- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Stay at Home Moms
Not meant to be snarky, but an honest question
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Not meant to be snarky, but an honest question
It is irresponsible for anyone to live in major debt with a family or without.
Some people choose to live super tight even if they aren't bringing in a couple of hundred dollars in savings because they think it's more important to be with their children and like OP have said your children are only young once you can always work later.
I do freelance but I was lucky to be given that opportunity. My DH's schedule does not allow me to work a retail type job at night or weekends right now.
You can always find free activities to do with your family and people have different ideas on what an acceptable savings is. We have 3 months but I know a ton of couples who are both working who don't have any savings.
Natural M/c 12/13/08 at 8w5d
Well, that's great for you. FWIW, I fail to see how an extra $1300 a month would make our kid's life and our marriage "much, much better". What do we need if for? We're happy, our kids are content (and learning that the latest and greatest "things" aren't what make you happy) and we can take care of ourselves now and in case of an emergency. What would we use if for, to buy more stuff? Working extra hours that you don't need may be great for you and not take a toll on your marriage or family life, but really, you can't speak for everyone else and say it won't for them. Basically, if I understand correctly, you are saying that you are working 12 hours a week for money you don't need. I just don't follow that logic at all (unless you are saying that you working because you enjoy it and the money is an added bonus -- that I can understand, but that's not how it sounds). I think it's really hard to define what "really needing an extra income" looks like. At minimum it's obviously not go into extra debt to stay home, but after that there really is no clear definition. It will look different for different people. For you, it appears to be working for money you don't need, but it seems for others seems they are content to make do and stretch what they have. I think most people have agreed with you though, that you shouldn't be going into debt to stay at home and after that I guess I don't see why you care.
I have learned not to be shocked at the stupidity on the nest anymore, but I agree with you. You are NOT being responsible if you have no savings, You are NOT being responsible if you walk a house, You are NOT being responsible if you are SAH and living off of debt (student loans), You are NOT being responsible if you can't pay your bills but choose to stay home. And yes you are setting a bad example for your kids, go to work if you can not afford to SAH it is as easy as that. I get that some people are thrown into situations they can' t control (like the loss of a job), but if you are being financially responsible in the first place although life changing this will not be the end of the world, and if you do loose your house after going through your Emergancy fund, and you have both looked for jobs everywhere including McDonalds and Wal-mart then I feel for you, but if you are choosing to stay home because it is "best for the kids" you are kidding yourself and your irrepsonsiblity does effect me!
Oh and my husband who has his masters in aerospace engineering worked at Wal-mart before he found a job so i have a hard time buying the over qualified for jobs excuse. If my rocket scientist was not over qualified than who is?
I don't get the reasoning that "your kids are only young once" to justify living in such a way that isn't financially responsible. I hate to be a negative nelly, but what if god forbid you're at home (not you specifically, I'm generalizing and throwing out a hypothetical situation) with no job, and your DH gets in a terrible car crash on the way home from work and ends up in a coma, unable to work for months. There's no savings. The medical bills are piling up. You only have the last paycheck he earned to pay all your bills/feed your kids. What do you think happens to their house? To the kids? That's a decision that could negatively impact your child's life for a long time, much more than not being there for part of the day because you have to make some money to support the family. And honestly, I'm putting an extreme situation out there, but a situation far less dramatic can bankrupt a family.
And to the few who asked why I care-an PP brought up a good point that when people foreclose on their house due to bad choices, it affects others around them. When people become homeless that have kids, that's sad for everyone. I asked simply out of curiosity since people are generally curious when others choose a different lifestyle than what they would ever consider, but there really are implications for others besides that family.
My thoughts exactly!
And the value of MY house!
My husband worked for Walmart too before he found a good paying, reliable job. It didn't pay nearly enough, but it was a job. At least my husband could say he was working. And while he was working there he was busy interviewing and searching for a more suitable job.
It is honestly one of the reasons I fell in love with and decided to marry him. Any man with that kind of work ethic was very attractive to me.
Let me define what "really needing an extra income" means. It means you don't have an emergency fund to pay your bills for at least 4 months (but technically, it should be over 6) and you're barely scraping by and have no extra money to put into savings a month. If you have enough to pay your bills and survive in the case of an emergency, you're not the type of person I'm referring to. If you read my OP, you would see that.
There's no such thing as "money you don't need". There's no such thing as having too much money in savings-it's not necessarily to buy "stuff" with. In a bad economy, people should be saving everything they can! Yes, my income isn't money we absoutely need to pay our bills, but it makes our quality of life better. I do enjoy my job and I enjoy having a break to have adult conversations, having a cup of coffee in peace, and getting to pee without worrying about what my mobile little man is getting into. Also, being in HR I know how difficult it is for SAHM to re-enter the workforce in many cases, so it's a good long term decision for when I go back to FT work when my youngest starts 1st grade.
If my DH gets laid off tomorrow, that's more time we can survive and don't have to stress if he can't find a job right away, because we have more in the bank from my income than we would if I didn't have it. So yeah, I don't see any money as money you don't need. Money doesn't buy happiness, but in the same token I can't imagine living on such a tight budget there was absolutely nothing left to have some fun with and I was stuck in the house all day, everyday. When DH had a stressful month at work and we can afford a weekend away if we want or a nice dinner out a few times a month, that absolutely improves our marriage and quality of life. I might not need a $3000 family vacation, but the simple things in life like watching DS laugh at sharks at the aquarium do make life more enjoyable.
The REAL issue here? You can NOT control what others do with their jobs and finances, plain and simple. You can rant on here until the sun rises in the west and it won't change a thing. Some people live in complete stupidity and others have tragedies that befall them, BOTH are examples of how debt, foreclosure, etc. can happen.
Do we have debt? Sure do. Do I care if others are apparently all riled up because I do AND I stay home with my kids? Nope. Not.one.little.bit. Because my battles aren't yours. Yes, many foreclosures affect the market and home values, I get that.
Number #1 lesson: Life ISN'T fair and I can't ever remember anyone telling me it was.
DD#1~8/17/96------DS~10/24/05
I agree life is not fair, but it is a public message board and I can call out the stupidity of SAHM when you can't afford it. And you are right I can rant all I want and that is what I am doing. Do I think that people that are making irresponsible dumb choices will all the sudden wise up when they read something I wrote? Heck no, but I will state my opinion and have a right to do so.
I get what you're saying and you're right, we don't completely fit into your scenario. And for what it's worth I agree with you on the having an emergency fund/savings point. And I think, based on responses here that many agree with that. But my point is this, not everyone feels the same way you do as far as having the extra money for "stuff", no matter how big or small those things are. To you it's worth going out to work to be able to have to time away with adults, or to have a get away with your husband, or being able to get out with your child on a daily basis. But to others, it's not worth it and that's okay too.
And FWIW, when I was talking about money you don't need, I was saying that because you actually said that it was money you don't need in your first reply. And also, I do believe at a point, especially when dealing with raising children, that after a certain point working for money to put away in savings becomes money you don't need. The money becomes not worth it when balancing time away from children/family vs working to put money away. For instance, if I had a 6 month emergency fund, savings for other expenses and my husband had a steady job than to me, working to put money into savings is working for money I don't need. True, my husband could get laid off or some other big thing, but then at that point I could look for a job and not until then.
Ditto. I can't imagine working opposite schedules. I would rather downsize my lifestyle A LOT. There are so many ways to live cheaply (share a house, live in a house that's for sale and needs to look "lived in" are two examples). Having lived without a car for 10 years until 2009, I can testify that it's actually preferable in a city, and saves so much money. I would look for any alternative over never seeing my H.
I will choose a rich life full of time for my family and friends over savings any day. Not that we don't have savings, we do. But financial security is not the key to happiness.
And, again, I state I think it depends were you live. My cousin who is an engineer worked at Walmart after he retired. We have both applied at over 20 places for any hours including holidays and been told there isn't a position for us...4 managers were very nice and each said something like this, "I will be honest, we are looking for retirees or students and people with less education/experience". When we said we would happily work for minimum wage, they said there experience shows that people with our prior level of income/experience will not stay and aren't worth the risk in hiring. I have excellent references and a stellar work history dating back 15 years - I only took 2 sick days in 4.5 years when I had a fever and was contagious. I am well spoken, intelligent, reliable, and don't believe any job is "beneath me". I have friends OOS who have had luck getting jobs even as second jobs because they had debt to pay off, etc. But in the area we live in, I haven't known anyone but that 1 person who had luck. My good friends sister & husband have both been out of work fo 1.5 years and have applied to hundreds of jobs - he couldn't find anythign and she got a job waitressing for 10 hours a week. They even mentioned that your history/education level hurting people during a news casts several times here. I think it is great your husband was hired, but don't assume it is the same job market everywhere.
This board seems to be getting more and more judgemental of people - thus the reason I have been on less. It used to be a very informative, supportive board. That was better. I also agree with pp who said it obviously depends on what you qualify as enough and how much work would hurt your family - that varies by family and no one should think they know better what someone needs. I agree with pp that said that they shouldn't complain about things being tight then.
As will I. But if I called out every ridiculous thing/idea/comment I saw on these boards, I'd never get anything else done. Just saying, to each their own.
DD#1~8/17/96------DS~10/24/05
Good thing it is only really mothers staying at home while hurting their family financially that really gets me going, I don't really call out anything else:)
I came back to this post and cannot believe how many opinions are here about how other people live their life! I agree with being responsible with your money and I think all SAHMs are constantly thinking about money, saving where they can, and reevaluating,etc. I just have to say with all the posts about safety nets/savings/forclosures/debt/credit, we don't live in the same "normal" economic climate anymore. The old rules no longer apply.
For example, we "lost" our house. We didn't stop paying our mortgage and go into foreclosure, we weren't eve late on 1 single payment. We bought our house in 2006 at the height of the housing bubble. Every financial book and person was saying "buy now! The interest rates are low! If you don't buy now you will be squeezed out of the market and never own a home." It made sense, the interest rates were low and home prices were rising at a scary rate. DH and I were approved for a $400,000 home. We weren't dumb enough to buy one, but we did buy a house that was way overpriced at 230,000. We lived there for 3 yrs, money got tight, decided to downsize to have more savings, and got stuck. The house wasn't worth a fraction for what we paid for. We short sold the house (negotiated a price that the bank would accept and eat the difference). We couldn't afford to stay and couldn't afford to move. We did everything right. We lost our down payment and our home.
Now that we are renting, we have a lot in savings, and our credit scores are better, and have no debt. A few years ago, renting would be crazy. We have friends who have refinanced so many times that they too are stuck and can't afford their homes.
Another example, my FIL worked his whole life, saving large amounts of money for retirement in stocks and his 401k. He lost %50 of his retirement and may never retire.
Sorry for the long post. If you have read up to here, you may see my point. You can't judge other peoples' financial situations. Everyone does what is best for them and what they know is best for them at the time.
Unless you absolutely HAVE to work an opposite shift from your spouse to put food on the table and a roof over your head...I really fail to see how that is going to increase the quality of life for anyone in a family? Both parents are going to be exhausted, cranky, not bonded...which is only going to cause issues for the kids far beyond setting a bad example.
As long as we can pay our bills on time, nothing else should matter to anyone else. Everyone has a different definition of "happiness" and what "living comfortably" really means.
Well, I was one of those people who would walk away from a home before I went back to work. I also said I would try to sell, but because of the fact that banks were irresponsible in their lending I don't have to luxury of being right-side up on my house. If I tried to sell now, I would take a loss, and if I ran into a situation where I was having trouble making payments that obviously isn't going to help anything.
We aren't in trouble right now. I was just saying that my priorities are to be with my family wherever they might reside as opposed to working and letting them sleep (and that's all they'd be doing, sleeping there, because they'd have to be with other people and in other places during the day because I was working) in this building.
The point is, not everyone has the same options that you do. I think it's really rude to call those of us who have different priorities than you do "stupid." You aren't right. You aren't better. Would I like to show my children that when we make a promise (Our mortgage) we stick with it? Of course. But will I sacrifice being able to teach them that in hard times THEY are our priority and that no matter what happens to us financially, I will be available to them? No, no I won't.
AND, like I said. The kids won't know you're having financial struggles unless YOU tell them. They don't know how much money you have in savings, they just know if you are there. They don't know if you have .20 cents in the bank. They know that you didn't read them a story at bedtime. They don't care if you have a $250 hospital bill that you'll have to work out a payment plan on, they care that YOU are the one who tucks them in and kisses them goodnight and wakes them up and gets them breakfast and plays with them and gets there snack and makes them lunch.
Wow. Just wow.
Why do people have to get ugly about this?? Have your opinions, but really, what are you doing? Do you think you're going to change people's minds? You're not. You're not doing anyone any favors... just pissing people off and hurting feelings.
Obviously, this is NOT an issue we will all see eye to eye on, and it seems like some are just digging to get people riled up now. The only thing that remotely affects you is the foreclosure, but most of the foreclosures in this country were not due to this situations... they were due to poor lending practices, unethical realtors trying to flip houses, and people living beyond their means.
I work 7P-7A 3 shifts a week (I'm a nurse). While I hate working nights sometimes I think it actually works well for my husband and I....we really value the time we do spend together and at the same time don't step on each others toes by seeing each other all the time. Once our baby comes I will be working Sunday, Thursday and Friday nights and my husband will work from home Monday and Friday. This way we will never have to use daycare and also not have to be financially strapped by losing one of our incomes. It's a sacrifice to work nights but for now that is what works for us...plus I get paid a differential
I've been trying so hard to bite my tongue, but I just can't. Don't blame the mortgage companies for your choices. They did not force you to buy. They did not force you to not work because you don't feel like it. People going into foreclosure and walking away from their house did this-just the type of situation you're setting yourself up for! People who lived irresponsibly are the ones who caused this crisis, not the banks. Yes, I feel awful for people like a poster above who did everything right but ended up in a house she couldn't afford, even though people should have understood that recessions happen once a decade and you should plan accordingly. Your situation is completely different as you created it.
What if your DH loses his job and can't find another one for a year and you cant either since the economy is bad? You're going to live off family for a year? It's nice that they'll pay your way and give you a 0% loan from them, but do you know what kind of burden that will be? Babies are EXPENSIVE, as are providing for 2 grown adults. You'd be tens of thousands of dollars in debt to them. That would take a long time to pay back and would effect you for years to come, probably until your kids are old enough to understand. I can't imagine potentially putting my family in that situation. Now if we had a medical emergency and god forbid DH was sick and I couldnt find a full time job, that would be one thing. Doing that because I just didn't feel like working and didn't put myself in a position to be able to do it before I stopped working? That's different. Oh, and your kids won't remember if you work a job when they're under 5. Wouldn't it be better to get your finances in order for a few years then stay home when they actually will remember you being there and create a better situation for them? There is truth that kids raised in good financial situations have far better outcomes in life than those that are not-you can read the studies.
But I'm going to leave this post now because I'm beating a dead horse. When you put your choices out there you have to accept that not everyone will agree with them. I've tried to make people see the error in their ways-because living tight is one thing and nothing I find issue with, but if you're a month away from losing your house, that's just a dangerous situation to bring a child into. Money doesn't buy happiness and I am a firm believer that you can't buy time, but kids aren't free and have basic needs. You shouldn't expect family to support you just because you don't feel like supporting yourself. In a perfect world I made someone second guess what they're doing and think about at least working part-time for their children's well being, although realistically I know I didn't. People that do that to their kids I have a problem with-heck I'm not perfect. I'm sure there's a parenting choice we see others do gets us upset as well. We're all human.
Again, we're making our mortgage payments. Our mortgage when we borrowed it was $70,000 because we bought a foreclosed home. Our monthly mortgage payment is less than 800 a month including escrow. WE do not have a problem. A lot of forclosures are due to banks saying to uneducated buyers "you qualify for a 500,000 home" when they can only AFFORD a 100,000 home. Unfortunately there wasn't a required homebuyers course that included budgeting during the years when banks were doing everything they could to get people in homes they may or may not be able to actually afford.
If my husband is unemployed he will qualify for unemployment, which will pay the most basic bills (mortgage, electric and gas, groceries etc) and we will cancel the luxuries we have (internet, basic cable). Of course, if for some reason we get to the point where he is no longer recieving unemployment and we can't pay the bills, I will look for work. I'm not stupid or naive. But at that point my DH will be home with our LO. So a parent will still be caring for him. Then when he gets back to work, we'll switch back and I'll stay home. By saying that our family will help us in an emergency I was referring to perhaps a major car-repair or emergency hospital bill that we can't cover from our own checking account. I would never borrow more than 1-2 thousand from family at any given time. (About the amount I feel we could comfortably pay back in a year simply by cutting out a "treat" or two every week)
Babies are as expensive as you MAKE them. We are cloth diapering and as a gift to us, our ENTIRE stash was purchased for us. Even if it wasn't it would be a one time investment up front of about $500 (which, if needed we were going to be able to pay for). So I will not pay for diapers for the next two years. I will also be BF-ing (God willing) for as long as possible so I will not be buying formula or special baby-food. We will have to purchase some things, like some clothing, but because of the timing of our child, we've gotten lucky and for the first while, as LO grows out of clothes, there will be a holiday that he would get clothes for! If my son wears second hand clothing I'm not a bad mother. If I shop at consignment stores for his clothes for a while during the time we're paying off our debt, he will survive and THRIVE. My baby will be covered by Medicaid, which makes me feel a little bad, because I'm not paying for insurance premiums and I'm "living off the system" but I'd rather do that, then try to pay hundreds of dollars a month, just so I'm allowed to pay a co-pay and deductible if anything happens and my child needs more than routine care. So, no. My baby won't be "expensive"
Studies show that while the "memory" of having a parent there during the formative years don't exist (Can you remember a whole lot from when you were under 5?) the impact is great. But that is really more of an argument between SAHM and Working moms. And people who say wanting to be there for all the firsts my child may have is "selfish" can suck it. I made the conscious choice to become a parent so that I could experience those firsts, not so I could work and let someone else see them. I would NEVER argue that if you know you're going to have to create MORE debt in order to stay home, then it is not the right choice for you. But still having debt and having a plan to have it paid off within a few years and thus choosing not to work is not the same thing. If we didn't have a plan, and couldn't make our payments or anything like that, I'd agree that I shouldn't be at home. That's not the case.
You keep quoting me, but I feel like you aren't really referring to me specifically, because the situations you're talking about are nothing I've mentioned. We aren't a month away from losing our house. We are curent on our payments. There are DEFINITELY still some steps we need to take before we're really in a good situation, but they are being taken without me working. Could we accomplish some of those things FASTER if I worked? Yup, but we are willing to sacrifice our own luxiries and vacations and extras for a few years so that I can be at home while we get those things in order.
I don't disagree that there ARE some women out there who shouldn't stay home if they can find part-time work. But I think a MAJORITY of the women on this site are not those women. I think most of the women on this site are well educated about where they are and what is going on, and while they may post every once in a while about a struggle (If we can't post a worry or a vent here, then it's a pretty useless site) that doesn't mean that their entire financial situation is falling apart. And, if those few people who happen to be living one month away from being homeless and are choosing to stay home are reading this, GO GET A JOB! But to the rest of the mom's who are choosing to live with less so they can give their children more, KUDOS!!
I am honestly amazed at the lack of personal responsibility. The bank or lenders did not get us into this situation. People not being educated and making good economic choices did.
All the situations that have been listed went wrong not because our economy is bad, but because people are making uneducated choices.
There is no way someone should loose thier retirement due to this recession, if they are that close to retirement there is no reason for the majority of their money to be in stock in the first place. A person who is educated about their money would know this. It is our responsiblity to be knowledgable about where our money is invested and what is the best choice for us at a certian point in life.
I laugh at the baknks put us in this situation with houses. It is not hard to take a mortage and figure out your payment monthly. It is your responsibility to be able to cover that mortage even in the event of a job loss or death. If you can't your mortage is too much!
I also can not believe that Moms that stay home on this board really think that their children will be better off just because they stay home. Not your children will be better off with a stable place to live that you can afford, working or not.
That being said. I have no problem with people renting, or paying down debt slowly, or budgeting to the last dollar. That is great and I am all for it. I have a problem with those that think that SAH is more important than financial stability. And yes your kids will know sooner than you think. My niece who is 3 knows that whiile her friends get to do dance she can't because they don't have the money because Mommy doe snot work.
Hmm..last time I checked you can earn and lose money in the stock market. Speaking of being educated, we are about to hit a double dip recession. NO ONE could predict that the stock market was going to drop the way it did! Since no one can predict the future or the economy, let's all work and hire strangers to raise our kids and live in teeny tiny houses...sounds like a fun life! This will be great for the economy as well. Geez some people don't get it. All these moms that think SAHMs should work. Let's hope they don't get laid off along with their husbands because then you have TWO incomes to come up with.
Actually the double dip recession was preditcted not that we are in a double dip yet, and honestly am not sure we will be. It has nothing to do with hiring strangers to take care of our kids (way to degrade WM).
It has to do with being educated on your money and how to spend it. I don't think ALL SAHM should work but I do think those that don't have the money to SAH should. It also as I said before has to do with personal resposiblity. Call me crazy if I don't think people who choose not to work over financialy stability are not responsible.
See, now that doesn't make much sense. Assuming you're really from MI, the max unemployment benefit is less than $1300/month. If you're qualifying for state assistance, I'm guessing you wouldn't fall into the category of those receiving max benefits. Since you have no savings and a large amount of debt (taking 5 years to pay it off is a lot IMO) it's a safe bet that providing for 2 adults and one child for a few months would be enough to lose your home. I consider that a pretty dangerous situation. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of baffling to me that you can afford all your bills on DH's unemployment, yet you qualify for free medical insurance. Usually that is reserved for low income families-not families that can afford to survive on not only their DH's income, but their DH's unemployment income.
I was going to use the example of having a child that is sick can bring some unexpected bills that can throw a wrench in your plan, but that doesnt apply for free insurance. Must be nice to be able to live off the state and not have to worry about medical bills. It also makes me feel wonderful as a taxpayer that I have to pay for families like that when there's a parent that chooses not to work, not because they absolutely need the help because the family is in crisis. It's unfortunate our system is set up in such a way that people can do this.
Wow I missed that one. Living off the system so you can SAH, nice!
Obviously putting your family in debt to stay home is dumb, no one would argue that. Investing in real estate and the stock market is smart, taking risks can help the economy and your portfolio. Does it always work out? No. If we all stop doing it we are doomed.
But when you come in here on your high horse as the "financially responsible police" ppl will get turned off. I hope you never write off anything that you shouldn't and your taxes are 100 percent accurate,you've never made a bad purchase, you've never gambled, played the lottery,you only buy things made in the USA will all USA materials, you drive American cars, you don't shop at Target or Wallmart who hurt local businesses, you shop at farm stands, I could keep going. I am reminded of "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone...."
But people HAVE argued that point. And I think investing in real estate in the stock market is only smart if you know what you're doing. A stock portfolio and home ownership just aren't for everyone. People who don't know what they're doing tend to buy high and sell low and that doesn't help anyone.
Yup, I live off the state. My husband has worked for 15 years and paid taxes and we pay our property taxes every year, so I am using some of the resources that I've been paying for that are made available for people in my situation. My husband works construction and we paid 70 a week for me to be covered under his insurance until his employer decided that he would no longer offer health care coverage.
AND YES, like I said, his unemployment can pay our mortgage, gas, electric, groceries and vehicle maintenance/gas. (we don't have a car payment). I'm glad you know the max, when I hear 1300 I feel like we're doing a REALLY good job at managing our money, because last winter when my husband was on unemployment we were doing just fine. Tight, but fine. We will take 5 years to pay off over 30,000 in consumer debt. We know that it's a lot. That bothers me, because we made some really stupid mistakes when we were first together and now we have to clean up our mess, but we've worked out a plan that lets us pay a set amount and lower interest rates and it will be paid off in 5 or less years.
I don't use Medicaid because "I don't feel like working." Even if I kept the job I had when I got pregnant, I would not be eligible for health coverage, nor would my child. My husband's work provided insurance until 7-1 of this year. That's when I went on Medicaid. I didn't want to, but I would rather be on Medicaid and be able to recieve care without going into debt than to try to come up with hundreds and hundreds of extra dollars a month to pay for private insurance even through COBRA. I looked up costs and realized that for a pregnant woman to be covered on a private plan (like BCBS) you'd have to shell out more than $500 in the "prenatal" rider and STILL pay the co-pay and deductible on the policy. Not worth it. Then if I decided my son needed private health insurance as opposed to Medicaid and I went back to work, I'd be working JUST to pay for his insurance. And I'd lose money by having him in childcare.
Just so you know, I worked 5 days a week and still was only allowed to work part-time hours so that the company wouldn't have to pay benefits to me. I qualified to call their hotline with questions, but if I wanted to see a doctor or dentist, they didn't provide any coverage that I could purchase. When I quit working there, we actually saw a SAVINGS in our budget. I had to drive 50 miles round trip 5 days a week to get to work. I made just over minimum wage, so with the gas and wear and tear on my car we actually almost were PAYING for me to work. We bought a home in an area that we wanted to raise our children, so there are no work opportunities within a closer range. My husbands construction work will take him all over the state, so we picked an area that is as central as we could, while still being within an hour from each of our families. If I were to try to go back to work now, we'd run into me only being able to work when DH was home (Which could be as early as 6 pm and as late as 7:30 depending on where his job is) or when his mom could watch DS. She is on the hunt for a new nanny job right now, so once she decides which family she wants to work with, she'll know her schedule. There are VERY few opportunities available to me that would provide a 3rd shift option to work. It would include some factories in the area, a 24 hour wal-mart and another 24 hour store like walmart called Meijer. Both of those are the 25 miles away, so unless I was making significantly more than min. wage we'd be running into the same situation as before, where it costs more for me to work than to stay home. If I tried to work retail I'd have to pay for childcare, which means I would DEFINITELY lose money on working, what with paying for childcare AND 50 miles a day on my car. I'm glad that YOUR situation is such that if you just want to hop up to the mall and grab a part-time job for a couple extra dollars a week to make things easier you can, but I don't have that luxury. If I am out of the house, it's not just a few miles to work and a few miles back. I don't have the luxury of my husband working a reliable schedule, so I wouldn't be able to provide a workplace a set time I could start work on any given day, AND the nearest job market to me happens to also be a community college town, so there are thousands of teenagers with nothing but class to work around (which are on a set schedule) trying to get the same jobs I'd want to get.
Like I said, my children won't know that we're tight or if at any given time, we're struggling. You SIL or whatever was WRONG in telling her daughter she couldn't take dance because mommy doesn't work. That's not something a 3 year old needs to be told. What SHOULD have happened was talking to the local dance center and asking what kind of payment plans are available and if there was anything the family could do to reduce the cost of classes. IE, offering a car-pool to other students for a discount, cleaning the facilities after the class, working in the studio shop (if there is one) during classes etc. OR, mommy could just stop drinking her Starbucks everyday, or buy store brand cereal, or only have dessert after dinner as a treat instead of as an everyday occurence, or buy cheaper daytime snacks, or discuss with her husband the netflix, cable, internet, XBOX live account, etc... and see if they can cut back on THEIR desires, so they can send their daughter to dance. OR if you're lucky enough to live in an area with a college or a community college you could talk to their dance department and see if any of the professors or students would be willing to teach a class with your daughter and a few of her friends for cheaper than the dance center would cost. (Those people have less overhead so they can charge less and still profit).
MY children will be able to do the things they want to do. If my son wants to play hockey (notoriously the MOST expensive sport a child can participate in) I will enroll him in hockey. If I have to buy his gear through swap meets with other moms instead of brand new, I will. If DH and I have to sell concessions during his games, we will. If I have to cancel my cable or internet so we can afford the cost of letting our child try something, we will! Honestly, I don't see this as a problem, because as we pay off debt, we are able to apply more money to the rest of the debt and it gets paid off faster, so by the time this LO really starts asking to participate in things, we will have a lot more money freed up to pay for the things he'll want to do, but if that weren't the case, I would still stay home to be with him and just do everything I could to scrape up the money to let him play.
and also, you keep jumping on the freaking mortgage thing. YES the banks were irresponsible. Unfortunately, a lot of uneducated people bought houses without really looking at what they could afford, but the banks are the ones that LET them. Approving someone for a house that YOU KNOW they can't afford is irresposible lending. That's the banks fault.
As far as retirement investment, seriously??? You expect everyone who has a 401K to be a market genius? These people have been working their whole lives at what they know how to do, not spending their lives studying the markets. While it is CERTAINLY advisable to learn as much as you can about where you're putting your money, even the smartest of investors couldn't avoid losing their asses when the market fell. This hit everyone, not just the "stupid" ones.
Please explain to me how shopping at walmart and target is not financially responsible, and yes my taxes are always done by an accountant, we do drive american paid off cars, don't play the lottery. What does shopping and local farmers markets (which I do) have anything to do with my financial responsibility? If each person made financial responsible educated choices for their family we would not be in the mess we are.
Thank you! This is what I was saying. People who invest money and have no idea the why, how and where of it are not being financially responsible. Once again it is all about personal responsibility.
My DH made money on our 401k when the market tanked. Given, it was not a substantial amount of money (moreso we "broke even" and made a few hundred bucks) but not everyone lost substantially. My DH works in retail management 50+ hours a week and it's not his job to know the market. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to keep track of the market. Yeah, there are people that are "market genuises" that lost a lot of money, but there were many people uneducated about the maret there as well.
So its the banks fault that people are unedeucated? Seriously? Some people are "house poor" and don't want anything else. What I want in a house on a $80k income and what you want might be 2 entirely different things. It will also vary based on other factors, like the amount of debt, etc. If I buy a $3,000 flat screen tv at best buy that I couldn't afford, is it their fault for selling it to me? No, as a consumer I have a responsibility to know what I'm paying for. I make the payments, not the bank! The banks are in it to make money. They have no responsibility whatsoever to uneducated people. It's one thing if they were giving mortgages that were 80% of ones income, but they didnt.
In terms of dance, it's EXPENSIVE. One class a month usually runs $40. Most kids take many more than one class a month, since one class isn't going to do too much. Then there's recitals, where costumes run up to $100. If they want to participate in more than one type of class, it's double. It's thousands of dollars out of pocket a year and its not like you can go with a used uniform that doesn't match the other girls. People don't give handouts to people just because they're a SAHM and cant afford an expensive class. Also, most people aren't going to hire someone for their studio to work unless they have dance experience. (My cousin owns one, so I am all too familiar). A dance studio isn't exactly a hard place to clean, so a teacher does it when class is done-it takes all of 5 minutes. You have a completely unrealistic expectation of how expensive things are and how you think you're going to get around them. It's not as easy as giving up starbucks or going to store brand cereal.
I don't care how you word it, there is something substantially wrong with a family who can live on one spouses UNEMPLOYMENT income getting free healthcare. If you can't afford kids unless you live on the system, you hold off having kids. If things happen and you get pregnant before, you do what you have to do to support them yourself. It's one thing to temporarily live off the system while you get on your feet, it is another to not work and not plan on looking for work ever. It is selfish and irresponsible to do otherwise. If you have to choose between the nice area with good schools but no work opportunies or a worse neighborhood but more opportunities, you choose what you can support on what you can make. If you're only a minimum wage worker, you live a minimum wage lifestyle. That's the problem with this country-people make crappy choices and want to live beyond what they can actually afford because they have delusions of grandeur. That is why this country is in trouble-not from the banks, but because people live on a more expensive lifestyle because they think they deserve it and didn't plan for the things that happen all the time, like job losses, loss of insurance, etc.
I highly, highly doubt the tens of thousands of dollars you are stealing from the state in insurance makes up a portion of what your DH paid in taxes so don't try to justify that its ok because your DH is a taxpayer.
As a working mom, I am disgusted by this comment. I am there for my child too. You truly have no clue what you're talking about here, and it's obvious.
And this? Is laughable too. I planned to BF for a long time too. But then my child had a medical condition that required her to be on medical grade formula, which cost $1K per month, out of pocket. How would you handle that expense?
Am I understanding correctly that you are choosing to be on Medicaid so you don't have to pay premiums? Who knew it was that easy!?!? And here I am working to provide insurance for my family! Wow, what a fool. Maybe I should stop and just let others pay for me too.
You're digging your hole deeper.