RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter
When a new baby arrives, young couples face a decision. If both parents work, who should stay home with the child? The mother? The person with the smallest salary? 
Or should both parents continue to work? Often this decision is about more than money — personal values may determine the best course of action. But sometimes both parents continue to work because they believe they need the income.
In her book Miserly Moms [my review], Jonni McCoy notes that frequently there’s no financial advantage for both parents to continue working. Between the cost of childcare and the cost of working (food, transportation, clothing, etc.), the second salary in the family is effectively negated. But how can you know if you’re one of those couples that can afford for one parent to remain at home?
The Parents.com stay-at-home calculator may help. Enter your income, your expenses, and then include what you spend on childcare and work, and the calculator will determine whether living on one income is feasible. The results page also includes tips and strategies to make the transition easier.
Kris and I have no children — though we have four cats — so we’ve never had to make this choice. Many of our friends have wrestled with the decision, though. For some, it makes more sense financially (and/or personally) for one parent to stay home. For others, the parents’ incomes are large enough that it makes more sense for both to continue working. There’s no one right answer.
This article is about Career, Choices, Kids, Tools Wednesday, 9th January 2008 (by J.D. Roth)
January 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Seems like I come out ahead if I work.
Luckily for us, My husband,s aunt does not charge us much to watch our little one
January 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
If you don’t have free childcare, you may want to consider working from home a few hours a week. You can net as much as someone who works full-time, if you adjust for the costs of going to work: http://www.consultantjournal.com/blog/consulting-brings-work-life-balance
January 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The problem with this line of thinking (and these calculators) is that they don’t take into consideration the loss of future earning potential and salary increases that the stay at home parent is giving up.
It might be more cost effective to quit work and stay home THIS YEAR but if you do the math over several years or even a decade you will always come out much farther ahead if both parents continue to work, especially if you count raises and potential promotions.
After all, the cost of child care will only decrease as your kids age, and your salary will only go up. But if you leave the workforce even for just a few short years, you may find yourself coming back at a salary MUCH lower than the one you left–and that’s if you can elbow your way back in at all (which is notoriously difficult to do, especially for women).
January 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Interesting. My wife is a director at a daycare and brings both our boys with her to work everyday for free.
So this unfortunately isn’t the case for us because she’d love to stay at home!
January 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Exactly, Meg. I was just about to say the same thing.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
My wife was able to stay home with the kids. I understand that is not always possible, but if there is any way it could be worked out, the benefits to the parent and child are immeasurable.
Best Wishes,
D4L
January 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I think this is a really hard decision to calculate b/c of what is left out of the equation. Its very difficult to quantify how much a person might lose in overall career earnings from stepping out and in of the work force (there are other issues like reduced social security benefits [see below] and loss of 401k matching).
I also think, that in general, women (the party most likely to step out of the work force) gets the short end of the stick on this. Yes taking care of the kids is wonderful, priceless and very important but you also have to think about taking care of yourself (and I’m not just talking about divorce, but also a spouse’s death or disability).
From the aarp web site.
Although the Social Security system is gender neutral on its face, it produces some financial outcomes that place women at a disadvantage in retirement compared with men.
The employment patterns of women, characterized by fewer years in the labor force, lower earnings, and more frequent job changes, translate into lower Social Security benefits.
The dual-entitlement rules of the system often impose a penalty on wives and widows of two-earner couples.
The loss of up to 50 percent of a couple’s benefit at the husband’s death throws every fifth widow into poverty.
Those outcomes are exacerbated by women’s disproportionate dependence on Social Security benefits. As a result of low private asset accumulation and inadequate or absent supplementary pension coverage, on average, nonmarried women over 65 rely on Social Security for 72 percent of their retirement income. Forty percent of that group rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income.
Edit - I see that Meg has done a much better job of saying what I was trying to say.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
First off, love the site, lurker for awhile.
My wife stays home with our 20-month old. If she had her old job we would come out ahead about $300 a month, but to us it isn’t worth paying someone else to raise our child. Luckily it has worked out on 1 income. I remember worrying all the time how we would survive, but somehow it’s worked out. Wouldn’t change anything.
Also, I never really bothered with any of those calculators cause they just don’t individualize them enough. I feel that figuring out if 1 parent and which parent will stay home should be done by them. For us, it worked out perfect cause I have great healthcare benefits since my son had to have surgery 2 weeks after he was born. Otherwise, we would be in some serious debt. Also life insurance for both parents is very very important.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
We both were latch-key kids (it sounds worse than it was) and after seeing how little was left after the extra bills we made a desiciaon to change. It hurt financially, but it has been great for the kids. My wife then took back up painting and other area of her life.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I would like to chime in with the others who have pointed out that the decision to stay-at- home isn’t just about dollars and cents. Yes, it might cost more to pay for childcare and other work-related expenses than one takes in, but staying home is NOT just a financial decision. Women (and it is usually women who stay at home) get satisfaction, stimulation, a sense of self worth, and a sense of accomplishment from working outside of the home, things that are often in short supply when staying home year after year with small children. Staying at home works for some, but many women I know need something else to feel happy and complete, and work is often that something else. I doubt this calculator takes into account these more elusive and less concrete “costs” of staying at home vs. working.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
My wife and I made the decision that we would be the primary caretakers of our children very early in our marriage. Difficult yes. Would either of us change it, no way.
Our kids started out in a classical school curriculum that let them out of school at 12:40 through the 6th grade. My wife did homework with them, took them to museums, taught them life lessons and was their mother.
She earned well over 60% of our income the year she quit. It was tough. Very tough. But we had a commitment to ourselves, each other, and our three children. Money is secondary, it always will be and it always should be.
Social security? I have always kept several million in life insurance on me because of my personal belief that I should support my wife’s and children’s lifestyle even if I’m not here.
We’re very happy with the choices we’ve made. Can everyone make these same choices? By no means. Everyone’s situation is different, everyone has different beliefs, everyone has different priorities, and everyone sees money in a different light. You have to make the best choice for you and your family regardless of what anyone or any website recommends. But do your homework and ask yourself, will I every regret any of this? Will I, in my retirement years, wish that I had more money or will I wish I had spent more time with my children? You have to use common sense and realize that you must make the best choice for your individual situation.
Don’t let anyone make you feel guilty either way. I know what was best for us, but I cannot know what is best for you, so do what you think is right.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Some things are worth way more then any amount of money. Regardless of what the world tells us we can’t have everything. I don’t believe you can be the best possible parent and work a full time job. I also don’t believe you can reach your full career potential and stay at home. Something has to give, and unfortunately when it comes down to it most people choose their career over their children (bring on the flames).
January 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
DH and I thought we were going to both go back to work after DS was born. We were mid-career professionals in high tech and financial management. The calculator would have told us that it was the “financially smart” decision.
However, after DS joined us, we found ourselves looking at each other during a vacation at the end of my maternity leave, asking “So . . . who’s going back to work?” We had long been living comfortably on one salary. We were each making about the same amount of money, but I had better benefits, more vacation time, the option to work at home, a flexible schedule, and my job seemed to be a better opportunity than DH’s, so it made more sense for him to become a SAHD.
I have to admit that it occurred to me that DH would take less of a career hit for stepping out for a few years than I would. We haven’t had to find out yet, but I’ll bet I’m right.
We made a decision to have a SAHP based on our values for how we wanted to raise our children. I have to admit that I haven’t spent much time calculating how much money we’re “losing” with DH as a SAHP. We’re doing OK, still debt-free and saving for retirement and growing our investments.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I would be terrified of not working. Almost half of marriages end in divorce. Widows end up in poverty. My company matches 2000 of my 401k, so that if something should happen to my relationship, I will have a secure retirement.
To me, guaranteeing I don’t suffer, starve, or live off of cat food (no offense to cats) during the last 30 years of my life is more important than making sure I’m present for every moment.
Will I, in my retirement years, wish for more money or more of the past with children? That depends on how hungry I am, I suppose. It would be great to have the luxury to think about that when I retire.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
One thing that’s always bugged me about those calculators (I’ve tried a similar one that was, and may still be, on the Babycenter website) is that they neglect to include a lot of the common expenses of staying at home.
I’ve never, for example, seen one that mentioned that your health insurance premiums may go up if both you and your partner got primary coverage from your own employer. Nor do they mention that your grocery bill will go up, albeit slightly, from feeding your child lunches and snacks at home (most full-time daycares include this in the cost). Plus there’s the incremental costs like future raises and opportunities that have been mentioned. None ask if your employer offers a 401(k) or 403(b) match, either, or what other sorts of benefits you might be losing (a mass transit pass in a large city? access to inexpensive life or LTD insurance you may need to replace?).
Not to mention that many full-time moms feel a bit trapped in the house and end up with memberships to playspaces, classes, activities, or cultural institutions like museums or zoos that they likely wouldn’t have sprung for if they’d been working. Yes, these things are completely optional, and if you’re focusing on frugality above all else you’ll find free things to do with your kids. But after-work drinks and work clothes that you can’t or don’t wear on the weekends (unless you wear a uniform) are optional too. To assume that people will spend rather mindlessly on, say, eating every working lunch out but suddenly curb all their excess spending in the name of frugality if they’re staying at home is . . . optimistic, I think.
I don’t have a horse in this race — I’m a parent and I work from home, as it happens — but every calculator I’ve seen of this sort seems like its real purpose is to make people who are determined to stay at home feel financially justified in doing so. It’s a choice that’s eminently possible (and rewarding) for plenty of people, but I find this tool a bit dishonest in helping families figure out whether it’s feasible.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“For others, the parents’ incomes are large enough that it makes more sense for both to continue working.”
This line doesn’t resonate for me. It “makes more sense” to do what you feel is right, either way. Nearly everyone can work out a way for one parent to stay home if he or she wants to. I have seen low income families do it and high income families do it.
I’m not saying you must stay at home, but IF YOU WANT TO, finances should have almost nothing to do with it. You CAN do it. (We did it on $40k a year, no problem. I have friends who do it on 20k a year.)
January 9th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Lurker. When, oh when, will we stop trying to keep up with what the world says to do and instead do what is best for our children?
While money is such a pressing issue in most decisions that we make, please don’t forfeit precious time with your children just because you think you’re ‘losing time’ in the work force, you won’t have a 10 million dollar retirement or you don’t find it “fulfilling.” Children deserve to be raised by a parent at home. Period.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
With my wife being a Catholic school teacher at the time of the birth of our first child this became a no brainer decision for us. It would have cost us more to put our daughter in day care than my wife brought home in salary. When our second child was born 16 months later this drove that one home. My wife did, however, continue to tutor school age children to make some additional income and has family (my dad is retired and enjoys the time with his grandgirls) or me watch them while she is tutoring. She has become fairly popular and this has accounted for an additional $400/month to our income.
The big key is having the right benefits and a good emergency reserve. Once we decided on this I upped my normal 3 month emergency fund to 6 month just because of the large burden on the family if I got injured and couldn’t work or lost my job (has never happened but there is always a first for things). My wife will probably go back to teaching once our kids are school age and since we have adjusted our lifestyle for one salary that should just be gravy for retirement and life pursuits.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Yeah, I don’t think you can make the decision with a calculator. But it does help the parents who really want to stay home figure out that it is doable. I think it depends on if the parent thrives on working or staying home.
Not to say that everyone should have a stay at home parent but I think there was a study of people who go bankrupt and that the largest percentage were two income families. The explanation they gave was if the wage earner loses their job in the one income family you have two people who can go out and do a job search in a pinch. In the two income family if one loses their job they only have one person available to find a job to get the income back up to where it was.
So if a family isn’t financially savvy enough to have a emergency fund and to spend less then they earn does it really matter if they have two incomes?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
In order for my daughter (an RN) to continue to stay at home w/their 1 and 2 yr. old when finances became tight, she had what I thought to be a clever idea. She put an ad on Craigs list to babysit, and after a few interviews, she’s now watching a female doctor’s 2 month old little girl from 8 to 1 p.m. every day. Her kids are fascinated w/the baby, so it works out very well. I thought this to be a creative idea of hers and not one I would have thought of.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Most of my reason for wanting to “get rich” is so that I could stay at home with our (potential) child(ren). Not for everyone, but it’s my Last Big Goal in life. The calculators are less helpful to me than a pad + pen - the question comes down to “could I (and kid) live on what DH could lose from “his” money and what I could come up with without an away-from-home job”. Of course, our finances are still pretty separate, so that might not work for many couples!
January 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
It saddens me that we value our children so little. I’d far rather see my children succeed and be connected to their family than to have a career. I’d hate to know that somebody else got all the loving, the awe, the stories, the playtime, the moments of growth and learning. I’d rather my kids feel close to me, and not their daycare provider.
You can’t have it all. End of story. Big fat myth. So choose what’s important to you. Your children or your career. I bet the majority of dual-income families could live on one income if pressed. You just have to value it.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I’ve been a stay at home mom for the past 7 yrs. and based on prior income have given up over half a million dollars in wages, not including SS, 401k, etc. Are my children (and our debt :))worth it? Most definitely!
January 9th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
My husband and I have been thinking about this issue in terms of future possible children and are facing the difficult issue of health insurance. Health insurance is through my low paying job, while my husband’s high paying job does not offer a group plan, therefore, we are stuck between losing health insurance or having our children in daycare full time. (We can’t live off my income alone, though could off of his.) We feel caught between a rock and a hard place in thoughts of having children and the issue of daycare (we’d prefer to have me stay at home with the kids) and health insurance.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I don’t think the calculator is there to make a decision. It’s there to support a decision. For example, some families would love to have one parent at home, but are under the impression that they would have more money if both parents were working full-time. For some people, they may discover that the extra income does not actually generate positive cash flow. So the calculator can help them see that they are not taking home as much as they might have thought. For others, it might help validate the parent’s strong desire to go out and work. (I happen to work from home, but my M-I-L recently said, “Oh, but you wouldn’t possibly earn enough to cover daycare if you worked in an office.” When I told her how much I’d make in a f/t position, she gasped and realized that I’d more than cover childcare. However, in my case, because I earn a good living while taking care of my own kids, I take home as much or more as I would if I was working outside the home, so it doesn’t matter.)
January 9th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet (or I missed it): if you can, live on only one spouse’s salary (and if it is most likely that the wife would be the one to stay home, then let it be the husband’s; if the husband, then the wife’s) well before the child is born. Save the other income. This results in two things: first, you will have some real savings. Second, you will reduce the weight given to both working after the baby is born due to the need to maintain a certain lifestyle.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
[...] J.D. at Get Rich Slowly talks about how for many families, having both parents work doesn’t pay off, but the decision about who stays home isn’t as simple as dollars and cents and how the Parents.com Stay-at-Home Calculator can help them make a decision. [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
parents.com is horribly conservative, the general trend you get is, females should stay at home.
For example, when the calculator showed we’d lose $2500/month if I or my wife stayed at home, the advice was: “unfortunately the numbers aren’t in your favor here’s how you can cut costs …..”
I’m sorry, but I don’t consider it unfortunate at all that my wife and I both have decent jobs where we earn about the same, and that high quality childcare is affordable where I live.
Similarily, their “should dad stay at home?” article essentially says NO. It just wraps it in more words to make it sound “sensible”. Who earns the most, they ask. In 80-90% of the cases that’s going to be DAD, and if parents.com has it their way, this won’t ever change. What does that matter if you still earn -enough- to reasonably support the family on the wifes income ?
Is Dad emotionally prepared, they ask. Which I take as an insult; nobody would advance a similar argument in opposition of mom staying at home, no moms are all prepared by default, it’s only when it comes to males that there’s a question….
The trend continues. And it’s stupid.
Here’s some thougth-provokers; (and I write this with my twin girls happily playing on the floor in front of me)
Would it be nice for your children to have a equally close bond to both parents ? Would you as a father like to spend more time with your kids ? Did you, as a father, ever spend considerable time as the main responsible for daily care of your kids ?
We share it, currently so that my wife works 4 days a week, and I work 1 day a week, the percentages may change over time. Has the added benefit that none of us lose touch with working-life. Oh yeah, and taxes tend to be nicer with two moderate incomes than with one high income too.
Recommended ! And *not* primarily because of the financial advantages (allthough those are realy too)
January 10th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Along the line of what Andrea said above, it might be more prudent to use a “second income calculator” that you can find many of if you Google. Inputing both salaries, the costs associated with the person who would be staying home, tax brackets, etc., you could discover that the second salary may *really* only bring home a few extra thousand a year. Is it worth it?
I have always wanted to be a SAHM and my husband and I are working to save up as much as possible to make that transition easier, when we do eventually have kids. I do not have a “career” with advancement potential, I have a job, and not one I’d cry over if I didn’t have it any more LOL I’m aware that I’m relying on my husband to not only support us now, but down the road and into our presumed ‘rest of our life together.’ That’s a risk I’m willing to take. I feel strongly that, at least in the early years, it’s preferable that A parent stay home with the kids. It’s a shame more businesses aren’t willing to work with that parent to be flexible on hours, etc. I agree with other commenters, you really can’t have it all, and if your career is THAT important to you, don’t have kids until you’re willing to give it up (or, have kids early and get them in school so you can focus more on your career). Some women are happier working outside the home; I would not be one of those. It’s a decision each family is going to have to think long and hard about!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I think if you are trying to calculate the true cost of staying home or working you have to consider overall loss in lifetime earnings/retirement benefits, and the risks that go along with that for the person staying home.
On the other hand if staying home with kids is priceless (as I know it is for many) then the parents.com calculator (and others) is helpful for planning purposes (i.e. can we pay our present bills on 1 salary).
As always, people should do what makes the most sense to them, as an individual and as a family.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I find it interesting that this calculator seems to hint that you can make up much of your lost outside-work income working from home.
I’m sorry, but what percentage of women can actually manage this? I hear it all the time, but meanwhile what I see is a bunch of women guilting friends and family into buying Pampered Chef stuff that they don’t need. It’s not hard to supplement a little, but I don’t know very many real people who actually make real incomes doing things like stuffing envelopes or online tutoring or filling out surveys or whatever.
Even if I were to add day care, just with the ordinary standard office job I got with my college education, I would bring home far more a year than I could ever fill in with odd jobs from home, and real home businesses take a lot more time and energy than new parents ever seem to really have.
Sure, there may not be a financial advantage to working outside the home if you’re making $8/hour doing data entry, but if you’ve got a degree and/or job skills, you can do way better than they seem to acknowledge. As Dave Ramsey sometimes points out to people, sometimes it’s not your expenses, it’s the fact that you need to get a better job.
(I mean, by all means stay home if it’s important to you to stay home–I might, myself–but I think it’s silly to put it in terms of being something financially preferable for a large portion of the population.)
January 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
[...] The Parents.com Stay At Home Calculator h/t (GetRichSlowly) [...]
January 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
When our child in the late 90s, I worked the numbers again and again and simply could not find a way to stay home. I suppose we could have if, say, we sold the house and moved in with my FIL (who lives an hour away, and who might not have appreciated the intrusion), but DH, who is a man of few needs, stated there were certain levels of simplicity to which he would not go.
While I still would rather not work outside the home, I can see the benefits of my job. Beyond my salary and benefits (the benefits where I work are VERY good), I have provided a lot of stability for our family. DH has had a turbulent career, including six months of unemployment and working for years in an unstable job with threats of layoffs and a paycut. In addition, from age six months until kindergarten (and the summer after kindergarten) we were blessed with a daycare situation that provided a sort of “second family” for our child. We can no longer use the family because they moved, but we keep in touch. I’m unconvinced that daycare cannot, in fact, be beneficial to a child if you find the right situation.
The calculator, of course, captures none of this. This is not a black-and-white issue.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Thank you for the link to the calculator. I mentioned the post on my blog: http://www.fromtheparkbench.com/2008/01/10/stay-home-mom-route-right-you
January 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I find this whole conversation very interesting even though under current rules it can’t apply to me.
On one hand, I was raised by a SAHM. And I would like to be a SAHM. But this didn’t make me closer to my mother. It didn’t create some fabulous bond. Many of my friends had parents who both worked but who understood how to raise a kid positively, how to be an active part of their lives.
So why doesn’t the concept apply to me? My partner and I are planning to have a child in the next year. Since we cannot legally marry, and cannot get on each other’s health insurance… if I were to stay home after the child is born neither myself nor my child would have health care (remotely affordably). If I were to return to work and have my partner stay home, then she would have no health insurance. Never mind the other retirement, etc arguments that apply to everyone.
I know that many people don’t realize these impacts of not allowing gay marriage, but there are great families– that can’t make great decisions because of these policies.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
LOL - the comments above about the hidden costs of staying home is true. I couldn’t believe how fast we went through toilet paper when I wasn’t working.
But there’s another factor - does it really help society for parents with important job skills to drop out of the work force, even temporarily? Does it really help society for doctors, research scientists, firefighters, etc. to stay at home with their children?
I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but I have a job that’s important to society, and I’m good at it. I don’t see how it benefits anyone for me to stay home with one child, when I have the skills to help a lot of other people, AND other people are willing to provide loving care for my child during the few hours a day I can’t be with him. And I am grateful that my child’s caregivers also have the skills and willingness to help others that allow me to work.
I hate being made to feel guilty for my choice. It’s bad enough to make women feel bad for their choices. It’s above insulting to presume to tell them what they should do.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:11 am
@35 Bobbi:
I also had a SAHM, and my dad worked long hours - we rarely saw him during the week. As it turns out, I’m much closer to my dad than my mum - our personalities just turned out that way.
It absolutely sucks that you can’t make the numbers work for your situation for no good reason. I’m sorry that you have neither affordable independent insurance, nor legal/financial recognition for your partnership. I remain grateful that I live in somewhere where both problems have more helpful solutions.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
My issue with one person staying at home to raise a child is FINANCIAL SECURITY. Unfortunately, most of the jobs are not for life anymore and if the only person working loses his/her job - it is not going to be financially responsible. Best of all, is to have both people working…
I was born and raised in Soviet Union - and everyone of working age was supposed to work. So I spent my time between daycare and grandparents… I have a wonderful relationship with my parents even though they did not stay home to raise me.
The key is to find a job which allows you to leave between 4 and 5pm and spend evenings/weekeends/holidays with the kids.
What is a person, who stayed home to raise kids, will do after the kids go to school full time?
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I have a bachelor’s degree is in pre-elementary education and I am currently pursuing a masters in pre- and elementary education. For the past three years I have worked in daycare, first as a “teacher” in a national chain, and now as a nanny to two beautiful pre-school aged children. Having seen all that I have, I would NEVER leave my child in a daycare, regardless of how high-quality you think it might be. First of all, most daycare providers are under-qualified with little education and not much more experience and ALL are underpaid, which does little for motivation or morale. Granted, most like children and LOVE the little ones they take care of, but that doesn’t do much when they are overworked and undersupported. Secondly, there are many, many things that go on behind daycare doors that parents will NEVER know about, mainly that teachers (at least at my daycare chain, and I taught at two locations) are told to basically lie to parents about the child’s day (make up positive things even if the poor kid cried all day), and sugar coat behavior problems, etc. I (and countless other teachers) were kept over ratio ALL the time, which is a safety and child development issue, and children were repeatedly bounced from classroom to classroom throughout the day, both so teachers could be sent home so the corporation could save a few bucks. I could go on and on about the lies and manipulation, but parents will never get a glimpse of it because teachers and taught be center directors and corporate how to cover things up. As an elementary school teacher-in-training, I have heard repeatedly that the most poorly behaved children are those raised in daycare, and teachers can usually tell who those kids are after the first few days of school because they act out from lack of attention. My experience as a nanny has taught me that there is a better option for those who want to go back to work - I LOVE my kids and we are VERY securely bonded to eachother, I provide consistency and individualized care, and they are able to be much more stimulated than they would be in a daycare setting (we are outside all the time, swim lessons, are lessons, OMSI, baseball, etc). But the children (like my daycare kids) still only see their parents for maybe five hours a day, and they miss them. Even recognizing that having a nanny is a decent option, I still firmly feel that one parent needs to be home with the children, at least while they are little. You would be hard-pressed to find a daycare provider who would not agree with me. And it is not a “conservative” or “liberal” issue. My husband and I are VERY liberal, but we firmly believe that no daycare (or nanny) could ever do what I could do as a mother at home. And it is not financial either. My best friend stays at home and her husband makes $20,000 a year. It is about priorities, and if you are not willing to make children your priority, you shouldn’t have them.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Something that all of these calculators fail to look at is school expenses for the parents. I’m thirty-something (remember that show?), in college for the first time ever, and the proud papa of a school-aged child and a one year old. Not only do I lose money not working, but I then have to pay for daycare and after school stuff because I’m in school. Perhaps there should be a calculator that takes into account the soccer-mom running around (time/gas/wear), school costs not covered by federal money, and the need for things you can’t necessarily afford. Lawn care is an example of the last point. 12 class hours plus three hours of study per credit hour equals 48 hours devoted to school plus time spent driving. You can afford to mow yourself but there’s simply not time. Where’s the money for that, I wonder?
My wife is the primary wage earner at the moment - hopefully, once I’m done with school, we can flip things around a bit and she can stay home for a while.
JD, thanks for the site - it means a lot…
– Z
May 20th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I think theres more to it than black and white, first step, first word ect. i was lucky to be 15 and 16 years older than my sisters and when i left school i jot a job on the weekend and spent the week looking affter them. now i have issues with my partner as she wants to stay at home but so do i and that really cant happen as we need an income.
just everyony talking about beniffits of both working, but whats better £ in the bank or the happiness or being there for the priceless moments in life which you can never get back