are working for less than minimum wage, it is a payoff.
 
Carjosse said:
Apartments are not much cheaper either. Well single parent households are a product of society and culture which proper daycare may have helped to prevent. Daycare can be really cheap and unless you are working for less than minimum wage, it is a payoff.
Click to expand...

In this case, it's not (the OP article mentioned that it can actually cost more than a college education), so women are staying home instead.

I really don't see a problem with that. :shrug:
 
Gathomas88 said:
"cv?"
Click to expand...

Resume, if that parent has been out of work for so long they have less experience than someone who did and therefore it is much harder to get a job after. Staying home not only ruins the parent's earning power now but later as well.
 
Gathomas88 said:
In this case, it's not (the OP article mentioned that it can actually cost more than a college education), so women are staying home instead.

I really don't see a problem with that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I really cannot see how honestly at least here.
 
Higgins86 said:
curriculum vitae or resume in America. Sorry my bad lol
Click to expand...

If that's a person's primary concern, I'd frankly argue that they probably shouldn't be having children in the first place.

There are plenty of married women (I'd probably even go so far as to say most) who take at least a couple of years off after having children. It's generally not a career killer.

Hell, my own mother just went back to work as a nurse after spending 20 years as a house wife. She's making over $30,000.00 a year now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom