“Doesn’t It Make More Sense For You To Stay Home?”: Mom Of 4 Shuts Down All Criticism Of Her Family Paying $5K A Month On Childcare
Figuring out how to juggle a full-time job, childcare responsibilities and being a great parent isn’t easy. Every family is unique, and they must decide what works best for them.
But as one mother of four has learned over the years, sometimes people just can’t help but insert their own opinions on others’ parenting choices. Below, you’ll find a TikTok that Sheisapaigeturner recently shared, detailing why she and her husband choose to continue working and pay for childcare, as well as a conversation with The Mom at Law, Candace Alnaji.
This working mother of four is tired of being asked why she doesn’t stay home with her children
Image credits: Sergey Makashin (not the actual photo)
So she shared a video detailing why she chooses to work and pay thousands of dollars a month for childcare
“My husband and I pay $5,000 a month for childcare for our four kids. And the question after that, once somebody finds that out, is always, ‘Well, why do you work?’ And the question is almost always directed at me. And the question is, ‘Do you make enough to warrant that? How do you have any money left over? Doesn’t it make more sense for you to stay home?’”
Image credits: sheisapaigeturner
“In our scenario, where my husband and I are similar earners, our on-the-year earnings are very similar. It does not make sense for one of us to stay at home right now. We are spending an astronomical amount of money on childcare, and I understand that some people can’t fathom it and some people don’t even make this in a year, right. And no, it’s crazy that we’re paying that much money, which I totally understand and I understand the privilege that comes with that.”
Image credits: sheisapaigeturner
“At the same time, the question as to why I work, one – always directed at me is somewhat insulting, but two – negates the next steps in my life. I am not a mother of young kids forever. I’m a mother of young kids for five to 10 years, depending on how widespread your children are. And so for me, in four years from now, my youngest child will be in full-time school. I will still have the cost of school, afterschool programs, kids activities, enrichment, camp, all of that. But I will not have the cost of childcare. There’s an end date to that and I can struggle and kind of grit my way there because we are still kind of, like, really piecing it together on our budget to make that childcare budget work for us. But there is an end date and I know that where I wanna go in my career and the compensation that I’m able to have, it’s there. It’s at my fingertips, right. And me stepping away from work for five to 10 years would throw me back from where I want to go and the life I want to live after my children are out of daycare.”
Image credits: sheisapaigeturner
“So right now, we’re really not taking a lot of family vacations. We’re not traveling far and wide with our children. We’re doing what we can. We’re doing local vacations, right. We also have four kids so flying with four kids is… I don’t even wanna think about it. So there’s that. And four years from now when my youngest is five and my oldest is nine or 10, that’s a different world for us. We have a different life ahead of us. And I’m not just planning for the next four years. I’m planning for the next 20, 30 years of my life and my kids’ life. And I know what’s important to me. And I also know as a woman, the question should not be directed at me as to why I work. The question should be, ‘Does it make sense with your combined incomes that one of you stay home?’ That should be the question – which one of you would stay home, not, ‘Why do you work, Paige?’ So there’s that.”
Image credits: sheisapaigeturner
“But also, I don’t know that anybody has the right to ask me why we’re paying an astronomical amount. The question is, why is daycare so expensive and so inaccessible? The follow-up question to that is, well, there must be value at the end of that, otherwise you likely wouldn’t be doing it. And it’s not just sending them there for fun. So it’s all about context.”
Image credits: sheisapaigeturner
You can hear Paige’s full explanation right here
@sheisapaigeturner The value in my career outweighs the cost of childcare for the next 4 years. My life is long and I am not just planning for today but planning for my and mt familieis future in mind. #costofchildcare #childcarecrisis #daycarechronicles101 #daycarekids #millennialmom #workingmoms #wfhmom #daycaremom ♬ original sound – sheisapaigeturner
“What works for one family might not work for yours and vice versa, so it’s important to extend grace to yourself and to others”
To gain more insight on what it’s like to be a working mother, we reached out to Candace Alnaji to hear her thoughts on the topic. Candace is an attorney, writer, founder of The Mom at Law and mother of three, and she was kind enough to have a chat with Bored Panda about how she balances her career with taking care of her little ones. First, we wanted to know if Candace ever considered giving up her career when she had children. “I always knew that I wanted to continue working. What I didn’t anticipate, however, was how much I would want to be a part of my kids’ daily lives and how much creativity and autonomy that would inspire in my career,” she shared.
“I transitioned from full-time office mom to work-from-home mom when my oldest child was a baby. He’s eight now, and I also have five-year-old twins,” Candace explained. “I’ve had many phases in my career since having kids, and being a mom has been the greatest motivator in discovering who I am and how I work best.” The Mom at Law also opened up about some of the challenges she has faced being a working mother. “Choosing what to prioritize and when can be challenging. There’s the urge to be forward-thinking while remaining focused on the present,” she noted. “It can feel like you are making decisions for multiple versions of yourself at once, while also making decisions for your children (and their future selves). It’s a mind-bender!”
We also asked Candace about any of the misconceptions or stigmas that affect working mothers. “I started my career as an employment lawyer representing mothers in the workplace who suffered discrimination based on pregnancy,” she told Bored Panda. “Mothers are frequently discriminated against at work because of the misconception that they will somehow be less reliable or less motivated after having children, when in fact almost nothing lights a fire under you like motherhood. Moms deserve better in our society.” And if any mothers out there need to hear some advice from another mom who’s been through it all, Candace says, “It’s normal to need help and it’s important to take stock of what is working and what’s not in your daily life. Successful work-life integration comes from being on the same page with your partner, workplace, and everyone else in your work/family universe.”
“Understand that your work and life goals and desires can change, and that it’s okay to shift along with them without guilt,” Candace continued. “The choices you make for your career and family are very personal. What works for one family might not work for yours and vice versa, so it’s important to extend grace to yourself and to others who may make different choices.” If you’d like to learn more about Candace or hear more wise words from her, be sure to checkout her website The Mom at Law right here!
Image credits: Kelli McClintock (not the actual photo)
Unfortunately, the exorbitant daycare costs in the United States often makes the decision for them
When Paige mentioned that she spends $5,000 per month on childcare, it’s possible that your jaw dropped, but unfortunately, one reason why some parents in the US choose to stay home with their kids is because they simply can’t afford the exorbitant prices of daycare. In the United States, the median annual price of childcare for infants is about $17,171 in cities. The price decreases slightly as children get older, but even for preschool-aged kids living in cities, their parents can easily spend over $12,000 a year on daycare. When you have 4 children like Paige, there’s no question that parents can spend $5,000 per month to ensure that their kids are safe and sound.
According to Wisevoter, the average household income in the United States is $71,538, meaning that there’s usually not thousands of dollars lying around to go straight to childcare. It’s possible that nearly all of Paige’s or her husband’s income is going directly to daycare costs, and it’s unfortunate that some parents are forced to leave their jobs due to being unable to pay these exorbitant fees. But it doesn’t have to be this way. If you compare the US to Sweden, for example, American parents tend to spend about 32% of their average wages on childcare costs, while Swedish parents spend only 5% of their total wages on ensuring their kids are looked after.
Image credits: Kostiantyn Li (not the actual photo)
Moms also tend to face harsher scrutiny than fathers when choosing to keep their jobs
As Paige also mentioned, it can be damaging to a mom or dad’s career if they decide to take a few years off to spend time with their little ones. While the average American mom takes off about 2 years after having children, that time can severely impact her work life when she returns. Over a third of working moms report struggling to be hired following a break in their careers, and 61% say that it was challenging to reenter the workforce. Over half of these working moms also say they worry about being judged for asking for more flexible hours to accommodate their families. Many even hide the fact that they’re parents at work to prevent roadblocks being placed in front of their careers. Of course, fathers are susceptible to similar struggles as well, but as Paige pointed out in her video, moms tend to face much harsher scrutiny when not staying at home with their kids.
At the end of the day, it’s every parent’s choice whether or not they want to return to the workforce while their children are young, and they should never feel judged for whatever decision they choose to make. Instead of questioning why this mother spends so much on childcare, perhaps we need to be asking why it is so inaccessible in the first place? We would love to hear your thoughts on this video in the comments below, pandas. Have you ever had to make the choice between going back to work or staying with your young children? Feel free to share, and then if you’re interested in checking out another article discussing the challenges that working moms often face, look no further than right here.
Image credits: Xavier Mouton Photographie (not the actual photo)
Some viewers supported Paige’s choice to continue working, noting how important our careers can be
On the other hand, some moms disagreed, sharing that they couldn’t bear being away from their little ones all day
This is a situation that each couple, each woman must make for themselves. For us, we went through 16 years of infertility, testing, miscarriages and attempting adoption. At the end, I ended up getting spontaneously pregnant with no assistance from doctors, and had a healthy baby. I decided I didn't want to miss a single moment, so both of us decided that I would be a SAHM. Now, my son is 18 and I want to go back to the work force, but I've been out of it for 18 years and I'm 54 years old. Finding work will be difficult, and those jobs I'll be able to get will likely be unpleasant minimum wage jobs. But that was the choice I made. On the whole, women make an incredible amount of sacrifices when they become parents, and are usually judged for all of them.
Even as a man, your last point stood out to me. If a mum stays at home, she is criticised for being anti-feminist. But if she goes to work, she is accused of being a neglectful parent. It's a catch 22 situation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Sorry, this isn’t 1950
You're right John, it's not 1950 but enough people still hold on to these ideas that women still experience this sort of thing today. My own mother in law laughed at me when I briefly discussed continuing to work after our son was born, saying "Why would you bother? Your whole paycheck will just go to daycare. Your husband makes good money, just stay at home and raise your child." As I said, I don't regret that decision, but I do regret my lack of planning for my own future.
Figure something you are good at and start there. Be your own boss.
It's slightly odd that there is no mention of your partner's choice here. He could have become a stay at home dad. Its wrong that women are expected to be the martyrs for their children when there are clearly other solutions. My father owned his own business and he had flexible enough hours to cover most of the childcare (except summer) and when we got sick).
You're right Ginny, I didn't mention that part. My husband made four times what I was bringing in. We both discussed our goals and what we each wanted, and were fortunate that we both landed on the same page. He would have supported me completely had I chosen to continue to work outside the home while our son was growing up. But as I said, I didn't want to miss anything. Now, I don't regret my decision at all, but I wish I would have continued with certifications or continuing education so I'd be more marketable now.
I understand that completely. You made the choice that was right for your own family. But when out of the workforce for a long time, it can be tough to go back in. I haven't worked since 2001 because of disability. My administrative skills were only basic to begin with. So I've lost too much. For many years I didn't even have a computer at home to keep up skills. Even finding a way to work from home is difficult, when, like myself, I don't have updated computer skills, etc. We all make choices when we're younger, it's hard to visualize what the impact will be in our later years. But don't ever regret the choices you made for your family. You still did what was right. There have to be some great employers out there who will respect that.
It’s not odd. The partner who earns the most should keep working. That’s only logical
She didn't mention her husband made more ( her comment to that effect comes an hour after yours). You seem to be assuming he was the main earner based on his gender.
I think they were making roughly the same amount.
You're being down voted because you assume the husband is the higher earner. We've reached the point in the US where 30% of wives are the higher earner. So assuming friends and family don't know exact wages, they should be asking if it makes sense for "one of you" to stay home.
Im a guy. Got to stay home for a bit. It was awesome
This comment has been deleted.
I might start to work at a co-op gas station, which is 500 meters away from my condo, as a cashier and/or a pump attendant for a first job coming off military long-term disability. They pay at least 15/h and it is virtually stress-free. I know because I worked at a co-op before I joined the Canadian armed forces. Heck, I could do that and deliver for Uber on my e-bike and make as much or more as I do now on disability which is $50,000 annually, except then now I'll have structure and routine in my life again. I might do that when I get pulled off LTD. Those are two low-paying jobs that I know I would enjoy more than some high-paying jobs. Plus I'll get exercise rising my e-bike to deliver for Uber. 🙌
Totally this too. There are no rules to be followed here, just doing what’s best for you at the time you made the decision.
My mom was like that! My parents spent years with fertility clinics, were told they were too old for adoption, then had me the old fashioned way. My mom stayed home until I was old enough, then started on minimum wage temp jobs, now she is past retirement age in a low wage full time job.
Childcare is broken in the US. The median wage for Childcare Workers per US Dept of Labor (bls.gov) is $28,500 per year/$13.71 per hour. In my state with the ages she listed(under 5, under 2 years old), two people would be required to be present for daycare. Per rent.com, as of Apr 20, the median US rent is $23,244 per year/$1937 per month. That $60K gets her two people who can't afford to pay their rent after taxes at the going wage for their profession. My question is why as a society can't the US cover the cost of caring and educating one year old like we cover the cost to pay a teacher to do a similar duty with a year old? Per Dept of Labor, median salary of a kindergarten or 1st grade teacher is $61,350. I want mom in the workforce now so that 10 years from now she's got a better paying job paying higher taxes to cover the salary of the childcare professional caring for the next 1 year old kid.
Because covering things that help regular people is labeled socialism and is actively being attacked by the GOP at the moment. You can just look at their "debt ceiling" initiative. Other countries do have state funded childcare for working moms.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I get paying to help people with many things. But parents already get bail outs for enough. They should be on their own when it comes from care for the children they decided to have. What about all the people without them scraping to get by? They get virtually no assistance whatsoever.
Your are exactly the reason why Americans will have nothing.
Papa Patata, exactly. And people like this will wonder why the birth rate is dropping and why women or the younger generation in general does not want to have kids. But in the same breath they will call these people selfish for not wanting to have kids in this screwed up economy.
I get you. I can't even do school full time to get a better job because of it. I do a semester or two then get a job so my wife doesn't get burnt out being the only income earner. We don't make enough to support me going year round
This comment has been deleted.
Society and community withing the US is what's broken. Why would you have to pay for daycare when you live close enough to your parents, your siblings, or trusted friends? Why do you feel the need to ensure you contribute to social security and have your own investments when having a stable and reliable relationship with your partner creates a better financial environment. Why is more important than a child goes off to daycare so you can work instead of relishing the time you have with your child before it goes off to school? Once you have a child, that should be the focus, instead of one's own financial gain beyond what is necessary for a family. Why is it the governments job to allocate funds for things that families had done for the longest time? We're dealing with extraordinary costs and extraordinary isolationism causing more mental health issues and burn out. Families can fix more and fix it faster than the government, as the government is a big, slow, breaking things machine.
Because I’m not willing to pay for your child. If you and your partner can’t afford your child, don’t get pregnant. If you refuse to marry, don’t get pregnant if you can’t afford your bills including childcare. Get your hand out of my wallet, I have my own responsibilities to pay for!!
Your paycheck adds about 13 cents to welfare. It's not much.
You sound idiotic and ignorant. No one has their hands in your pocket. That is just your own delusions. But you'd think that for a society to functiom amd run properly people woukd be working together to make that possible. No wonder the US is falling apart and is becoming no different from a tgird world country and why the burth rate is dropping. But carry on. When the birth rate gets so low that it can't replenish the older generation with newer ones maybe then the US might start to think and understand that how they are the cause of their own low birth rate.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
So should those if it's that choose not to use childcare (and have kids) get some break? As a parent, my first priority of my kids. As a mom, I feel that the burden of raising kids lies more on me than my husband. He has always been the primary bread winner, and I am fine with that! I have more education than he has (master's vs bachelor's), but his career is higher wage earning (education vs. engineering). Our kids are our responsibility. We raise them and educate them on our own (homeschooling). Each family has a choice, and there are options for low income earners to pay less in childcare. But we need to get back to personal responsibility. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And that didn't mean get an abortion. That means figure it's a way to not get pregnant in the first place. Instead, wet have become a society that thinks the government should raise and pay for our kids, sadly.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Thank you for having sense with it. Too many people expect everything handed to them with no responsibility on their partl
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's a tricky thing, in my opinion. People with kids use more government resources than people who don't have/want kids (like me), and yet they get tax credits and deductions, meaning they pay less in taxes for their own kids than I do. I don't mind contributing to things that I don't directly benefit from, for the benefit of society as a whole, but having to pay *more* taxes than the people who *choose* to have kids is ridiculous. 🫤
It's not that people with kids use more government resources. Kids are people too, separate people from their parents, it's just that resources get to kids through their parents. A household with 3 people is going to use more resources than a household with 1 person; that holds true regardless of if the 3 person household is 3 adult roommates, or two adults that chose to have a kid. You probably don't pay more taxes, even though people with kids get a credit on their tax return, because people with kids are paying for many other things for their kids that are taxed.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Your argument is circular and unsound. Parents get tax credits and write-offs. Therefore they pay less taxes. 🤷🏼♂️
Kind of makes sense for society to encourage people to procreate...i mean, isn't that how the human race survives? Also, not having kids is fine, but then people also want the benefit of when they're old and retired, somebody still has to run the planet? So people with no kids expect to benefit from those who choose to have kids...the argument goes both ways
Your argument completely lacks nuance, people like you think everything is black and white. Nevermind that those of us who have kids are paying for the job that my kids nurse and doctors have, nevermind that he will contribute to your future ss, nevermind that he could be in the military which you all pay for without batting an eye. People like you only see what you imagine is being taken away from you. I'm from another country and I rather go back and take my son than ask for anything here because of people like you. You suck
This comment has been deleted.
Hi Bozo
only bozo here is you
Okay please explain this to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has made it possible for abortion to be illegal in half the country, and decided religious organizations don't have to pay for insurance that covers birth control. If having a child was always a choice, your argument might hold some water. Republicans have eliminated that choice (and if you think they're going to help with the cost of child care for all these surprise babies in a few years, I've got a bridge for sale.)
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
And here come the downvotes. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother trying to have a discussion about anything nuanced or polarizing on here. It's fine to disagree, but how about bringing something to the discussion instead of just trying to silence people?
Because your ideas are contradictory at best and silly atworstand not worthy of discussion? You say you are all for paying taxes for things that help society and in the next breath whine about tax benefits helping people with kids. Kids ARE the future of society and we all need to invest in their welfare. What you should REALLY be mad about is paying more taxes than the ultra wealthy, who are social parasites
I don't mind paying an *equal* share, as I already stated. I just don't understand why parents pay *less* taxes than non-parents. Please, show me the contradiction or silliness, because I truly don't see it. Taxation on the ultra wealthy is a completely separate issue, on which we seem to agree.
Parents get breaks on taxes because the children they are raising are the future tax payers who will pay for the retirement of everyone, whether those people raised children or not. So, unless you also argue that those who never raised children should be getting fewer retirement benefits because they have not raised anyone to adulthood to make up for them leaving the workforce, you are in no position to complain that those who are raising the future workers are receiving some kind of benefit to make it easier for them to do so.
As a millennial I can say mine as well as z are the most foolhardy and unstable set there are. They hardly keep a job, regardless of pay and benefits, and few know common sense and self reliant tactics like running a vacuum. So depending 9n them to pay in anything as well as take care of aging populace is a stretch.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Basically what you're saying is that the government incentivizes having children (at the expense of people who do not) which is a point on which I disagree. I would argue that I'm entitled to retirement benefits based on paying into those programs ever since I was like 15 years old, and whether or not I have children is irrelevant.
So you have no real idea how social security is funded. Your payments are outgoing as benefits to current recipients. Without future workers to pay in you get nothing. It's not a hard concept and not a bad system if you aren't ridiculously selfish.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yes, I do know how it is funded. The first batch of recipients obviously didn't pay enough in to cover the benefits they received, and it's essentially just a pyramid. I still don't agree that people without children should subsidize people with children.
You're not subsidizing s**t. Get it through your thick skull, it's the other way around because we get to pay so much for care of our kids. We literally pay people's jobs by paying for our. Childrens' services, if you think a miserable tiny deduction makes any difference you are more ignorant than you know. Best of luck to you, you should know your country better
Yes you don't understand, but you're mistaken about what part you don't understand. You don't want genuine discussion, you just want to be angry at parents. I would love to compare tax returns; as a self-employed parent, I guarantee I pay more taxes than you lol
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
My maximum deductions are the standardized deductions, and I don't receive any credits, so it's highly unlikely you pay a greater percentage of your income on taxes than I pay. I disagree that I just want to be angry (I'm not even angry in the first place, it's just a policy I don't agree with), and if you are going to say that I don't even know what part I don't understand, it would be helpful if you actually said what you think I'm not understanding.
You don't understand how taxes work, and you're just further proving that with your continued comments. Self-employed people pay more taxes, because they pay both the taxes that an employee pays, and the taxes that an employer pays. So both percentage wise and just in the sense that 1 + 1 = more than 1, I pay more taxes than you.
I'm (obviously) not an accountant or tax professional, but my general understanding is you (as a self-employed business owner) pay about 7.5% more taxes at base (like you said, since you pay both halves of the 15% unemployment tax). However, you also have access to business write-offs/etc that I do not get. If you are paying a larger percentage than I am, then I suspect you are probably either an outlier or in need of a better accountant. 🤷🏼♂️
On the off chance you actually want to listen to why that comment is wrong... 1. 7.5% would already be more, but the 15% self employment tax is not a combination, it is IN ADDITION TO income tax. Self-employed people end up paying a total of 30 - 40% on taxes. 2. A business write-off does not mean I pay less of my income towards taxes. It means that I purchased something for the business, that money was not income. You don't get business write-offs, but you also don't get business EXPENSES, your employer deals with those. And write-offs do not reduce the percentage of self-employment tax. You're showing a lack of understanding of what write-offs actually are and do. This will be the last response I give, because taxes are much more complicated than I can explain with this text limit here.
You're just continuing to show that you don't understand. And obviously, you don't want to understand, since you keep arguing with everyone that tries to explain and then saying you're not arguing. But whatever bro. It would probably be worth it to you to have a professional go over your finances and give you some advice on how you can get credits and more deductions (hint: having a kid is not the only way), but since you think you know everything and everyone else is the wrong ones, I doubt you will.
I see multiple people have explained this to you and instead of listening you just want to fight
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No, I don't want to fight, and I haven't attacked anyone personally or anything. Not every disagreement is a fight.
This comment has been deleted.
You should educate yourself before blabbering
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I don't. I'd rather have the taxes go where it could do some good. Maybe roads and animal advocacy. 60 million in one school district and high schoolers still struggle to read. What sense is that?
I agree full heartedly with it. Too many people, many parents, don't want to bear the brunt of responsibility they have taken. There is no village anymore. The world is not here to compensate for doing the most basic of things.
Well, in my country many child-related things are free or affordable. We quite unanimously think this is for greater good, as literally we all have profited from this as children. We have: 1. universal healthcare, for all. Free dental care for children. 2. Affordable kindergarten, three children in highest income bracket would cost a total of 0-500 euros depending where you live, but it is always free to low-income families. 3. free high quality education, even universities are free. School lunches are healthy and free until university level education. Same goes for any mandatory material used in teaching, like books, laptops etc. 4. Government gives monthly support for each child aged 0-17 years old regardless of income. For three children this is a total of about 330 e/mo. 5. Long paid parental leave. Government pays you about 80% of your pay(on median pay) for up to one year. 6. Free maternity package. Free and mandatory child health clinic from start of pregnancy to 7 years old.
My wife and I get another version of this a lot. Why does she work while I stay at home? I really don't know if this is true or me reading into it because of my own insecurities, but I feel like every time someone hears about our situation I get judged for being lazy or a mooch. In reality I don't have a job that would be hurt by an extended absence. She does. I'm going back to school now, but for the time being she works and I go to school. Every 2 semesters or so I take one off and get a temp job to lighten her work load. Should have enough school that the next break will get me a job in my field of study though, if not what I'm studying
You are being judged by some. The reality is that most sexist stereotypes have a complement. For the people that think that a woman should stay at home they absolutely think the man should be working. Attitudes are trending in the right direction but a man with young children is treated like he is babysitting or giving mom a break far too often. It's great that you and your wife chose the pragmatic, sensible arrangement rather than being cowed by society's expectations, to your disadvantage.
I got to stay home for a few years and take care of my sons. It was great. Wouldnt trade it for anything
It sounds like you and your wife have figured a balance that works for your relationship, lives, and income. That’s all that matters. A good friend of mine is in a very similar position as you, except he’s an adjunct professor and artist and his wife has the “stable” career. Subtle shade will definitely thrown your way as a SAHD but try to ignore the ignorant. Do whatever works for you!
Same boat. My husband is a musician and I have the "real" job (in quotes, because what he does is no less important, but like you, we've been hearing it since our oldest was born). I was making great money as an event coordinator, but the hours were absurd, like 14 hour shifts two weeks in a row then three hour shifts for the next month, never had the same day off, etc. He records local bands in the garage and has complete control over his schedule, so it just made sense for him to take on the brunt of child care and house work. The school always made a point of calling me first though 🤦
I applaud both you and your wife. You're doing what works for your family so the heck with what anyone thinks. Stay at home parents definitely do not get enough credit, that is a full time job. I myself wouldn't be bothered one bit if I had a husband that wanted to take on that role. It's what works for you, period!!
This is a situation that each couple, each woman must make for themselves. For us, we went through 16 years of infertility, testing, miscarriages and attempting adoption. At the end, I ended up getting spontaneously pregnant with no assistance from doctors, and had a healthy baby. I decided I didn't want to miss a single moment, so both of us decided that I would be a SAHM. Now, my son is 18 and I want to go back to the work force, but I've been out of it for 18 years and I'm 54 years old. Finding work will be difficult, and those jobs I'll be able to get will likely be unpleasant minimum wage jobs. But that was the choice I made. On the whole, women make an incredible amount of sacrifices when they become parents, and are usually judged for all of them.
Even as a man, your last point stood out to me. If a mum stays at home, she is criticised for being anti-feminist. But if she goes to work, she is accused of being a neglectful parent. It's a catch 22 situation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Sorry, this isn’t 1950
You're right John, it's not 1950 but enough people still hold on to these ideas that women still experience this sort of thing today. My own mother in law laughed at me when I briefly discussed continuing to work after our son was born, saying "Why would you bother? Your whole paycheck will just go to daycare. Your husband makes good money, just stay at home and raise your child." As I said, I don't regret that decision, but I do regret my lack of planning for my own future.
Figure something you are good at and start there. Be your own boss.
It's slightly odd that there is no mention of your partner's choice here. He could have become a stay at home dad. Its wrong that women are expected to be the martyrs for their children when there are clearly other solutions. My father owned his own business and he had flexible enough hours to cover most of the childcare (except summer) and when we got sick).
You're right Ginny, I didn't mention that part. My husband made four times what I was bringing in. We both discussed our goals and what we each wanted, and were fortunate that we both landed on the same page. He would have supported me completely had I chosen to continue to work outside the home while our son was growing up. But as I said, I didn't want to miss anything. Now, I don't regret my decision at all, but I wish I would have continued with certifications or continuing education so I'd be more marketable now.
I understand that completely. You made the choice that was right for your own family. But when out of the workforce for a long time, it can be tough to go back in. I haven't worked since 2001 because of disability. My administrative skills were only basic to begin with. So I've lost too much. For many years I didn't even have a computer at home to keep up skills. Even finding a way to work from home is difficult, when, like myself, I don't have updated computer skills, etc. We all make choices when we're younger, it's hard to visualize what the impact will be in our later years. But don't ever regret the choices you made for your family. You still did what was right. There have to be some great employers out there who will respect that.
It’s not odd. The partner who earns the most should keep working. That’s only logical
She didn't mention her husband made more ( her comment to that effect comes an hour after yours). You seem to be assuming he was the main earner based on his gender.
I think they were making roughly the same amount.
You're being down voted because you assume the husband is the higher earner. We've reached the point in the US where 30% of wives are the higher earner. So assuming friends and family don't know exact wages, they should be asking if it makes sense for "one of you" to stay home.
Im a guy. Got to stay home for a bit. It was awesome
This comment has been deleted.
I might start to work at a co-op gas station, which is 500 meters away from my condo, as a cashier and/or a pump attendant for a first job coming off military long-term disability. They pay at least 15/h and it is virtually stress-free. I know because I worked at a co-op before I joined the Canadian armed forces. Heck, I could do that and deliver for Uber on my e-bike and make as much or more as I do now on disability which is $50,000 annually, except then now I'll have structure and routine in my life again. I might do that when I get pulled off LTD. Those are two low-paying jobs that I know I would enjoy more than some high-paying jobs. Plus I'll get exercise rising my e-bike to deliver for Uber. 🙌
Totally this too. There are no rules to be followed here, just doing what’s best for you at the time you made the decision.
My mom was like that! My parents spent years with fertility clinics, were told they were too old for adoption, then had me the old fashioned way. My mom stayed home until I was old enough, then started on minimum wage temp jobs, now she is past retirement age in a low wage full time job.
Childcare is broken in the US. The median wage for Childcare Workers per US Dept of Labor (bls.gov) is $28,500 per year/$13.71 per hour. In my state with the ages she listed(under 5, under 2 years old), two people would be required to be present for daycare. Per rent.com, as of Apr 20, the median US rent is $23,244 per year/$1937 per month. That $60K gets her two people who can't afford to pay their rent after taxes at the going wage for their profession. My question is why as a society can't the US cover the cost of caring and educating one year old like we cover the cost to pay a teacher to do a similar duty with a year old? Per Dept of Labor, median salary of a kindergarten or 1st grade teacher is $61,350. I want mom in the workforce now so that 10 years from now she's got a better paying job paying higher taxes to cover the salary of the childcare professional caring for the next 1 year old kid.
Because covering things that help regular people is labeled socialism and is actively being attacked by the GOP at the moment. You can just look at their "debt ceiling" initiative. Other countries do have state funded childcare for working moms.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I get paying to help people with many things. But parents already get bail outs for enough. They should be on their own when it comes from care for the children they decided to have. What about all the people without them scraping to get by? They get virtually no assistance whatsoever.
Your are exactly the reason why Americans will have nothing.
Papa Patata, exactly. And people like this will wonder why the birth rate is dropping and why women or the younger generation in general does not want to have kids. But in the same breath they will call these people selfish for not wanting to have kids in this screwed up economy.
I get you. I can't even do school full time to get a better job because of it. I do a semester or two then get a job so my wife doesn't get burnt out being the only income earner. We don't make enough to support me going year round
This comment has been deleted.
Society and community withing the US is what's broken. Why would you have to pay for daycare when you live close enough to your parents, your siblings, or trusted friends? Why do you feel the need to ensure you contribute to social security and have your own investments when having a stable and reliable relationship with your partner creates a better financial environment. Why is more important than a child goes off to daycare so you can work instead of relishing the time you have with your child before it goes off to school? Once you have a child, that should be the focus, instead of one's own financial gain beyond what is necessary for a family. Why is it the governments job to allocate funds for things that families had done for the longest time? We're dealing with extraordinary costs and extraordinary isolationism causing more mental health issues and burn out. Families can fix more and fix it faster than the government, as the government is a big, slow, breaking things machine.
Because I’m not willing to pay for your child. If you and your partner can’t afford your child, don’t get pregnant. If you refuse to marry, don’t get pregnant if you can’t afford your bills including childcare. Get your hand out of my wallet, I have my own responsibilities to pay for!!
Your paycheck adds about 13 cents to welfare. It's not much.
You sound idiotic and ignorant. No one has their hands in your pocket. That is just your own delusions. But you'd think that for a society to functiom amd run properly people woukd be working together to make that possible. No wonder the US is falling apart and is becoming no different from a tgird world country and why the burth rate is dropping. But carry on. When the birth rate gets so low that it can't replenish the older generation with newer ones maybe then the US might start to think and understand that how they are the cause of their own low birth rate.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
So should those if it's that choose not to use childcare (and have kids) get some break? As a parent, my first priority of my kids. As a mom, I feel that the burden of raising kids lies more on me than my husband. He has always been the primary bread winner, and I am fine with that! I have more education than he has (master's vs bachelor's), but his career is higher wage earning (education vs. engineering). Our kids are our responsibility. We raise them and educate them on our own (homeschooling). Each family has a choice, and there are options for low income earners to pay less in childcare. But we need to get back to personal responsibility. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And that didn't mean get an abortion. That means figure it's a way to not get pregnant in the first place. Instead, wet have become a society that thinks the government should raise and pay for our kids, sadly.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Thank you for having sense with it. Too many people expect everything handed to them with no responsibility on their partl
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's a tricky thing, in my opinion. People with kids use more government resources than people who don't have/want kids (like me), and yet they get tax credits and deductions, meaning they pay less in taxes for their own kids than I do. I don't mind contributing to things that I don't directly benefit from, for the benefit of society as a whole, but having to pay *more* taxes than the people who *choose* to have kids is ridiculous. 🫤
It's not that people with kids use more government resources. Kids are people too, separate people from their parents, it's just that resources get to kids through their parents. A household with 3 people is going to use more resources than a household with 1 person; that holds true regardless of if the 3 person household is 3 adult roommates, or two adults that chose to have a kid. You probably don't pay more taxes, even though people with kids get a credit on their tax return, because people with kids are paying for many other things for their kids that are taxed.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Your argument is circular and unsound. Parents get tax credits and write-offs. Therefore they pay less taxes. 🤷🏼♂️
Kind of makes sense for society to encourage people to procreate...i mean, isn't that how the human race survives? Also, not having kids is fine, but then people also want the benefit of when they're old and retired, somebody still has to run the planet? So people with no kids expect to benefit from those who choose to have kids...the argument goes both ways
Your argument completely lacks nuance, people like you think everything is black and white. Nevermind that those of us who have kids are paying for the job that my kids nurse and doctors have, nevermind that he will contribute to your future ss, nevermind that he could be in the military which you all pay for without batting an eye. People like you only see what you imagine is being taken away from you. I'm from another country and I rather go back and take my son than ask for anything here because of people like you. You suck
This comment has been deleted.
Hi Bozo
only bozo here is you
Okay please explain this to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has made it possible for abortion to be illegal in half the country, and decided religious organizations don't have to pay for insurance that covers birth control. If having a child was always a choice, your argument might hold some water. Republicans have eliminated that choice (and if you think they're going to help with the cost of child care for all these surprise babies in a few years, I've got a bridge for sale.)
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
And here come the downvotes. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother trying to have a discussion about anything nuanced or polarizing on here. It's fine to disagree, but how about bringing something to the discussion instead of just trying to silence people?
Because your ideas are contradictory at best and silly atworstand not worthy of discussion? You say you are all for paying taxes for things that help society and in the next breath whine about tax benefits helping people with kids. Kids ARE the future of society and we all need to invest in their welfare. What you should REALLY be mad about is paying more taxes than the ultra wealthy, who are social parasites
I don't mind paying an *equal* share, as I already stated. I just don't understand why parents pay *less* taxes than non-parents. Please, show me the contradiction or silliness, because I truly don't see it. Taxation on the ultra wealthy is a completely separate issue, on which we seem to agree.
Parents get breaks on taxes because the children they are raising are the future tax payers who will pay for the retirement of everyone, whether those people raised children or not. So, unless you also argue that those who never raised children should be getting fewer retirement benefits because they have not raised anyone to adulthood to make up for them leaving the workforce, you are in no position to complain that those who are raising the future workers are receiving some kind of benefit to make it easier for them to do so.
As a millennial I can say mine as well as z are the most foolhardy and unstable set there are. They hardly keep a job, regardless of pay and benefits, and few know common sense and self reliant tactics like running a vacuum. So depending 9n them to pay in anything as well as take care of aging populace is a stretch.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Basically what you're saying is that the government incentivizes having children (at the expense of people who do not) which is a point on which I disagree. I would argue that I'm entitled to retirement benefits based on paying into those programs ever since I was like 15 years old, and whether or not I have children is irrelevant.
So you have no real idea how social security is funded. Your payments are outgoing as benefits to current recipients. Without future workers to pay in you get nothing. It's not a hard concept and not a bad system if you aren't ridiculously selfish.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yes, I do know how it is funded. The first batch of recipients obviously didn't pay enough in to cover the benefits they received, and it's essentially just a pyramid. I still don't agree that people without children should subsidize people with children.
You're not subsidizing s**t. Get it through your thick skull, it's the other way around because we get to pay so much for care of our kids. We literally pay people's jobs by paying for our. Childrens' services, if you think a miserable tiny deduction makes any difference you are more ignorant than you know. Best of luck to you, you should know your country better
Yes you don't understand, but you're mistaken about what part you don't understand. You don't want genuine discussion, you just want to be angry at parents. I would love to compare tax returns; as a self-employed parent, I guarantee I pay more taxes than you lol
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
My maximum deductions are the standardized deductions, and I don't receive any credits, so it's highly unlikely you pay a greater percentage of your income on taxes than I pay. I disagree that I just want to be angry (I'm not even angry in the first place, it's just a policy I don't agree with), and if you are going to say that I don't even know what part I don't understand, it would be helpful if you actually said what you think I'm not understanding.
You don't understand how taxes work, and you're just further proving that with your continued comments. Self-employed people pay more taxes, because they pay both the taxes that an employee pays, and the taxes that an employer pays. So both percentage wise and just in the sense that 1 + 1 = more than 1, I pay more taxes than you.