Families Fare Better Economically When a Parent Stays Home
There is a widely accepted myth that two-income families are a necessity today, but this is false. In fact it can actually cost to have both parents in the workforce, since the lifestyle of a two-income family – child care, commuting costs, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and eating out – is more expensive than the lifestyle of a one-income family. Moreover, statistics show that the families most likely to use day care are those earning over 75K a year, while the income bracket with the highest number of stay-at-home moms is those earning 20-25K a year. The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to work outside the home. Bottom line: Most mothers at home are not wealthy.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to work outside the home.
And I just ate a whole pizza and a pint of ice cream BECAUSE I'm fat.
I was blessed because my parents ran a home-based business. THEY were blessed because they ran it starting in 1959, before government regulations made it necessary to hire a person SOLELY TO HANDLE THE GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK.
By working 12 hours a day six days a week, they accumulated money to invest, even after income taxes and business taxes took well over 60% of their gross.
My divorced daughter, working as a call center operator and then as a waitress ($2.00 an hour before tips, no benefits), HAD NO CHOICE but to use daycare. We helped her as much as we could. Now that I've been laid off in the name of increased profits, I have plenty of time, but our granddaughters live far away.
The lower middle class is becoming the working poor. It would be wonderful to have the luxury spoken of in the article.
Suzanne Venker's argument that two-income families cost more is nothing but speculation. She blames it on lifestyle, claiming that those families spend more money on laundry, eating out, etc., but that has nothing to do with it. Just because the parents are out does not mean they slack off at home. Instead, it all depends on how they handle their time before and after work. Rather than eating out, the mother or father should plan the meal ahead of time and save leftovers for later. Especially during these hard economic times when money is of great importance, many are watching how they spend and focusing on the essentials.
While wealth does play into the role of a working mother, whether or not one is wealthy does not have a major affect on the raising of a child. Shay’s argument is mainly about the ability of parent’s to manage their income, but the amount is income is somewhat irrelevant. A mother is a mother and would raise her child equally whether being a wealthy stay at home mother or a single parent. Each mother is providing for her child and giving her child all that she has to give. Whether or not the family knows how to manage their money is about their economic abilities, not their child raising abilities. Each situation needs to be examined individually, but as a whole, each family is not affected by all economic factors.
While you make a good point that mothers at home are not wealthy, those that work outside of the home are not wealthy either. I do not believe that exponential wealth has a lot to do with mothers working outside of the home, it is more thier need to either gain some independence or support thier families. If a mother is a single parent she has no choice but to work outside of the home or collect welfare. Even if thier are two parents, not all adults are money savy and can hold large debts causing the need for two incomes just to pay the bills. While eating out costs and child care may be an issue, families that have two working families just need to organize thier time since they have less of it.
You make a good point that there are some situations in which it's irrational for both parents to work. If one parent's income would be less than the additional costs incurred by having no adults at home during the day, then they're actually losing money by becoming a two-income household. However, your argument, that "families fare better economically" this way, is only true in those limited situations. If the non-working parent has a high earning potential -- for example, if they are very educated or have skills that are highly in demand -- it could easily put the family in a better economic situation to have both parents working than to only have one. They'll be making more money than they will have to spend in commuting costs, child care, etc. Clearly the rational thing to do is to send the higher-earning parent to work for sure, and decide about the second parent by making these calculations. But these calculations will not always lead to the conclusion you assert here.