This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

Do Working Moms Put Their Kids at a Disadvantage?

The fascination with Sarah Palin comes not only from her unexpected rise, but also from the fact that she is a mother of five, with one child under a year old. While Palin seeks the vice presidency, one of the most demanding jobs on Earth, more than 40 million American moms also balance jobs with motherhood. Do working moms have the best of both worlds, or are they potentially neglecting their children's best interests?

Next question in Society

You are seeing 4 Comments on this Argument. See all 122 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Families Fare Better Economically When a Parent Stays Home

- From Suzanne Venker

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Misleading math

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.

- thoughtcounts Z October 31, 2008 5:35PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Organization

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.

- Shay February 9, 2009 8:25PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Mother is a Mother

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.

- Natalie Marie February 25, 2009 11:04AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
lifestyle

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.

- SweeneyToddInc February 26, 2009 6:59PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.