Letters to the Editor
Anonymous_Too
Published Letters: 138 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Another vote for the math
[Read the article: Equal opportunity unemployment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rising gas prices + child care costs + workplace-appropriate clothing + take-out and convenience foods does not always equal the take-home pay of that second job. Some women have found that their job actually eats money instead of making money. A $8/hour, full-time job will pay $0 once the dust settles, and that's if you're very lucky.
What worries me is the kids' college education and Mom's retirement. Being a SAHM--or Dad--is more or less the equivalent of being an unpaid childcare provider and housekeeping service. Sure, you get room, board and a bit of spending money, but that doesn't do jack for Junior's tuition and fees, which are rising like crazy, nor do they kick in to a 401K, never mind Social Security, and you don't get raises or insurance.
Even though it might make perfect economic sense in the short run, a woman who drops out because her job isn't making money is gambling with her future and that of her children. And what happens to the family if someone happens to Hubby? Yes, two working parents may seem redundant in some ways, but a little redundancy in a system isn't bad. It provides a safety net that these families no longer have.
Some women I know are freelancing, but they're the ones with some kind of white-collar and computer skills. Not everyone has those. But while a lot of people think this is all cozy and traditional, I'm afraid for those women. This isn't a stable situation, not for anyone involved.
-
@a californian
[Read the article: Equal opportunity unemployment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It takes extraordinary discipline to avoid having your standard of living rise to meet the two incomes. If one drops out, most couples are as stuck as couples losing their only wage earner.
This is true. However, one-income families face the same problem, with an additional handicap: the primary caregiver enters the marketplace is a massive disadvantage. How long has s/he been out, five years? Ten? Twenty? What qualifications does that person have? Unless they've kept a hand in and kept their certifications or degrees current, they're not going to get a job, they're going to get what I would call a half-job, something that will support the family somewhere near the poverty level, and that's if they can get a job at all. You don't just walk out the door and walk back in at the end of the day with a job. Not in this state, anyway.
Given that something has happened to the breadwinner, the family is probably facing greater expenses at the same time as their standard of living is in freefall. They also have to deal with the issue of childcare, as the former breadwinner may not be able or willing to take over as the primary caregiver. And what kind of benefits does this half-job have? Insurance? Sick days? Vacation time? Pension? Umm...
A two-income family will have issues, yes, but I don't think they're going to be as severe.
As far as benefits to the children go, I won't argue with that. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a parent to sign away their future as well as their childcare's hopes of higher education in order for somebody to be home most of the time for 5 - 25 years, depending on how many kids there are and how they're spaced.
It's true that men face more discrimination when they do it, but staying home with the kids isn't easy and it sure isn't very stable, which I think is a major reason they don't put themselves in that position very often. As jobs go, it sucks. My mother did it and I've done it, so I'm aware of the intangibles, but it still sucks in every tangible way.
I worked at home, btw, even though it meant more crock-pot meals and dinner-sized salads. My mother's plight when I was in my teens was so horrific to me that I took active steps to keep myself from every being in the same situation.
Going home isn't the solution people seem to think it is.
-
Sigh...
[Read the article: Equal opportunity unemployment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know this isn't adding much meaningfully to the discussion, but I laughed when I read Anonymous-Too's question about what happens when "someone happens to the hubby."
I seem to do this a lot! These Freudian slips, I mean. Well, I meant "something", but "someone" is that something in some cases.
It's just not stable. So many things can go wrong that this vision of domestic bliss falls apart fast. People forget that the only way the 50s could work was if people were doped up on Valium and/or drinking heavily.
Sole breadwinner sucks just as much as sole caregiver.