egads!!

[Sasiki]

My wife stays at home with our 5 month old son. She was working at a credit union bringing home $1,100/mo. Daycare and the associated costs would have totaled $700 month. I think i'll pay the extra $400 to have the best babysitter in the world, my wife, watching over our son. The first few years are arguably the most important stages for personality and behavior development in a child. I'm not going to take my chances. My wife is still continuing her college education too, only 1 night per week.. slowly but surely..

 

[FoBoT]

some things are more important than money/stuff

 

[SagaLore]

Get a live-in maid/nanny/concubine.

 

[geno]

We're dropping about 700 a month on daycare for our 2-year old...it's rough but ya gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Wow, I guess I'm lucky with $100 per week for a private sitter who pays for meals. Only thing I supply is diapers and milk. She only has 2 other kids (sometimes) which are her own grand kids.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Wow, you people spend more on daycare than I can hope to make working part time...or as much as full time. <---College student.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

 

[rasczak]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

Thankfully the job my wife has is only 5.5 hrs a day tops.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

The problem with all that is this... fairness

Why should it be just one parent and not both agreeing to take career hits in order to parent kids that supposedly BOTH people wanted? Why should just one spouse expose themselves to a fiscal hit that will lower their earnings for the rest of their lives?


What stay at home parents do is valued when it comes time to pay a daycare center.. that same contribution becomes utter trash when/if divorce time comes when the employed spouse sets about to devalue and minimize that contribution as much as possible in hopes of eliminating alimony or making those payments as small as possible.

I really feel that if people want kids that BOTH parents should whenever possible actively pursue careers that are family friendly,even if that means they BOTH lower their earnings potential. It's a lot fairer to both spouses and ultimately better for kids who benefit from having both a father and a mother taking turns to cover school vacations,sick days, go to teacher conferences etc.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

I really didn't want my son sitting at home with his grandmother all day. Its not fair to her, nor is it fair to him. The social interaction with children his age is very important IMO...you can't put a price on that

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

The problem with all that is this... fairness

Why should it be just one parent and not both agreeing to take career hits in order to parent kids that supposedly BOTH people wanted? Why should just one spouse expose themselves to a fiscal hit that will lower their earnings for the rest of their lives?


What stay at home parents do is valued when it comes time to pay a daycare center.. that same contribution becomes utter trash when/if divorce time comes when the employed spouse sets about to devalue and minimize that contribution as much as possible in hopes of eliminating alimony or making those payments as small as possible.

I really feel that if people want kids that BOTH parents should whenever possible actively pursue careers that are family friendly,even if that means they BOTH lower their earnings potential. It's a lot fairer to both spouses and ultimately better for kids who benefit from having both a father and a mother taking turns to cover school vacations,sick days, go to teacher conferences etc.

Fairness should apply to our kids. We, as the parents, have to make sacrifices to make sure our kids have a what they need to become productive members of society. My wife or I make all appointments, meetings, as well as take turns with sick days. It ain't like missing a day of work here or there is gonna derail our careers.
Honestly, you must have had a negative childhood if you think that one parent should not be the sole source of providing 'time' because of some always-pending divorce.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

:roll:

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

I really didn't want my son sitting at home with his grandmother all day. Its not fair to her, nor is it fair to him. The social interaction with children his age is very important IMO...you can't put a price on that

My 5YO goes to pre-school 4 days/week and my 3YO goes 1 day/week. They only go for about 3 hours however (that's the max the school offers).
They hardly ever "sit home with grandma". Besides zoos, museums, movies, going out to lunch, running errands, visiting relatives, and going to parks, they read a ton of books, play board games, play the Wii, and even watch cartoons with their grandparents.
Personally, I think pre-school should be fun and develop a love for school/learning that keeps kids interested once they hit 1st grade.
Most kids under 5 doen't really even interact when they play. They usually play "next to" other kids but there isn't much interaction. An infant in daycare is not developing any social skills, they are just swapping virii and bacteria.
I guess everyone has their own opnions and ideas of raising children; I think my parents and in-laws provide much more than any daycare all at a better price and more personal attention.

 

[Homerboy]

just marking this as I always love this topic on ATOT.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
just marking this as I always love this topic on ATOT.

:laugh:

Besides politics, there are few things as divisive as child-rearing opinions.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Homerboy
just marking this as I always love this topic on ATOT.

:laugh:

Besides politics, there are few things as divisive as child-rearing opinions.

Agreed. I will say that my wife and I sacrificed a lot to make sure one of us (it ended up being her) was at home with the kids raising them. The youngest is in her last year of Montessori Kindergarten and the oldest in 1st grade at a public Charter school. I think the advantages (and memories for that matter) of having her at home with them in their young years greatly outweighs any monetary gains we could have gotten from both of us working and them in day care. We have 1 car (I rode the bus to work for 5 years, now I work 10 blocks from home). We live in a smaller, simpler home. Don't take many elaborate vacations etc.

We are/were very lucky to be able to do this, and do this successfully (Ok we accumulated some debt, but it will get paid off). I would think that most people would do the same if the numbers added up (and they were willing to sacrifice things for themselves). What I don't understand is when parents feel the need for 2 new cars, big homes, expensive trips etc, and then say "well we both have to work to pay the bills". That's sacrificing your child's experience and youth for your own physical wants. That I simply don't get.

Once both kids are in school, my wife will likely continue to stay at home so she is there when they get home, when they are sick etc. She is VERY active in my son's school so I assume that will grow too. Again, I will admit that we are lucky to be able to do this in our lives, but it is part luck and part sacrifice. And personally, as a parent, I am willing to sacrifice anything for my children.

 

[Codewiz]

My wife and I just put our 9 week old in daycare starting this week.

I make 74K a year.
My wife makes 56K a year.

We looked financially at if we could manage to have my wife stay at home with our child. It was fiscally impossible.

It would have been possible IF my wife was daycare for other children. But my wife doesn't want that responsibility. So we ended up with daycare.

However, we manage the amount of time in daycare. My wife goes into work at 6am and gets off at 3pm. I drop the kid off at daycare at 9am and work late. So my kid is in daycare for about 6 hours. Would we have liked to stay home with him? Yeah but we wouldn't have been able to save money for our retirement or save any money for him.

From a quality of life standpoint, we are in a much better place. Not to mention we only pay $125/week.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

The problem with all that is this... fairness

Why should it be just one parent and not both agreeing to take career hits in order to parent kids that supposedly BOTH people wanted? Why should just one spouse expose themselves to a fiscal hit that will lower their earnings for the rest of their lives?


What stay at home parents do is valued when it comes time to pay a daycare center.. that same contribution becomes utter trash when/if divorce time comes when the employed spouse sets about to devalue and minimize that contribution as much as possible in hopes of eliminating alimony or making those payments as small as possible.

I really feel that if people want kids that BOTH parents should whenever possible actively pursue careers that are family friendly,even if that means they BOTH lower their earnings potential. It's a lot fairer to both spouses and ultimately better for kids who benefit from having both a father and a mother taking turns to cover school vacations,sick days, go to teacher conferences etc.

Fairness should apply to our kids. We, as the parents, have to make sacrifices to make sure our kids have a what they need to become productive members of society. My wife or I make all appointments, meetings, as well as take turns with sick days. It ain't like missing a day of work here or there is gonna derail our careers.
Honestly, you must have had a negative childhood if you think that one parent should not be the sole source of providing 'time' because of some always-pending divorce.

Divorce happens, so does death and serious disability. A person who stays at home to parent one or more children
does take a tremendous hit to their lifelong earnings potential. All I'm saying is that when it comes time to take
that hit, to make that "sacrifice" that it should be BOTH parents making it, not just one.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Daycare is needed even if it eats most of the second earner's paycheck.. it's needed
to keep that earner in the workforce gaining skills. Staying at home for several years
with children will negatively impact your lifetime earnings potential, a parent who goes
on the mommy track might never catch up fiscally.

Working full time away from your home and your newborn for several years will negatively impact your relationship with your child. A parent who goes on the "money first" track will never catch up on the time they lost with their child watching and helping them grow.

See how that work? I guess it's all about priorities. If we didn't have immediate family to help watch/raise our kids, either my wife or I would have put our professional careers on hold without a single thought.

The problem with all that is this... fairness

Why should it be just one parent and not both agreeing to take career hits in order to parent kids that supposedly BOTH people wanted? Why should just one spouse expose themselves to a fiscal hit that will lower their earnings for the rest of their lives?


What stay at home parents do is valued when it comes time to pay a daycare center.. that same contribution becomes utter trash when/if divorce time comes when the employed spouse sets about to devalue and minimize that contribution as much as possible in hopes of eliminating alimony or making those payments as small as possible.

I really feel that if people want kids that BOTH parents should whenever possible actively pursue careers that are family friendly,even if that means they BOTH lower their earnings potential. It's a lot fairer to both spouses and ultimately better for kids who benefit from having both a father and a mother taking turns to cover school vacations,sick days, go to teacher conferences etc.

Fairness should apply to our kids. We, as the parents, have to make sacrifices to make sure our kids have a what they need to become productive members of society. My wife or I make all appointments, meetings, as well as take turns with sick days. It ain't like missing a day of work here or there is gonna derail our careers.
Honestly, you must have had a negative childhood if you think that one parent should not be the sole source of providing 'time' because of some always-pending divorce.

Divorce happens, so does death and serious disability. A person who stays at home to parent one or more children
does take a tremendous hit to their lifelong earnings potential. All I'm saying is that when it comes time to take
that hit, to make that "sacrifice" that it should be BOTH parents making it, not just one.

Why? If one parent is willing? That's the job of being a parent and one of the responsibilities. Self Sacrifice. The load should be carried by both as much as possible I agree, but in 99.9% of the situations, 1 of the parents is going to carry the vast majority of that load.

 

[Drekce]

I guess I am really blessed to have my MIL watch my son. We currently pay her $450/month, and will up that to $700 when my daughter is born in a few months.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
...Divorce happens, so does death and serious disability. A person who stays at home to parent one or more children
does take a tremendous hit to their lifelong earnings potential. All I'm saying is that when it comes time to take
that hit, to make that "sacrifice" that it should be BOTH parents making it, not just one.

I agree, both parents should have equal investment in their children. This should be true even in the event of a divorce.