Thank goodness it's "Anything Goes" Tuesday, because I'm a little bothered today by something that I read and I need to vent.
Read this:
(go on, I'll wait...)
The Hidden Costs for Stay-At-Home American Parents by Michelle Jamrisko for Bloomberg.com
So... What did you think?
I like to think that I'm pretty understanding about other people's views. I'm not going to tell you what to think, because - frankly - I don't want you to tell me what to think. I am passionate about my beliefs, political and otherwise, and I'm up for a good debate, but you're not going to change my mind, and I'm probably not going to change yours, so getting all heated about it isn't going to help.
I'm also 100% on board with people making informed choices, especially life altering choices. Do your research, talk to people who have been there, done that. Ponder and pray. Big decisions require forethought. (Of course my husband thinks makes impulsive decisions, so I guess it's all relative.)
When a parent decides to be a stay-at-homer, you need to think it through.
My problem with this article started with this quote:
"Given the importance of parents' careers in ensuring financial stability for their children, it’s a sign we’re not thinking through childcare as an economic problem when parents are deciding to take time off or not without good tools to see how it affects their incomes," said Michael Madowitz, co-author of the report and an economist at the liberal Washington-based research institution.
Did you catch that? "Given the importance of parents' careers in ensuring financial stability for their children" <--That's the line that rubs me wrong, especially when followed by this doozy ---> "A hypothetical 26-year-old female worker with a salary of $44,000 a year would therefore lose about $706,778 in lifetime income from taking five years off to care for a child."
So you're telling me, earning $706,778 is a better choice than to be at home with my child for 5 years? That the time, energy, attention, and love that I can provide my child doesn't even come close to being as high as a priority as the income I could possibly generate? What about the countless studies showing that children with an at-home parent are far more likely to test higher, gain more schooling, and move into higher paid careers?
The 'things' I could provide far outweigh the 'time' I could give?
There are situations in which parents must work in order to provide a safe, healthy environment for their children. I get that. I honestly do. I come from a family of 7 and my parents worked their tails off to be everything to everyone. Mom cleaned houses while we were in school, then took a job working midnights so she could be there for us during the day. Dad's self employed status just couldn't make ends meet.
I understand that my ability to stay home is not everyone's reality.
It is extremely concerning to me however, that we are weighing the amount of money one could gain by forfeiting the time with our children.
When did money become more important than raising our children?
"The soaring costs for hired childcare and lack of more family-friendly workplace policies in the U.S. have been widely blamed for the dwindling number of women in the labor force, as they opt instead to stay home to care for their children. Participation among working-age women has declined to 56.7 percent from a high of 60.3 percent 16 years ago."
What a blessing to those children. Whatever the reason behind it.
There was an interesting program done in Norway called Cash for Care.
“The results suggest that even older students in middle or elementary school could use guidance from their parents,” Eric Bettinger, the study’s researcher, told Quartz. “For years, we have known that parental presence is extraordinarily important in the very early childhood years. What we’re finding is that parents continue to be important much further along in a child’s life than we had previously thought.”
I could go on and on and on, providing links to articles supporting, articles discouraging, listing the pros and cons. Opinions on staying-at-home are as varied as we are.
I am not going to bore you with that. If you want to know more, you know how to google.
I am, however, going to say that when someone publishes an article, pointing out the detriment to a child due to loss of family income from a stay-at-home parent, that they ought to have the decency to at least mention that perhaps, just perhaps, there are benefits to the child for having an at-home-parent. And perhaps, just perhaps, those benefits might outweigh the loss of financial increase, or at the very least be a reason WHY some of us choose this?
I stand before you today to tell you that, although staying at home with my children has required some sacrifice, the gain - for me, my husband AND my children - far outweigh any benefits that additional income would provide.
For us, it's been No Loss and All Gain.
Works Cited
Jamrisko, M. (2016, June 21). The Hidden Cost for Stay-At-Home American Parents. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-21/the-hidden-cost-for-stay-at-home-american-parents
Andrews, Edmond L. "Why Stay-at-home Parents Are Better for Older Children." Quartz. N.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 June 2016.
Chen, Xiaole. Cash for Care Reform in Norway: A Natural Experiment for the Effectiveness of Pro Natalist Policies. Rep. N.p., 2008. Web. 21 June 2016.
Read this:
(go on, I'll wait...)
The Hidden Costs for Stay-At-Home American Parents by Michelle Jamrisko for Bloomberg.com
So... What did you think?
I like to think that I'm pretty understanding about other people's views. I'm not going to tell you what to think, because - frankly - I don't want you to tell me what to think. I am passionate about my beliefs, political and otherwise, and I'm up for a good debate, but you're not going to change my mind, and I'm probably not going to change yours, so getting all heated about it isn't going to help.
I'm also 100% on board with people making informed choices, especially life altering choices. Do your research, talk to people who have been there, done that. Ponder and pray. Big decisions require forethought. (Of course my husband thinks makes impulsive decisions, so I guess it's all relative.)
When a parent decides to be a stay-at-homer, you need to think it through.
My problem with this article started with this quote:
"Given the importance of parents' careers in ensuring financial stability for their children, it’s a sign we’re not thinking through childcare as an economic problem when parents are deciding to take time off or not without good tools to see how it affects their incomes," said Michael Madowitz, co-author of the report and an economist at the liberal Washington-based research institution.
Did you catch that? "Given the importance of parents' careers in ensuring financial stability for their children" <--That's the line that rubs me wrong, especially when followed by this doozy ---> "A hypothetical 26-year-old female worker with a salary of $44,000 a year would therefore lose about $706,778 in lifetime income from taking five years off to care for a child."
So you're telling me, earning $706,778 is a better choice than to be at home with my child for 5 years? That the time, energy, attention, and love that I can provide my child doesn't even come close to being as high as a priority as the income I could possibly generate? What about the countless studies showing that children with an at-home parent are far more likely to test higher, gain more schooling, and move into higher paid careers?
The 'things' I could provide far outweigh the 'time' I could give?
There are situations in which parents must work in order to provide a safe, healthy environment for their children. I get that. I honestly do. I come from a family of 7 and my parents worked their tails off to be everything to everyone. Mom cleaned houses while we were in school, then took a job working midnights so she could be there for us during the day. Dad's self employed status just couldn't make ends meet.
I understand that my ability to stay home is not everyone's reality.
It is extremely concerning to me however, that we are weighing the amount of money one could gain by forfeiting the time with our children.
When did money become more important than raising our children?
"The soaring costs for hired childcare and lack of more family-friendly workplace policies in the U.S. have been widely blamed for the dwindling number of women in the labor force, as they opt instead to stay home to care for their children. Participation among working-age women has declined to 56.7 percent from a high of 60.3 percent 16 years ago."
What a blessing to those children. Whatever the reason behind it.
There was an interesting program done in Norway called Cash for Care.
“The results suggest that even older students in middle or elementary school could use guidance from their parents,” Eric Bettinger, the study’s researcher, told Quartz. “For years, we have known that parental presence is extraordinarily important in the very early childhood years. What we’re finding is that parents continue to be important much further along in a child’s life than we had previously thought.”
I could go on and on and on, providing links to articles supporting, articles discouraging, listing the pros and cons. Opinions on staying-at-home are as varied as we are.
I am not going to bore you with that. If you want to know more, you know how to google.
I am, however, going to say that when someone publishes an article, pointing out the detriment to a child due to loss of family income from a stay-at-home parent, that they ought to have the decency to at least mention that perhaps, just perhaps, there are benefits to the child for having an at-home-parent. And perhaps, just perhaps, those benefits might outweigh the loss of financial increase, or at the very least be a reason WHY some of us choose this?
I stand before you today to tell you that, although staying at home with my children has required some sacrifice, the gain - for me, my husband AND my children - far outweigh any benefits that additional income would provide.
For us, it's been No Loss and All Gain.
Works Cited
Jamrisko, M. (2016, June 21). The Hidden Cost for Stay-At-Home American Parents. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-21/the-hidden-cost-for-stay-at-home-american-parents
Andrews, Edmond L. "Why Stay-at-home Parents Are Better for Older Children." Quartz. N.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 June 2016.
Chen, Xiaole. Cash for Care Reform in Norway: A Natural Experiment for the Effectiveness of Pro Natalist Policies. Rep. N.p., 2008. Web. 21 June 2016.