Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stay at Home Moms/Working Moms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
    Personally, I always thought unless the SAHP parents earns 60k+ or has a career with progress to that and more that it wouldn't make sense to have two working parents.

    You feel that 60k is a benchmark salary to justify working. Anyone who makes less than that should stay home - TODAY in 2014. What happens 20 or 30 yrs from now when that benchmark moves to 120k?

    30 yrs ago if someone made 30k/yr it was looked at in the same way. First year lawyers were lucky to make that much. (as an example). So now what happens to that person who made 28k a year, quit work to stay home with the kids? They could have easily been making 60k or more today.

    This is essentially part of the argument IN FAVOR of SS.

    I'm glad you stated it so eloquently Links. I couldn't have put it any better.

    Comment


    • #17
      It depends where you live but the cost of child care, commuting, clothing, stress, eating out etc... all militate against two working parent especially for pre-school children. In Quebec welfare state at 7$/day daycare it is skewed....

      I'm all for spousal support but it just needs to be "de-welfareized", not based on income sharing and stricter on time limits.
      Last edited by Links17; 02-17-2014, 12:52 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        It might be more tolerable for you if you simply look at it as a contract of sorts. Similar really to an employment contract. You get xx weeks vacation pay for xx yrs of service. Company pays into a pension plan for you. Throughout your employment you get benefits and you pay taxes and CPP and EI.

        A SAHP cannot pay into CPP (which I believe is ridiculous and this one thing alone could make a very big difference for SS payors come divorce time so you should get behind that); SAHP cannot pay into EI, and so on.

        If society put more value on SAHP's it would make a huge impact on SS and quality of life for SAHP apres divorce. SS payments would likely be reduced as the SAHP would have other resources which they paid into akin to what regular employees pay (CPP, group pension, extended health benefits) to draw on at the end of a long-term marriage.

        Comment


        • #19
          I would add that SS and CS recipients often have to go on welfare when they are unsuccessful in collecting support payments. Wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense for SS recipients to draw on an independent source which they paid into through the years (CPP, extended health/insurance) at least in part when determining SS? Everyone's a winner in that scenario in my opinion.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Links17 View Post

            Divorce Law & feminism is the death of SAHP.
            Oh for crying out loud. Do you really think things were better in the bad old days before feminism, when "good" moms stayed in their place at home and only "bad" moms worked for money, and dad was lord and master? I'm sorry that you now regret your choice not to stay at home with your kids, but you can hardly blame feminism for the choices you and your ex made of your own free will, no matter how those choices turned out in the end.

            If it weren't for feminism, you'd have a lot more financially disempowered women trapped in sh!tty marriages. I would have been one of them. But I'm not, because the feminists who came before me created a world where I could have the skills and the opportunity to support myself. I will never be financially dependent on any man, and neither will my daughter. I am eternally grateful to the women who fought to make that possible for us.

            Comment


            • #21
              Oh for crying out loud. Do you really think things were better in the bad old days before feminism, when "good" moms stayed in their place at home and only "bad" moms worked for money, and dad was lord and master?
              A lot of leaps there, I don't things were better - I am just saying that divorce law (perhaps motivated by feminist interests....) has made it that any informed/free/rational person would not consent to being in a relationship with a SAH aspiring parent.


              I'm sorry that you now regret your choice not to stay at home with your kids, but you can hardly blame feminism for the choices you and your ex made of your own free will, no matter how those choices turned out in the end.
              It wasn't the choices that were the problem - it was the hidden consequences of the choice. If the type of ILA requirement was required at the time of marriage - would I have made the same choice (a long with so many others?)?

              The worst part is that people in the past signed civil marriages with a certain understanding of the consequences of divorce and by time they go to the end of the marriage, the contract and consequences had change. In any other situation that would be unacceptable.




              If it weren't for feminism, you'd have a lot more financially disempowered women trapped in sh!tty marriages. I would have been one of them. But I'm not, because the feminists who came before me created a world where I could have the skills and the opportunity to support myself. I will never be financially dependent on any man, and neither will my daughter. I am eternally grateful to the women who fought to make that possible for us.
              No doubt they brought some/a lot of benefit to women specifically but at what cost and have we gone too far?



              an I would add that SS and CS recipients often have to go on welfare when they are unsuccessful in collecting support payments. Wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense for SS recipients to draw on an independent source which they paid into through the years (CPP, extended health/insurance) at least in part when determining SS? Everyone's a winner in that scenario in my opinion.
              Doesn' CPP get split upon divorce?
              Generally, I don't think people HAVE to go on welfare - especially healthy people.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                ...Doesn' CPP get split upon divorce?
                Generally, I don't think people HAVE to go on welfare - especially healthy people.
                Yes CPP does indeed get split but had the SAHP been able to contribute, the amount to be split would be much higher and both parties would benefit by this.

                Depending upon which part of the country you live in, unemployment is a reality. If someone has been out of the workforce for a lengthy time, healthy, they will be lucky to get a part-time minimum wage job with no benefits. Can someone live on a part-time minimum wage job? I think not. Re-education? That's fine for someone who is young. What happens if you are in your 60's?

                Comment


                • #23
                  I was a STHP and although today my x says he never agreed to it, I did it for 25 years, so you would think if it were an issue at some point he would have put up a fight.
                  He was a high wage earner, and I feel very priviledged that I was able to be at home with my children. I gave up a great job, (senior bank job),and I worked hard at home and loved every minute of it. By the way, going to work outside the home is way way easier, as I am doing it now and think to myself of those women who are holding down 2 jobs, working outside and coming home and dealing with another. I work with quite a few women like that, taking phone calls during the day and having caretakers arranging doctors visits and the such, going home to make dinner, prepare lunches for the next day, paying bills, homework, dealing with laundry and household chores after a full day of work, YUK!!!!!!! To top it all off when a father helps out, he is considered a wonderful participant, a great father and a big help. The mother is just holding down her second job. Totally unfair.
                  I gave up a good career and have absolutely no issue cashing my SS cheques the beginning of the month. I earned those wages, raised two incredible men and am very proud of my hard work paying off.
                  I make no excuses for my entitlement.
                  My agreement allows me to work and receive SS without any consequences. I will never regain the status that I gave up by choosing to stay at home and if I had to do it all over again, I would........

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    My agreement allows me to work and receive SS without any consequences. I will never regain the status that I gave up by choosing to stay at home and if I had to do it all over again, I would........
                    Just go to shows who is getting the better part of the deal, SAHP or Working parents.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Depends what you consider a better deal. I got the better deal because I have the love and respect of my children.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        You:
                        -got to have the experience of catching all the special moments with your kids
                        -not having to commute + all other bs of working
                        -kids appreciated you because you were front and center
                        -post divorce you could or could not work and prob got lifetime support (key is that you are now on vacation)

                        Him:
                        -worked during marriage, depending on job could have been a variety of things
                        -missed once in a lifetime moments
                        -post divorce - legally obliged to work but only collect half his pay for the rest of his life.

                        Assuming u were in a long marriage with rule of 25 or w/e.

                        Good deal if u ask me!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                          You:
                          -got to have the experience of catching all the special moments with your kids
                          -not having to commute + all other bs of working
                          -kids appreciated you because you were front and center
                          -post divorce you could or could not work and prob got lifetime support (key is that you are now on vacation)

                          Him:
                          -worked during marriage, depending on job could have been a variety of things
                          -missed once in a lifetime moments
                          -post divorce - legally obliged to work but only collect half his pay for the rest of his life.

                          Assuming u were in a long marriage with rule of 25 or w/e.

                          Good deal if u ask me!
                          You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Not only am I working, I am working 6 days a week. I am funding my son through law school, and yes i am getting SS and a good SS one at that.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            it's a "rule of 65" This is probably a closer snap shot of the situation:

                            Her:

                            Stayed home and took care of sick kids, cleaned everyone else's mess up, lacked intellectual stimuli for long periods of time, work day didn't start at 8:00 and end at 5:00, worked late into the evening preparing children's lunches, laundry.

                            Post divorce - years in court for divorce settlement, trying to re-establish a career while staring down retirement. Being a supportive parent and grand-parent.

                            Him:

                            Shit, shower and a shave, short commute to work in luxury vehicle, daily professional intellectual stimuli, business lunches, end of day home playing with the dog and watching TV.

                            Post-divorce - retired, living the good life full of travel and company of young babes and hookers looking for the 'good life.'

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Any attempt to compare all parents who work outside the home and all parents who work inside the home (because nobody just "stays" at home with kids) is bound to be futile, because there's so much individual variation. I worked full-time from the day my maternity leave ended. That doesn't make me a better or a worse parent than anyone who didn't work outside the home, it just makes me different. I know some moms and dads whose parenting styles I really admire, and some who give me the creeping horrors, and the dividing line between the two groups is not whether the parent works outside the home.

                              I do think that anyone who enters into a relationship of financial dependency, where one party works for money and the other doesn't, should go into it with their eyes wide open as to what the implications are if the relationship breaks down. I wish this was taught in schools. I see plenty of young women giving up their jobs to fulfill a dream of being a stay-at-home mom, naively assuming that love is all they need and never thinking about what they would do if the breadwinner decided he wanted out. I imagine there must be a similar number of young men out there who are shouldering the breadwinner role without thinking about the implications of their decision should their wife want to end the marriage.

                              I'd go so far as saying that any couple contemplating a "traditional" breadwinner/caregiver arrangement write up a contract outlining who owes what to whom if the marriage fails. I doubt this would be legally enforceable, but at least it would give pause for thought.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I was a SAHM for quite a while. My ex and I agreed the kids should be raised by a parent until they were full time school. We decided I was the best choice. I had our first child 2 weeks after I graduated university. 4 yrs and 5 miscarriages later our 2nd child was born. He was high-maintenance special needs from the start. Work was not an option for me based on the appointment schedule I had to keep since hubby at the time distanced himself.

                                After separation ex conveniently forgot about our decision to have a stay-at-home parent because my not working meant he had to pay. He still has no clue how hard a job it was and is to raise the kids nor an understanding of the special-needs demands and realities. As important as I believe it was to stay home with the kids, I personally enjoy "working" more. As soon as the youngest was in school full time I got a job. I couldn't afford to work before this. With special needs subsidies and program, it would actually cost money to work... Backwards sounding I know. Instead, I returned to school part-time to prepare myself for the workforce when the youngest was in full time school. I totally changed my career path to a lower paying one that was better suited for single parenting special kids.

                                Bottom line... Been both a SAHM and a working mom... Both are with their own challenges and I would never be-little any one for the role they live. Each is hard and the reasons behind their decision (SAH vs working) can be very complicated.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X