Moms: I cannot afford to work!!

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- After factoring in the rising cost of child care, the daily commute and other work-related expenses, a growing number of mothers are figuring out that having a job just doesn't pay.

"It comes down to a cost analysis and I have several clients that have taken the route of quitting," said Anna Behnam, a financial advisor at Ameriprise Financial in Rockville, Md. "Factor in taxes, transportation costs, clothing and lunch -- what is the true net that you bring home after salary?"

money.cnn.com...

Absolutely.

20 working days a month = 10$ x 20 for lunches, 10$ x 20 for transportation, 50$ x 20 for child-care..
On average 1,400$ a month (This varies for most from making lunches en masse and taking transit for a few dollars) but I do see the point these mom's who are on social assistance are making.

Average daycare in my city is about 1,200$ per month and parking downtown is 20$ a day.

So if X =/= Y then just cut X out? lol

It's easier to build up when you have a base, ie paycheck, even if its small.

ETA: art-bin.com...

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Yes! I quit my job because I could not afford to keep paying for the child care and gas. It just makes more sense to just stay home until the kids can go off to school for the day.

I am glad a lot more people are doing the math on this one. My husband was making a lot more money than me, and since I have stayed home our family life has become so much more enjoyable! I even have time to garden and raise chickens, so we still make a little money on my end.

As soon as my youngest two are old enough for school, I'm going back to work though.

This is the same thinking that my husband and I did when we had our first child.

We did the math and found out that we would net $4000 after we considered all of the average expenses associated with working. Would we allow someone else to raise our child for $4000 dollars? Hell no.

I went back to work when he reached school age but now we have another infant at home so I am too.

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?

Can't afford to work really!!!!!!!!!! It must be nice to have that problem, if your mate makes that much money why in hell would you, it is best for you to stay at home anyway and concentrate your efforts on rasing the kids so they will grow up to be productive human being with compaasion love and respect instead of letting some stranger you don't know do all the work; unfortunately must americans do not have the options.

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.

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?

A lot of people wonder.

motherjones.com...

Middle-class parents are stretched thin these days. Between health care costs, child care hassles, looking for a home in a good district, and paying for college, raising a child is becoming increasingly expensive. Little wonder, then, that married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts, and 75 percent more likely to have their homes foreclosed. And the danger is growing worse by the year: In 2002 1.6 million people filed for bankruptcy, many of those middle-class parents. a record . As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi note in their book, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, having a child is now "the single best predictor" of bankruptcy. "

Silly people, don't you know that to be a full blooded Conservative like Romney thinks you should be, you have to work very hard for your money, while being an exemplary "family first" type.

Sleep? SLEEP! YOU GET NONE!

Years ago, I was a single mom. I was also a homeowner, so welfare in Canada is NOT available if you have assets.
Working, cost me $40 more per month than I brought in, and I had no debts.
I couldn't even get daycare covered at all, the welfare office even suggested I quit work, until I told them I was a homeowner.

Luckily for me, my daycare dropped their price for me by $40 per month, because of my situation, or I would have been gaining debt.

Sometimes, not working, is not an option.

reply to post by satron


So extrapolate a bit and just imagine if you are working class mom making minimum wage. How much more in debt would you be if you work and have kids? Yet the GOP calls them welfare moms if they opt to stay home to raise their kids. So much for family values. I wonder does that only mean something for the middle and upper classes? Is raising your kids yourself and not outsourcing it to daycare a privilege of the upper class now?

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.

Originally posted by vicnc2012
Can't afford to work really!!!!!!!!!! It must be nice to have that problem, if your mate makes that much money why in hell would you, it is best for you to stay at home anyway and concentrate your efforts on rasing the kids so they will grow up to be productive human being with compaasion love and respect instead of letting some stranger you don't know do all the work; unfortunately must americans do not have the options.

Are you saying it can't be true that in some cases the pay would be less than the cost? If someone doesn't make enough money to afford the expenses that go along with being a working parent, then they obviously need to figure out something else. No one is trying to knock working moms. Personally I'm waiting for both of my kids to be in school. We'd have less if I had a job.

reply to post by kosmicjack


I see the problem as people who have children and cant afford to have children. Same as pet owners dont own an animal if you cant afford it. Dont rely on the state for your entire life. Stop doing things you cant afford to do. Not working is a personal choice. The american public should not have to support your personal choices.

This isnt directed at you it is for all who feel it is their right to make others pay for them. Nothing wrong with stay at home moms. Romney wasnt going after them he was talking about welfare recipients. One other thing he doesnt know what he believes in, he is out for himself.

Vote for Ron PAUL 2012 the only choice

I know 2 single moms that have doubled up. They are living together and sharing rent.

In fact, that is a trend I am seeing here - I have seen a lot of people taking disabled relatives or older relatives that were in nursing homes back into the homes for care - the elders get care/place to live and the families get the social security income I guess. I think that is how it works.

The area I am in has been hit very hard. The numbers do not show the reality because the housing bust hit here I think it was Sept 2007 and we had 500 jobs lost then, and now a lot of those people - because we KNOW them - are off unemployment but still not working. A lot of the guys are making it selling at flea markets and doing odd jobs. Some of them aren't making it.

I also know 2 grown men who have moved back in with their older moms. Men in their late 40s with kids they pay child support on. I guess that is another way I am seeing the doubling up.

Child rearing and care wouldn't be that expensive if the nuclear family hadn't fallen apart decades ago. When I was growing up, my parents relied on my grandparents to watch my sister and I. There wasn't any payment. It was just what you did. Nowadays, people live so far from family that they have to pay someone to care for their child(ren) -- and trust these caregivers to be responsible.

I do believe that this is part of the larger design meant to corrupt the family structure and individual people as a means of tighter control.

People bring this on themselves. people should Not have children if they first do not sit down and figure if the can actually afford children or not.

Having a kid is like buying a brand new top of the line RangeRover, Jaguar, Mercedes Benz etc but with a longer, more expensive payment plan that can either fluctuate or skyrocket at the drop of a hat.

If your not 100% sure you can afford this and give the kid the best education and world skills it needs to not only survive but thrive, you have no business having a kid. This would keep 50 % of us from having them, yet we and our world economy would all be a lot better off.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Years ago, I was a single mom. I was also a homeowner, so welfare in Canada is NOT available if you have assets.
Working, cost me $40 more per month than I brought in, and I had no debts.
I couldn't even get daycare covered at all, the welfare office even suggested I quit work, until I told them I was a homeowner.

Luckily for me, my daycare dropped their price for me by $40 per month, because of my situation, or I would have been gaining debt.

Sometimes, not working, is not an option.

Yes but in Canada we get like 80% of day-care payments back...
IF you keep your recepits lol.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Child rearing and care wouldn't be that expensive if the nuclear family hadn't fallen apart decades ago. When I was growing up, my parents relied on my grandparents to watch my sister and I. There wasn't any payment. It was just what you did. Nowadays, people live so far from family that they have to pay someone to care for their child(ren) -- and trust these caregivers to be responsible.

I do believe that this is part of the larger design meant to corrupt the family structure and individual people as a means of tighter control.

I agree! And I'd go further to say that we are trying to encourage our son to continue to live with us as an EXTENDED family, because I think, financially, that's the way to go. I'd LOVE to take care of my grandkids and continue to support my son's family AS my own.

I'm weird though.
What I will say is that my dad, a boomer, has no interest really in his grandkids. Never has. My husband's mother is the same way, so our son has never really known grandparents. My mom - she was great, but she died early on when our child was small.

I don't think it is fair to knock people for having kids that can't afford it. Circumstances can change dramatically. I am a Ron Paul supporter too, btw.

I DO fault people for being selfish, putting themselves first all the time, and having kids they don't WANT to afford and don't love. To me, that's just like, the dreggs.

Originally posted by sd211212
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

I see the problem as people who have children and cant afford to have children. Same as pet owners dont own an animal if you cant afford it. Dont rely on the state for your entire life. Stop doing things you cant afford to do. Not working is a personal choice. The american public should not have to support your personal choices.

This isnt directed at you it is for all who feel it is their right to make others pay for them. Nothing wrong with stay at home moms. Romney wasnt going after them he was talking about welfare recipients. One other thing he doesnt know what he believes in, he is out for himself.

Vote for Ron PAUL 2012 the only choice

This isn't all about parents not being able to afford their children. Not all of the women in the article were struggling or living off of the state. It just wasn't worth it to work. That's our situation. We live well on my husbands income. If I worked, the additional cost would be about the same as my pay, therefore there's no point. I'd basically be working for the fun of it. I'd be leaving my kids with strangers all day and I wouldn't be getting anything out of it. I really think you should have thought over your comment before posting it.

Since her husband, an attorney, earned more money than she did, it made more sense for Hayken to be the one to stay home. "When all was said and done, there just wasn't enough money to make [working] worth it," she said. Hayken, who now also has a two-year-old daughter, says she is ultimately very happy with her decision. But other moms are more conflicted.