Economic or Value Judgment? You Decide!

[Leta]

DH and I are having a friendly debate, and we need outside opinions.

 

The Background: (You can skip down to the bolded part if you want.)

 

DH works with the husband half of a couple who has a 9 month old son, and his wife is 5 months pregnant with a daughter. The wife works full time as a car salesperson, 9 to 5. The husband works 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. Because of some commuting issues, the little son is in daycare a full week- 40 hours.

 

Now, we know a lady who works at the (wonderful, loving) daycare that the son attends, and so we know that it costs $4.50 per hour. Because DH and the husband are in the same union and make the same amount of money, we know that the husband's salary is about $30,000 per year, plus wonderful fringe benefits.

 

Also, the husband was left several rental properties by his late father, so they have that income. They both drive nice new trucks and have a Corvette that lives in the garage most of the year, as well as other extras like season Packers tickets. They live in the nicest subdivision in town. So clearly, these people have financial resources that exclude them from subsidy programs like state help with daycare and WIC.

 

The other day, DD and I were eating lunch at work with DH the husband was lamenting to DH about kids being so expensive- formula and diapers have gone up, soon they'll be paying $9 an hour in daycare, both their cars suck so much gas that they are spending $50 a week on his wife's commute alone, oh, verily, a tale of woe.

 

"And my wife has to work," he continued, "she makes as much as I do, sometimes more."

 

When DH got home, he said, "After hearing [dude] at work today, I'm so glad you stay home."

I said, "I don't think he really minds the expense, otherwise they would do something to change it." DH looked at me funny. "Look," I said, "it's costing them over $20,000 a year just in daycare and gas, and she only makes about $30,000."

 

"Well," said DH, "they're still $10,000 to the good."

 

"Yes," I said, "but after taxes it's less, and if she was at home she could do all sorts of other things to save money- like we do- cloth diapers and breastfeeding, and giving up one of the new cars, for starters."

 

"Ah," said DH, "but now you are making values judgment, not an economic argument."

 

So we continued debating, because I think I am making a case for sound economics, but DH thinks I am making a case for leading a more family centered lifestyle. So which is it?

[j.griff]

I don't like hearing people WITH money, complain about not having enough to do every little thing they'd LIKE to do. It is economics, but it also depends on what they value more, KWIM? Not everyone has the homemaking skills that others do, and some people are NOT cut out to be a SAHM. We all have different skills, different values, different perspectives in general.

[chiguirre]

Economically, in the short term, she'd be better off staying home. In the long term, it depends how hard it would be to reenter the work force. I've known several women who took the short term monetary loss for the long term career gain. I have no idea if it's hard to get a job as a car salesperson, so I don't know if it's economically viable to stay home until the kids are school age or not. I can thoroughly understand not wanting to stay home. SAHMing is not for everyone, that's why the Feminine Mystique made such a huge impact. My mom was always adamant that she wanted to have at least a part-time job to get out of the house. I'm okay staying home, but then I had a career for 10 years and maybe I got it out of my system.

 

Well that was helpful, it's economic AND it's a lifestyle choice!

[RoughCollie]

I agree.

 

Well that was helpful, it's economic AND it's a lifestyle choice!

[Crissy]

I think it's both.

I know a number of women who work not just for the financial aspect, but for the personal satisfaction their careers offer. When much of their identity comes from the work they do, cloth diapers and breastfeeding don't fit into the equation very well.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It's a value judgment which affects them economically. :D

 

(And I agree with other posters that it is complicated.)

[Jenny in Atl]

I agree, it's both. Sounds like she's working so someone else can watch her kid and so she can pay the family's tax load. I'm not sure you can separate the value issue from the economic. Almost like that line that the personal is political?

[Mekanamom]

Yep, it's both.

 

On the one hand, I know that by staying home and homeschooling, I'm saving us at least $30k a year by not sending the kids to private school. I don't actually know if I could even go out and get a job that pays that much without further education first. (I do have a BA degree, but I've been out of the workforce for nearly 12 years.)

 

On the other hand... I tend not to have any opinion at all on other people's finances... unless specifically asked. ;) There is a bit of a value judgment there, because we don't have any way of knowing all the factors that went into their economic decisions.

[Carol in Cal.]

and I think that it reflects shortterm thinking. Sure, right now it may not net them very much for her to work, but in the long run, being out of the workforce will cost them a ton and being in the workforce should lead to her being able to increase her income quite a bit.

 

I also think that there is a separate value issue here, but agree with you that that is not the one that you're arguing. The value issue is whether the intangible value of being home outweighs the intangible plus economic value of being the workforce. Personally, I come down very strongly on the side of staying home with children if possible, especially very young ones; but I know that that is not the best choice for everyone. I grew up with a mother who hated being a housewife, and was depressed most of the time. She and, in many ways, our family would have been better off if she had felt more valuable. Her unhappiness really made our homes unhappy. I would never say that every mother should stay home with her children; and if a guy said that his wife should stay home but she doesn't want to, I would say, "Well, why don't YOU stay home if you are the one who feels strongly about it?"

[homeschoolmom]

Careful....some Moms go back to work and cloth diaper and use a breastpump when away from baby. Probably a minority but I know I did and my caregiver was very supportive in using the cloth diapers and the breast milk bags.

 

Sometimes the world is a little more grey... Just sayin' :)

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Historically speaking, women who stay home have always done work that were $ related.

Whether it was canned food for the long winter months, like pioneers did, or knitting everyone's sweaters and socks, assembling quilts, taking care of the vegetable gardens, etc..

 

While they didn't bring $ in the house, they did work that had monetary value nonetheless. Now, I have neighbours with SAHM who do no work at all. (btw, I consider homeschooling as valuable work!) These women drop their kids at daycare, and head to Starbucks to meet their friends, and discuss their latest manicure.

[Mekanamom]

I would never say that every mother should stay home with her children; and if a guy said that his wife should stay home but she doesn't want to, I would say, "Well, why don't YOU stay home if you are the one who feels strongly about it?"

 

LOL, I agree. :iagree:

[kalanamak]

that 10,000 bucks during the year. Your focus is economical.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think everyone is different and places different values on different things.

 

For example, one of my former neighbors was always complaining that she couldn't afford to stay home. However, after car, clothes, daycare, etc she didn't have that much leftover. BUT this same neighbor is someone we also knew when we lived in Germany. When I talked about all the places we went she would say "aw, I wish we could have afforded to travel while we were there" but they came back to the US over-weight for their household goods due to all the antique furniture she purchased while living in Europe. I shopped at IKEA.

 

In short, it doesn't bother me that people make different decisions than I make. It *does* bother me when they complain about their decisions in terms of economics as if I have more disposable income (when her hubby is only a couple of years behind mine, rank-wise).

 

I do agree with Cleo that I know SAHMs whose kids are in full-time daycare. I don't really get the point of that.

[Leta]

Okay, so I will tell DH that we are both right. :001_smile:

 

It's certainly got me thinking. If dude had said, "My wife has to work, she'll go bonkers staying at home" or "My wife has to work, staying home for five years is too much of a risk to her career", I can honestly say that I would not have said anything, even to DH, because those would be statements of value (and the values of that family are none of my business).

 

In all probability, I wouldn't even have given it a second thought. However, since he couched it strictly in monetary terms, I was prompted to do a little mental arithmatic.

 

I empathize with all the posters who talked about people with money complaining about money. I have an aunt, who is really a wonderful person, but I cannot be around her when she talks about money. Her kids are a little older than mine, she stays home. Her husband makes more money than mine does, and she complains about money all.the.time.

 

Keep in mind, they have a beautiful home in a lovely country setting, two miles away they have a house on a large, clean lake and a powerful boat (they own these jointly with friends/relatives), they both drive very nice cars, both have cell phones plus a house phone, DSL, satellite TV, and everytime I talk to her she's dropping the kids off at my grandma's because she's going to the gym, or getting a massage, or going out to lunch with her friends. So I really don't know what she's complaining about.

[Sara R]

I wonder if the changes in the economy are going to make stay-at-home moms more economical again. Your friend is a great example. If inflation increases, the cost of commuting increases, which decreases the income less expenses. The cost of food also increases, which means that a stay-at-home mom can save proportionally more money by cooking from scratch, gardening and breastfeeding. The problem is that most people, like your friend, aren't going to realize that they could save more money with the mom at home. They'll just look at the increased number of dollars they have to spend and think that they have to work even more to cover it.

 

Amy Dacyczyn had an article in "The Tightwad Gazette" called something like "Calculating the True Cost of a Second Income." She makes the same economic argument as you do.