Third rail of parenting issues
Quite the cat fight emerges in the comments of this post:
The Real Value of Stay at Home Parenting
The flaws and merits of the original post are adequately pointed out in the comments. To me, his point was basically that if this is a choice that a couple makes, then it might not be as financially unfeasible as one may originally think. However, he seems to only look at the savings of a stay-at-home-parent and not any of the corresponding costs (i.e. not contributing to retirement savings, the gap in the resume that can harm future earnings, etc). And many of the items that he is counting as "saving" (such as not going out to lunch with coworkers or stopping for coffee every day) can already be eliminated as expenses without the worker quitting his/her job. I think his argument was rational, although incomplete.
In the comments we see that this is much more than an economic issue to most people. Stay-at-home-parents accuse working parents of letting someone else raise their kids, being detached, and creating a bunch of "cold hearted American citizens". Working parents accuse stay-at-home-parents of raising kids who don't know how to interact with others and basically being lazy.
I'm probably a little more judgmental than I should be regarding this topic. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a parent stay at home with kids. I had a parent at home full time until I started school, and I turned out fine. What turns me off is that it is usually the woman who a) wants to stay home and b)has a lower salary so that it makes more sense for her to not work and c) is continually asked by coworkers whether she plans on returning to work after having children. If things were a little more equal between the sexes I would be much more on board with stay-at-home-parenting.
The Real Value of Stay at Home Parenting
The flaws and merits of the original post are adequately pointed out in the comments. To me, his point was basically that if this is a choice that a couple makes, then it might not be as financially unfeasible as one may originally think. However, he seems to only look at the savings of a stay-at-home-parent and not any of the corresponding costs (i.e. not contributing to retirement savings, the gap in the resume that can harm future earnings, etc). And many of the items that he is counting as "saving" (such as not going out to lunch with coworkers or stopping for coffee every day) can already be eliminated as expenses without the worker quitting his/her job. I think his argument was rational, although incomplete.
In the comments we see that this is much more than an economic issue to most people. Stay-at-home-parents accuse working parents of letting someone else raise their kids, being detached, and creating a bunch of "cold hearted American citizens". Working parents accuse stay-at-home-parents of raising kids who don't know how to interact with others and basically being lazy.
I'm probably a little more judgmental than I should be regarding this topic. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a parent stay at home with kids. I had a parent at home full time until I started school, and I turned out fine. What turns me off is that it is usually the woman who a) wants to stay home and b)has a lower salary so that it makes more sense for her to not work and c) is continually asked by coworkers whether she plans on returning to work after having children. If things were a little more equal between the sexes I would be much more on board with stay-at-home-parenting.
posted by Amanda Shankle-Knowlton | 6:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home