gypsymama
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by gypsymama
-
-
My daughter had similar struggles. What has worked best for us for math is using Ray's arithmetic books. We have to do at least some math nearly daily though - no long breaks or summer. I read the problems out to her orally and she responds. I keep the review tabs pinned for random review. Usually we go over random drill of some basic facts orally as a warm up at the start of our math lesson then we complete the rest of the lesson and anything written. I find that as long as I give her a "warm up" orally at the start of the lesson she is ready to go and can do higher math. I can NOT let that slide though. Even if the child can add multiple digit columns quickly without scratch paper if we take a couple of weeks off of math she won't be able to tell me what 7+4 is without looking at me like an alien.
For spelling I'm using Wheeler's spellers. My son is in the first book and I combine lessons skipping any memorization lessons. So lesson 1 is a group of similar words, lesson 2 is copywork sentences using some of those words from lesson 1. So our week will be... copy lesson 1, dictate orally, copy lesson 2, dictate lesson 1 written - or something similar. My daughter did this for that book and is now in the second book. The second book has a list of 8-10 sentences per lesson with a sound focused on (ea, ee, etc). The week is something like ... copy lesson 1, study it, orally dictate any focus words (ea, ee, etc), orally dictate any "challenge" words ( that I think she may have trouble with), written dictation. This seems to be working well for her since she's using the words in writing instead of just a random list of words.
-
We did our first co-op last year. It was large and well organized but it didn't work well for our family. We were told "anyone could join" but they left off the part about the religious propaganda. :/ The youngest did the preschool while the older two were in classes. I did assistant teaching in some of the classes while we were there. This year we are trying a new co-op that is suppose to be actually non-religious *cross fingers*. I'm co-teaching three classes there and my youngest will be in the "big kids" K classes instead of preschool this year. They're very excited about the class offerings and it'll only be one day a week so we shall see. Not going to do more than one co-op at a time because we have other outside sports, activities, scouting, etc. also.
-
Here cheap means over a quarter of a million dollars. I have an old car. Our house is half the size of one poster, who said her house was cramped.
Food and babysitting are expensive because food and rent. People don't have cable, they don't have college funds, they don't have parties because of cost.
High COL =/= high living.
It just means you pay more for the same stuff.
Underscoring that living in a HCOL area does not equate to materialism.
Tsuga lives down the byway from me and I can attest to the fact that most of my friends making $75-150k a year as a household are renting or living in small houses (which cost $300-450k and likely need some work), driving old cars, are addicted to Buy Nothing and/or thrift stores and are not able to live high on the hog so to speak even if they wanted too. If they have kids and those kids need childcare or like to do stuff outside the house, they may even be barely making the ends meet every month.
Most of the people I know without retirement savings are those who have suffered multiple layoffs. We are fortunate that even on a lower income, we are able to have retirement savings because my husband has a very stable employer who chips in a fair bit and matches most of what we put in. Since he's only had two employers since he was 19 and we both saved from the start, we got compounding interest started early so that's a saving grace.
I realize that higher COL means everything costs more in general and I didn't say a HCOL area = materialism. My questions are for people in lcol areas not high ones. Things are obviously going to cost more in a hcol compared to a lcol regardless of lifestyle choices. What I'm looking at is within the lcol areas. We spend so little and are committed to those choices I'm wondering if this a drastic difference from the numbers other people experience because of the lcol or more because of lifestyle choices as well. I mean I am notoriously cheap anyways so it's quite possible it's either one. :lol:
ETA: crazy weird double posting
-
The OP's daughter is going to the family's house and, I assume, is not taking care of her own children at the same time. Again, different level of childcare services. You can't compare home daycare rates or a SAHM in a LCOL area taking in a couple of extra kids with what is appropriate to pay someone coming to the employer's home and providing one on one care.
The OP said in the original post that the babysitting would be done at her house not the family's house. I agree that home daycare rates are different than one on one care but this is a home childcare situation.
-
Hmm...gross would be around 5250 a month....that would mean 525 a month on food...
A financial person told us that they count 300 to 400 per person for a month. We are a family of three with pets.
We spend 800-900 a month for food, household and toiletries and a couple hundred eating out.
I wonder if the 9% of income figure was meaning for one person?? That would be nearly in line. Because (different #s for the sake of easy math) $4000 a mo comes to $400 mo if using 10% of income on food. That would be close to what the financial person gave you. When feeding a family, if one person can live on $400 each additional person wouldn't add a full $400 more but it would go up maybe $100-200 per person? I wonder if the 9% figure wasn't counting in additional people. Hmm...
I dunno, when we were quite poor we still spent around 20% on food.
When we have extra $, food is what we spend it on, I guess.
The real difference (for us) is on percentage of income spent on rent and utilities.
But at any rate the percentage might vary regardless of income level; it just depends on what a family values.
For instance, we spend $0 on entertainment, and we have always spent $0 on entertainment.
We spend almost nothing on electronics (we have a landline and a basic cable internet connection). We don't really spend on travel, except for family emergencies.
But we do spend a lot on food :)
This is us. This is one of the few areas that I splurge.
I'm not sure you can compare by percentage either. ;) Isn't food budget a little regressive (I'm not sure if I'm using the right term). Meaning, the higher your income, the less total % you tend to spend on food. For instance, if you made 30K per year and spent only 6K on groceries, you'd be spending 20%. If you spend double that but make 120K per year, you spend 10%. You (presumably) eat better/more extravagant with out digging very deeply into your income.
So for what it's worth, ours is 15% of gross.
ETA: Okay, sorry, someone already addressed this. I should read before responding. <sheepish>
This! We have had a large range of income over the years but our grocery budget has always (or could have) remained the same. The only way I see a real increase in grocery costs by income would be if you started making more organic, specialty purchases with the higher income than were available on a lower income. (So same foods and amount of food but much higher since organic, free range eggs might be $4/dz instead of $2/dz and so on)
-
2
-
-
We live on fairly little in a HCOL area. It's a lot less than we used to live on. We get by because I'm cheap (grew up poor), we are not materialistic and because we came into this (dropping down to one income) with a bit more of a personal safety net/assets than most people at this income level and also because my husband works for an employer with extremely generous medical coverage.
We also have a killer deal on our living situation in a walkable, safe suburb. If we had to pay market rate we'd be up a crick without a paddle or at least paying more to live in a worse area. It's not subsidized housing.
When we have looked at moving to LCOL areas, parimarily due to housing market factors, we found a few things- fewer jobs available with lower pay and lower benefits and that a lower tax base and smaller population meant fewer of the community amenities and medical facilities that we want and need.
While I'm happy we can make it here, I am also looking forwards to our income rebounding once my husband graduates and I am back to working more. At that point, we will be in a high income bracket again but housing wise, we would expect to buy a 1000-1500 SF 3 bedroom house.
That's the kind of info I was wondering about :) I am uber cheap so I think my perception may be skewed so I wanted to see if anyone else was in a lower col area similar to what I am experiencing (or at least from what I was seeing). We also got a great deal on our house and moved into this area with resources to make things easier. We prepared in advance researching to make this happen and intentionally took a major pay cut that dropped us in SES in order to have more time together as a family. Add in some odd values and being insanely frugal and we're able to live on little. I guess I'd started to doubt I was seeing my area objectively LOL :)
-
1
-
-
I was thinking about the materialism thing... We choose to live where we do, in a very high COL area, so that we can use public transit, walk to things, be in a diverse community... In order to live here, we sacrificed the ability to have a bigger home, more land, manicured lawns and so forth. I always feel like there's a certain materialism to insisting that one needs a large, newish house in a "safe" community with lots of land around it and then spending a ton of money and time on a long commute. I mean, sure, if we wanted to live out there, it would mean a cheaper home, lower taxes, less expensive big box retail more closely at hand, and likely the ability to get housework done for a fraction of what we end up paying here (I often feel like that's the biggest hit that living in a high COL area gives you - groceries may be a little more but home repairs are astronomically higher). But we'd be sacrificing family time and environmental benefits to the commute.
Which is not to say that you can't do that... I mean, it doesn't reflect my values, so we don't, and I know I sound judgey above, but I'm really just trying to give a different perspective. We live in a smaller, older home on purpose in order to be in our high COL area. I don't get how that's more materialistic.
I wouldn't say that is materialistic. I would say that is less materialistic because you are giving up material comforts to live in the higher-col area. We choose to live with less which means it's cheaper for us to live regardless of the overall col but I wonder how much that is changing my views on everything. (ie: Our lifestyle is so different I could be way off in my perception of the overall col in my area because our lifestyle doesn't allow me to see how much is considered "normal" if that makes sense)
-
Materialism isn't the reason some jobs are geographically specific. People tend to live where they can find work and feed themselves. Not every career exists in LCOL areas. I'd LOVE to move closer to my mother, but there are almost zero white collar jobs in that region. My children had a completely different childhood from mine because my husband has a completely different job than my father.
I was thinking about the materialism thing... We choose to live where we do, in a very high COL area, so that we can use public transit, walk to things, be in a diverse community... In order to live here, we sacrificed the ability to have a bigger home, more land, manicured lawns and so forth. I always feel like there's a certain materialism to insisting that one needs a large, newish house in a "safe" community with lots of land around it and then spending a ton of money and time on a long commute. I mean, sure, if we wanted to live out there, it would mean a cheaper home, lower taxes, less expensive big box retail more closely at hand, and likely the ability to get housework done for a fraction of what we end up paying here (I often feel like that's the biggest hit that living in a high COL area gives you - groceries may be a little more but home repairs are astronomically higher). But we'd be sacrificing family time and environmental benefits to the commute.
Which is not to say that you can't do that... I mean, it doesn't reflect my values, so we don't, and I know I sound judgey above, but I'm really just trying to give a different perspective. We live in a smaller, older home on purpose in order to be in our high COL area. I don't get how that's more materialistic.
This is what I was talking about though. You can live on more or less income regardless of the area. High-COL or low-COL doesn't change your own personal comfort levels and what you want in your living situation. Those are the kind of choices I'm talking about though. I know we are in a low-col area statistically but I wonder how much of that is affected by my own personal choices. We chose to live on little because that is what fits our personal values and our wants/needs. I know there are many families in the area that need more to live comfortably than we do. I wonder how much the difference in perception affects things - like if income levels and personal values about money are making a much larger difference than the col in the area).
*And I think some people have taken offense at materialism but it wasn't meant in a judgmental or offensive way. We all have different comfort levels and value different things. I'm not going to ever want a large, new house but that doesn't make it wrong to want one and I'm not saying it does. It's just different that's all. I'm wondering how much that affects things, not judging others for their choices.
-
1
-
-
My area is one of the most expensive childcare markets in the country. That said checking the national averages, $35 a day for one on one care in the employer's home is a favor in parts of pretty much every state.
People for whom $35 is 40-50 percent of their income are not usually able to hire a nanny for two days a week...they use group in home daycare or kin care for younger kids. There are federal, state and local childcare subsidies here for women making that little. Women who need childcare at that income level here would be receiving a daycare voucher, with or with out a co-pay depending on their income level. The value of the voucher could easily exceed their take home income if they have two or more kids.
Sitters who come to your house and are taking care of no other children? They don't need to set their rates based on the average income for everyone in the entire market who needs childcare...they set their rates on what the subset of the market who can hire that kind of care is willing to pay. When you make $9hr your options for a lot of things are limited...housing, food choices, the kind of car you drive AND the kind of childcare you can afford.
The sitter is keeping the child in her own home so she could take care of other children if she wanted to for extra money. Those subsidies that you mentioned aren't just available to everyone either. Those programs are often underfunded and it can take months or even a year or more to get child care help even if you are within the income guidelines. Why she needed two days a week of care hadn't been stated. She may have had family help for the other days she worked, the hours needed on those days may be outside of what a child care subsidy would cover (if she has one), that may be all the hours she is getting right now. Idk. I never said that anyone should work below market prices or undervalue their own time. If those are the rates in the local area then it definitely makes sense to charge that much. I only said that childcare prices vary wildly depending on the area you are in so the OP should look to area prices to determine a decent amount.
ETA: I wasn't talking about the $35/day being out of range either. The $15/hr+ that was being repeated in the thread is out of range for many areas.
-
Depending on the area they live in, the rates quoted here might be far above what the mom earns, before taxes. Most jobs in our area start at $9-10/hour.
Same here. No way could anyone here pay $15/hr for childcare since that is about 150% of most people's incomes. Even if you had a two parent household with mom and dad both working for $10/hr the couple would end up with $5/hr left after paying the sitter??? That isn't at all reasonable. (Those rates might be considered reasonable for date night sitting and such where the parents are paying for a couple of hours for a dinner out but definitely not reasonable for hourly while the parents work pay)
Definitely can not base babysitting/nanny rates on daycare rates.
I just remembered that when I used to do summer care as a young teen for a couple of neighbor families (three kids total, at one of their houses) each family paid me $150/a week and considered it a deal. So I was getting $300 a week more than 20 years ago.
I would only take $35 a day from someone I would be willing to help for free but they insisted on chipping in for gas, food and activities to make it so me helping them wasn't costing me money.
Also if the mom thinks that is fair pay for one on one care, she likely will be difficult to work with. Low ballers seem to be the ones who want to be late, don't leave food for your meals and ask you to also be their housekeeper for no extra pay. I learned to avoid those people when I was a teen babysitter.
I think an internship or a regular PT job might be a better use of her time.
It really depends on the area. In my area that amount would likely be 40-50% of the mom's income. That's not low ball at all.
-
1
-
-
We live south of DFW, but still considered part of the Metroplex. Our rent seems high to me...$950 for a 4 bedroom house in a decent neighborhood, but its actually on the low end---I haven't found anything cheaper thats not a total dump. Its the highest rent we have ever paid. On the other hand, we are within walking distance to everything, and withing driving distance to Aldi--next town over.
The USDA thrifty plan has us at approx. $645 per month. That is totally out of the budget. I have $350 tops to spend on groceries and we eat well. In the winter, we have less grocery money since we have to pay for heating. We eat mostly whole foods, very little processed food, almost 100% homemade.
I am content with what we have--and so thankful that we have Aldi for all the basics, Winco for bulk foods, and a salvage grocery close to Winco. We moved here in November from West Texas and my grocery bill dropped from $500ish to $350 or under. Its just cheaper when you have Aldi available. If I need to, we can eat on $50 a week. Its not full of variety, but bellies are full. We are not GF, or lactose free, or have any special diet restrictions. Kids are thin and strong and eat like teenagers already. 10 year old can already eat a full Little Ceasar's pizza by himself, so we always make it homemade.
I can only think of a few things that we would buy extra--certainly I would not need an extra $300 a month to eat well, unless I was to go all organic and buy expensive cuts of meat. Granted, we have made lifestyle choices that are not the norm--we don't buy any disposable products except toilet paper, we rarely eat out, I make all of our bread products, zero food waste,etc. This not only saves $$ but also produces less trash, and helps us to focus more mindfully on what we bring into the house. And no, I am not leaving any expenditures out---I scan everything for the National Consumer Panel and I have to have all receipts.
There is just so much we don't need. Moving towards a minimalist, zero-waste lifestyle has been really good for us. Its good not to mindlessly consume. Its good not to buy things, just to throw it away, or let it spoil in the fridge, or sit in the closet for a year unworn, to turn around and take it to Goodwill. But, if someone wishes to trade all that for more convenience, its not my place to police them. I rejoice with them that they have the extra money to spend on groceries, clothes, etc.
I could never afford to pay $15/hour per kid for babysitting. But if that's the going rate, I am going to start and make more than my husband does working as a manager. I could more than double our income with just 2 kids full-time. ;-)
We manage to live on less for a lot of the same reasons you listed. We're all those crazy non-mainstream things... bfing, cding, NFL, minimalist, tiny house, zero waste, paper free, and on it goes. Some of these no long apply and things are very much still a work in progress for us but we're working on it. :)
-
1
-
-
Low COL area. Low income. We spend approx. 30% of our income on food. I could lower this to about 20% but it would reduce the quality of our diet by quite a bit. Currently dairy free, some organic but not much. I do lots of things to stretch the budget but I do focus on healthier, home cooked meals. Groceries are our largest expense by far. In fact I spend more on groceries than we do all other expenses combined. Luckily our bills are quite low so I don't feel too bad about that but it is scary seeing that percentage! If dh were to his previous job then this amount would be closer to 10% of his income. We chose to have him home and be a low income family so I'll say it's worth the trade off. :)
Also the household items are *sort of* included in the budget. That budget doesn't include things like tp or soap but it does sometimes include things like vinegar and baking soda which are used for cleaning and many other uses. Too low to really affect it though ... $5 or less/mo.
-
1
-
-
Great. My up/down arrow keys have gone out on my keyboard. I'm trying not to blame this on Windows 10 until I get done tech checking but I'm pretty annoyed. As much as I type on the computer I need those keys! The keys aren't working on the on screen keyboard either so it isn't just my keyboard. Darn Windows :glare:
-
1
-
-
As the mediator between my sister and my parents, Together, we made a list of what was reasonable to need to purchase new in a typical year (x undies, x bras, x summer tops, x shorts, and so on, including coats). (I know we included special occasion dresses, but I don't remember exactly how.) We then discussed and agreed on a reasonable price for each item (with the winter coat expected to last several years, etc.). That led us to a weekly dollar amount.
There were rules, the most important of which was that parents could advise, but not made the purchase decision. So, for example, Mother could say, "Have you done the wrinkle test? Have you examined the seams to see that they are well-sewn? Have you checked the tags to see if it needs special washing?", but ultimately the decision was Sister's to make. Mother pledged not to say "I told you so" if the purchase turned out to be ill-advised.
Nowadays, an easy way to do this would be to set up an account with a debit card, and have the money transferred to the account automatically.
Sister's allowance turned out to be an excellent learning adventure for all. Sister chose wisely and got a fabulous wardrobe for a reasonable amount of money, Mother didn't waste money on clothes purchased but not worn, Sister learned a lot about budgeting and purchasing.
This! This is a great idea and a really great way to approach it. Prices are going to vary depending on tastes, wardrobe needs/wishes, and quality purchased. I agree the best way to budget is to sit down and make a list of what your ideal wardrobe would look like (type and # of pieces). Figure up the average cost of these pieces purchased where you would shop. Add it all up and divide up to how often you want to give the allowance. I think letting a teen be in charge of budgeting her own wardrobe is a great idea!
ETA: I do agree about setting guidelines on the wardrobe. I might let teen pick her own clothes but I'd want to be clear about what was/wasn't allowed (thinking if you have family preferences in skirt/short length, midriffs, sleeve type, etc.) and also adding in suggestions from mom on guiding purchases like justasque mentioned.
-
Thank you again, everyone, for your posts.
I had a very dysfunctional childhood so I don't know the correct reaction to a normal childhood. I can't really tell if I should be validating their resentment (which was something my mother never did - she always told me I was either (a) making things up or (b) should just get over it.)
I don't really have any clue between normal criticism of parenting styles and trying to address a real issue that should be acknowledged. For me, every issue that I experienced in my childhood was a result of really bad parenting so my experience now is kind of skewed!
I'm sorry you had a dysfunctional childhood also. Do you have a good friend to talk to? I have a friend that I call every time I think I'm overreacting in response to something because of my past experiences. There are some things I just don't trust myself to look at objectively so I call her for an outside opinion to keep me in check. ;)
(Disclaimer: Keep in mind I am looking at this from my own POV having had a dysfunctional childhood with an emotionally abusive mother.)
I would validate their feelings, apologize, and explain myself. Something I heard once that hit me hard (and I'm paraphrasing here) is: "We don't decide if we hurt someone. Their feelings are their own and their perception is right even if it wasn't our intention." I was frequently told as a child/teen that what I was stupid, over-reacting, making it up, being ridiculous, or to get over it. I am funny about it. If my kids say mom you ___. I apologize. I explain what I was thinking/meant by my actions and I ask forgiveness for hurting them since it wasn't my intention to cause the reaction they had. That may sound odd but that is how I would handle it.
-
3
-
-
I was eventually able to love my mother (and have compassion on her for her shortcomings - but there were a couple things - I will never condone because they were so egregiously wrong. it was a deliberate - and repeated for years starting when I was living at home and hurt me - choice.) -
from the time I was a teen, I felt like the adult in the relationship (one more reason to resent her when I desperately needed a nurturing parent. I didn't have one.). to the day she died - I felt like the adult in the relationship.
I do look at the difference between her children and my children and think - at least my children had me as a mother and not my mother. and what a difference it has made.. . .
I joked she lived her adult life like a teen rebelling against their mother. things only calmed down after her mother died.
rant off -
Sounds like you were raised by my mother. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. Having to be the adult taking care of the parents is awful. It was the same for me and I also raised my brother and sister because of it. I'm still the adult in the relationship with my mother. My disappointment and continued issues with her now are because of my own children (I won't go into details and further derail the thread but let's just say she isn't grandma of the year anymore than she was mom of the year). I am very unusual in some of my approaches with my children trying to make sure they are well cared for, do not feel like they have to adult before they need to, and that they don't feel responsible for my emotional health. I am still working on finding peace in my relationship with her. Toxic parents *sigh*
-
1
-
-
$1500/month would nearly be my entire income :). My mortgage is less than a third of that. But we still have nice parks, free lunches for all school age kids during the summer, amazing libraries, etc. So in some ways it doesn't feel low income. Although, if I didn't have a car, I wouldn't be able to drive the 15-45 minutes to get to most of those things, since there is no public transportation. Then I might be feeling a little different.
We have good resources here too. It's part of why we moved. The area we moved from was a low COL area also but it was dreary since we had nothing in the area to do. We also don't have public transportation since we don't live in a city so that's a factor. City living can definitely alter costs if you have good resources!
-
We do. You could easily rent a house for $400 a mo. A super nice house for $650. You could buy produce from a farmer for half what they charge at the grocery store.
The trade-off is that it is a pit. Things like almost no parks (and the 3 that exist are pitiful), certain people actively fight things like a YMCA :glare:, etc. Yeah it's not worth it unless you are retired, which indeed a large number of the people who live here are.
ETA - I'm not sure what living in a low COL are has to do with materialism? We moved here from a village in in NE with a LOT higher median income. I saw less materialism there, though of course that just my experience.
Georgia
Materialism is probably the wrong word choice. I'm not thinking of a better word for it at the moment other than 'materialism' in the sense of prioritizing the quality of things. What I mean are lifestyle choices. We chose to buy a smaller, decent home that needed minor repairs and possibly updating instead of getting a larger, newer/nicer suburban home. We keep a decent, older car and maintain it compared to the newer, more expensive cars some people like, etc. I know we live in a low COL area given that there ARE lower cost choices but I'm just wondering if some of it is more based on the fact that I'm cheap :lol:
I know I'm being a nit pick here, but how can $1500 be half of his income if he is making less than $15 an hour? Unless he is working a lot of overtime.
COL where I am is average except taxes. Taxes are very high.
You're right it's MORE than 50% of his income. Right now he actually is making a lot of overtime with it being summer. Even with the OT it's roughly 60% of his income. Honestly in winter when he's getting regular 40 hr weeks only it'd probably be nearly ALL of his bring home pay.
-
1
-
-
Can I ask a question on this thread, kind of on topic? One of these stupid questions :closedeyes: When I read the different reviews regarding sizes they will usually note for a woman who have or haven't given birth. What if I have had one planned c-section? Does that mean I haven't given birth as far as a cup is concerned? That is what I am assuming. :confused1:
Still use the one for women who have given birth. You were still pregnant which is the key factor there regardless of birth method. The reason is "as we age, our hips naturally widen and the vaginal muscles lose elasticity" (direct quote from http://divacup.com/how-it-works/sizing/).
This site: http://theecofriendlyfamily.com/2012/04/what-menstrual-cup-is-right-for-you/ has a great comparison of cups. Another possibility might be to order a cheaper cup brand (like The Flower Pot) to test first. Then you can compare the measurements of that cup to others to see what might fit you best. I've had 3 cups and each was a different fit/feel.
-
1
-
-
it was amazing the more they *really* got to know their peers - from a much wider pool than would be found in a school/homeschool setting - they came to really appreciate how good they had it. (despite some extremely difficult outside circumstances.)
I also have some deep resentments to how I was raised. I'm old enough, and experienced enough to see the things she did right and give her credit for those things. I'm also experienced enough to see how much of her apathy probably came from her control-freak of a mother . . . but there were some things . . . the older and more experienced I get, the more disgusted and appalled I am by those choices. (and they were *deliberate* choices)
This is me. As an adult wife and mother I can see why my mother did things the way she did and I can understand her situations a lot better. I can give her credit for the good things she did and where she went right. I can also see all the horrible ways she deliberately screwed up big time. Honestly given some of the information I have discovered over the years it just gets worse. And as a bonus she's still adding more reasons for me to despise her. Nice. Honestly it's a real wonder I even speak to the woman :huh:
-
3
-
-
Every situation is going to be different but if it was me I wouldn't take her to a psychiatrist yet. Very simplistic view but psychologist = therapy, psychiatrist = meds. Disclaimed: I prefer alternative and integrative care so that factors into my decisions. Your views may be different.
I'm reading this as a mild situation (correct me if I'm wrong) were she's still completely functioning in daily life and participating in hobbies and activities. If my daughter was seeming sad/possibly mildly depressed but it wasn't affecting her daily function, interactions with people or interest in her personal activities/hobbies, I would:
- start with her ND/MD and integrative nutritionist to optimize nutrition and analyze for other medical causes for the sadness first (possibly considering other professionals and second opinions)
- if nutrition isn't improving or I feel she would benefit then I'd find a good therapist and possibly a support group and/or spiritual advisor
- after medical causes and nutritional issues are ruled out if therapy isn't showing improvement (or it's recommended by the therapist and her doctors) I would seek out a psychiatrist for alternative therapies and/or meds.
As for the lifelong therapy that isn't uncommon in people with (ongoing not just situational) depression although most I've seen have once weekly sessions to begin with then lower the frequency until a situation warrants more frequent sessions again. For a teen I would be leery of anyone suggesting they go straight for lifelong therapy.
-
Curious if I'm the only one on the boards living on little to no money LOL. This is sort of a spin off but it's come up in a few threads now. It seems that many people here live in high cost of living areas compared to mine. The grocery thread is discussing grocery budgets in $1000-1500 range and the childcare thread is talking $15-20/hr for childcare, etc.
$1500 on groceries would be 50% of our income.
$15-20/hr for childcare is more than my husband makes and he has a skilled job.
Just curious to see if anyone else lives in a low COL area. I was raised in a low income family and I don't prioritize materialism so maybe I'm jaded?
-
I think it's the age. At those ages they are "adults" but they are still young and just coming off the teen years. I agree with the pp that most of it will likely change when they are parents themselves. They'll be able to look more objectively at what you did and why you did it.
*Disclaimer: I guess I should say that I resent how I was raised to this day but I had bad circumstances. If I'm honest about it there are to this day new circumstances being added to cause resentment. Even with my bad familial relationships I can look objectively at some of it and understand things better, at least better than I could at 18 when things were so fresh.
-
2
-
-
thanks, everyone. The number the mom through out was $35/day for an 8 hour day. That seems low to me, less than $5 hour. Care.com gives average babysitting rate for our area at $10.75. Average day care rate seems to be around $150/week.
In our area it depends on the moms wage. One friend pays $2 an hour per child. Most jobs here are minimum wage or $10 an hour for this mom. Like substitute teachers, Secretary, or department store. I wouldnt expect more than the mom makes. Your daughter could see it as a good future reference. Maybe the mom figured you take care of your childs needs so this is just extra spending cash and a good reference.
Obviously this varies widely by location.
This! It definitely changes depending on the purpose of the child care and the income of the family.
Another thing to note (and was mentioned in another thread) that an in home care provider can keep more than one child (varies depending on the state and the age of the children). If your daughter has the legal ability to keep more kids at the same time to increase her income it makes even more sense. If the mother expects one on one care, no other children allowed to be kept, then the cost should raise.
My cousin has done in home care for years (in a low income area) and usually gets $3/hr/kid. Since she can legally keep 6 kids that's what she does. So each mom (making $8-11/hr at their day job) is only paying her $3/hr per child and that may seem low but with 6 kids she's making $18/hr total - double or nearly double what each mom she babysits for makes.
Any one here use Ray''s Arithmetic?
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
We use Ray's and love it. Originally I'd started out with MUS but quickly figured out mastery wasn't going to stick for my oldest. I tried MEP and while I love it the kids did not. It was also rather teacher and time intensive compared to Ray's. I love that Ray's is simple and easy to use. The oral drill works best for my oldest. I just love it .... free, vintage, effective, oral drill, mastering skills before moving on but still enough review built in that they don't forget past skills, answer keys available, all levels available in one program. There are a lot of math programs that I love the look or idea of but Ray's is what works best for my family and what gets done here.