It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moms: I cannot afford to work!!

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
High child care costs are the ones to blame in a lot of countries as far as I see. In Europe too, the minimum wage does not really cover the childcare for one child. In the end, lets say you have issues with finding a decent job, if you are on minimum wage and have a kid, you go to work, get paid, pay taxes. What is left after this, you give to a lady to take care of your kid while you are working.




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Couples planning to have a family need to do the math BEFOREHAND to ensure that they can properly provide for that child.


Yes, the Eastern Europeans appears to be quite good at Maths as in my home country only one in 8 families has a child!

edit on 19-4-2012 by Romanian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFO1414

i]reply to post by fictitious
 




Sometimes I wonder how the economy would be if women never entered the work force in such large numbers. Better or worse?
[

I was going to research this and make a thread on my findings because i feel the women's lib movement killed not only the economy but a lot of others things as well. If I have time, i will start the thread and let you know.


You shouldn't have too much trouble researching that.

It's been widely documented.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Also, sorry if this has been mentioned already, but in Quebec, Canada, I believe child care is subsidized so it costs families only $8 a year?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
IF i don't work for 'tha man' I work for "my family.'

And my work, it turns out, is actually worth a lot.

For instance...I made a few hundred on eBay this week.
I won 80.00 worth of contest 'stuff' - gas card, Home Depot card, and a dollar general card
I made 9.00 in surveys
I found a rebate that I used to get free beer with (can't beat free beer!)
My hubby smokes so I rolled him some cigs with the tobacco I grew
I made another batch of beer
Grocery bill was 281.00 and I paid 165.00 - (COUPONS!)
I took care of about anh...1500 seedlings, repotted around 200.
Worked on the website for the plant business we are trying to start
Made bread, cooked some darn good pizza, chicken marsala, oriental salad that blows Panera's out of the water...among other things. We ALWAYS have good, mostly cooked from scratch food here.
Took care of my teen and a few others- including computer repair for one of them
Took care of my chickens - got a bunch of baby cuties, plus my older girls
Dried about a pound of herbs to sell
Helped my hubby take down 2 trees
Nabbed a freecycle with a lot of nice shoes/clothes (I needed them!)
Made a #ake mushroom log. Hopefully that will supply us for a year or so with mushrooms
Started some oyster mushrooms

Man, I'm worth something.

Who gets it? Tha man? Or MY MAN?

Easy choice for me.

I wish single women had more options, I do. I wish that more married women that wanted to work for their families would consider it. I am perfectly happy.


edit on 18-4-2012 by hadriana because: (no reason given)


Marry me....



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


this is my conspiracy theory..

originally, women want equal rights, in the home, in the workplace, in society...
I know, that's just all so rude!!
but anyways, they didn't want a responsibility free life, they want equality!!
well in the 60's or early 70's the era came up. there is a reason that no church will accept women as equal to man and why the gov't didn't go for the era...I've hinted some on these boards, and ain't gonna bother here.
but, anyway, they slipped women a fake instead. instead of real equality, they just switched her lords on her. ya, she can get out of the yoke of man, but then she would just be replacing it with the yoke called social services. true freedom comes from the ability of being independent! so, well, the social service system came into being....child support laws became more common, but for a long time weren't enforced. many women took the con, but without true equality in the workforce, true equality in the home, there was no way she could reach that independence. the welfare rolls swelled, more programs were created, more tax credits associated with the "poor" ect. well, soon the cost was insane, and people started griping. put them to work, so more subsidies came into being to help them go to work.
well, along with the subsidies came inflation.
so now, we have successful women who have been working finding themselves not being able to afford the childcare as the poor are sent out in force, given childcare providing a nice low wage workforce for business.
well, as the successful women are forced out of the workforce, and the low wage women come in...

it seems to be the women's lib movement has just about been defeated. in a few generations, the stereotypes will be restored, most women will be home, with their kids, and the only ones that will be in it will be those low wage earners, to justify the idea that women are inferior to men, blah, blah, blah....

kind of works out rather well really.....and hey, the teachers are leaving, so there goes the public school system, which a segment of our society doesn't like either. so mom, while she's staying home, can teach their own kids, and ensure that those kids will not become any smarter than the mother that raised them!!!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Having a child, or creating a family with many children is nothing at all like purchasing expensive automobiles for your garage. A child, any child, is worth far more than any Jag, or Mercedes, or even an Aston Martin or Rolls Royce. Children are not privileges that belong only to those with a bank account and full approval of the current system, children are the right of any parent, and those children born then take their full rights as living creature, great or small.

The truth of the matter is, in regards to this economy, we all brought this on ourselves, and frankly, blame is irrelevant. Stay at home Mom's, doing so because it is more cost effective to do so, are women taking full responsibility for their family and motherhood, and do not deserve any derision or bogus blame for having a child without some elitists snobs approval.


BRAVO brother....you nailed that as hard as a nail can be nailed!

You are sayin' it like it is!

Those who have never stared into the eyes of an infant they helped create will NEVER understand.

There is NOTHING more to me as a man, than my children. NOTHING! And I am BLESSED to be a father.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrittanyLea
It amazes me how quick people are to judge. "well you should have never had kids in the first place" REALLY? That's your answer? So many people lose their jobs every day. So many fathers and even mothers walk out on their families every day.

Not only that, but it's really irritating that several of us have stated that we are stay at home moms because it makes since financially AND that we are NOT on welfare. That's mostly what the article was about, and still people keeping coming into the thread without reading the article or the previous comments and chiming in with "You shouldn't have had kids you lazy welfare moms!"

I don't think this thread was about moms complaining and begging for welfare. It was about the fact that it's sometimes a smarter choice financially for a mother to stay home with the children while the father works outside of the home, if it is a two parent family.


Powerful statement! You wrote that with true feeling. I applaud you.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malynn
I don't think only people who "can afford it" should have children. As others have stated we should all be able to exercise our ability to procreate. At this point in my life I'd love to be thinking about having a baby with my man.

But honestly, I'm struggling with the whole concept. The thought of bringing my innocent, beautiful little baby to this ****hole planet to survive the way we currently do fills me with terror. I would have to stay home with him or her at least while they are young, and I'd have to do home-schooling at least until Junior High. The thought of raising another mindless consumer is completely abhorrent to me.


I think the "risk" outweighs the bad in this case. It is bad out there, granted. But a child just makes it all less important. And you know what? They would survive. We have all endured as humans on this planet. Give a child a life, and give yourself one you will never regret!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The more of your posts I read the more I like you ... or rather the way you think ...


edit on 19-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I think this is also a large factor in fewer babies being born since the recession hit. People also wait till there more finacially secure before they start having kids aswell. I think these are trends you will continue to see.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I actually did this when I got laid off last year and I'm a father. We were spending about $700 A WEEK in childcare due to the fact that kindergarten is only a half day where I live in the northeast. My wife and I both had to drive more than 35 miles to work one way so gas was killing our budget ( she drives 50 one way ) not to mention lunches, etc. We actually saved money with me staying home but I can't take it too much longer so after we go on vacation, I'm going back to work if it makes financial sense. Welcome to the New America......



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fictitious
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


My household spends $350 in tolls, $500 on gas, $50 on lunches a month. When we had a kid (hopefully in the near future), that would be another $1100 on day care. Taxes and insurance takes 35% of our paychecks.

It is definitely worth it for moms to stay at home...at least for us.

Sometimes I wonder how the economy would be if women never entered the work force in such large numbers. Better or worse?



You brought up an interesting question. Watch this interesting segment of a video of an interview of Aaron Russo, he was a producer. www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Just wondering to all those touting the "if you have a child you should plan for the costs" crowd; How much money are you putting away for the time when your doctor tells you "your three year old has Ewings Sarcoma"? You better believe it is well over $100k out of pocket. In other words, dont have kids unless you are filthy rich. How does one "plan" for this again?

CJ



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Before having our daughter my wife netted probably around $2000 dollars a month. Average Daycare cost here is around $1000 a month, so if she was working she would be keeping $1000 dollars. It did not make sense to us to basically have someone else spend more time with our child then us for an extra grand a month. She stays home with our daughter works 4 hours on friday while grandma watches the kid, then works 8 hours on saturday while i watch her and does child care for a friend a couple days a week, and we end up with her bringing in around $1000 a month still but without daycare. Money is tighter then I wish it was but it is what makes sense for us for the time being.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Deflecting is not going to change the fact that all these smug people insisting that the way they went about planning their families could not have relied upon Planned Parenthood to help them do so. Anyone walking into a Planned Parenthood today with their mate and announcing they would like to start planning a family will be treated with suspicion and curtly told they cannot be helped.

But hey, let's pretend like I made some other argument so you can then plug Planned Parenthood and their "services".


I'm confused by the open hostility...

I've never been to Planned Parenthood. I don't work for them, I have no financial ties to them.. hell, I'm not even on their email list. Implying that I'm here to promote their cause would be grossly inaccurate, and I'm offended that you would imply as much.

When I promote planning parenthood, I advocate sitting down with your spouse and coming up with a long term plan to responsibly provide for your future family welfare. Having a child is infinitely different from adopting a pet, and people need to have a plan other than "god will help us find a way." That's nothing more than a BS excuse for "I don't know, so let's just make this # up as we go." Our kids are too important to take that chance. They deserve more, and people really need to consider all things beforehand. We all know that unexpected things happen, however the negative side effects from that can largely be alleviated through responsible planning. Why is responsible planning, i.e. more than a 5 minute conversation, considered to be such a bad thing? I've been there. I've raised my family during rough times, but we persevered and prospered because we were prepared.


Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Just wondering to all those touting the "if you have a child you should plan for the costs" crowd; How much money are you putting away for the time when your doctor tells you "your three year old has Ewings Sarcoma"? You better believe it is well over $100k out of pocket. In other words, dont have kids unless you are filthy rich. How does one "plan" for this again?

There is no perfect plan for that, however too many people go in with NO planning whatsoever. When they face that prospect, they have no money saved, they have no insurance coverage for the child, and that childs welfare is put in jeopardy because of it. Ewings is a very rare affliction, however much of the treatment costs should be covered by insurance coverage. Upfront planning to ensure our children are protected in cases such as that is what I've been advocating throughout this thread. To answer your question directly, I believe I put away approx $20k for each of my first two, and $400k on my third. (due to known prenatal medical issues)


Originally posted by fictitious
Sometimes I wonder how the economy would be if women never entered the work force in such large numbers. Better or worse?
There are too many variables to consider to come up with a viable number. One could also ask how would the economy be if there were no men in the work force, or even how would the economy be if women ran politics. Regardless, it just doesn't matter.
edit on 4/20/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


I can save some time on your research. Consider that all of the developed nations have women that work. Essentially, more than 50% of the potential workforce is employed in some way. Putting aside the few eras where economies have faltered nations with working women are far more prosperous.
Simply look around at the world. With a few exceptions, oil-rich skews the data, nations that do not allow or traditionally do not employ women are poor - often very poor.
On the other hand, my wife did stay home with the kids prior to all day school. Knowing what I know now, I'd do it all over again. In fact, if she had made more money back then I'd stay home. There is nothing more uplifting than your own children, and now my own grandchildren. Count life's blessing every day.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


You're confused by your own open hostility? Perhaps you should give up on the hostility and find better guidance, especially if you spend as much time backpedaling as you are now. You chose to take a statement I made about Planned Parenthood, ignore the intent of that statement and then lecture me on the value of Planned Parenthood's contraceptive program. No one made you take up the mantle of defense for Planned Parenthood, this was your choice all by yourself.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


You're confused by your own open hostility? Perhaps you should give up on the hostility and find better guidance, especially if you spend as much time backpedaling as you are now. You chose to take a statement I made about Planned Parenthood, ignore the intent of that statement and then lecture me on the value of Planned Parenthood's contraceptive program. No one made you take up the mantle of defense for Planned Parenthood, this was your choice all by yourself.


I simply quoted a figure I read in another post here on ATS earlier today. I've openly stated here on ATS my anti-abortion stance, and you choose to paint me as their head cheerleader? I'm not backpedaling, I'm simply pissed by your insinuations.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


There was no insinuation, I flat out stated you used a remark I made to point out the irony of a thread where people want to scoff at the idea of poor people having children and how they believe parenting takes planning, and how Planned Parenthood is anything but planning a family, and you decided to ignore that and instead sold Planned Parenthood. I never asked anyone if they could supply some data on Planned Parenthood, and I didn't even make my post in reply to any of yours. Entrench yourself all you want on this issue, your post on Planned Parenthood was clearly a defense of that organization.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join