It is nice to be first! Anyway, I do think pounding a message into people's heads is never going to work. I think people make decisions on their own. You can lay out the facts and then discuss different options. Most of the SAHMs that I know, are very happy with their choice. They believe strongly that their marriages will last, have ample life insurance, and enjoy their children immensely. Most (not all) the SAHMs that I know are very aware of the financial and professional sacrifices that they have made. Bravo to them for being happy with their choice. On the other hand, most of the WOHMs are content with their situation as well. Again I think most of the Mommy Wars exists on line and in the media. Life is too busy to worry about what others are doing.

Excellent topic and entry, Brian. I've been looking forward to this one --

I also wrote a book jacket blurb for The Feminine Mistake. I did so because Leslie Bennetts is smart, thoughtful writer; the book raises good points; and I'm glad to see how much productive (and provocative) discussion the book has caused.

However, I totally agree that the book's solutions are way too simplified, one-sided, and sublty accusatory ("you're dumb to stay home" being the subtext). It is our "system" that has to change, not parents.

Moms -- and as Brian points out, dads -- stay at home for very good reasons, many because they feel they have to -- it is simply too difficult for some families to have both parents working fulltime.

Bennetts book ignores the point of view of stay-at-home moms. I see this over and over. Working mothers in the media -- journalists, authors, tv producers -- are prone to overemphasizing their own views and justifying their own choices.

Fulltime, uninterrupted working motherhood may the best choice for them. But there are lots of moms (and more and more dads) in our country making different decisions -- to stay home, to take a break for a few years -- that are equally right for them.

These parents deserve to have their stories reported in books and the media, as they were in my own book Mommy Wars, and government's employments laws, as well as our divorce, custody, alimony and child support laws, should respect their choices as well.

The woman wrote a book. You don't have to buy it or agree with her. If her premise did get people upset, perhaps she struck a chord--perhaps she is right and people are not happy with the truth, not that she is telling it.

And I agree with Brian in that we shouldn't make staying at home totally unfair, but by the same token, I believe that most American women HAVE to work for 2 incomes to just support the family. Most don't have the luxury of the choice to stay at home. And if a family makes that choice, you need to understand the consequences. And in light of a 50% lifetime divorce rate, it has severe consequences for women.

And interestingly in my socioeconomic group (upper middle class professionals), I find few women happy about staying at home. It has become a status thing ("I don't HAVE to work"). Some of my stay-at-home friends would prefer to use their education in the workplace but feel pressure to be with the children (husband, peer group, other family members). I think it is risky--one divorce or death away from poverty.

Obviously people have the right to do as they please and feel is right for his or her family, but understand the consequences and stop taking it out on book authors. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And attacking someone personally doesn't change the truth.

Clarification-- Brian I wasn't saying that you were attacking the author---others have.

And a bit of a counterargument--so you can try to change the "system", but since this change is not imminent, advising women to not stop their careers wholesale is good advice and not "simplistic".

My wife have had this discussion several times when we were trying to work out how to support our family when we have a child. I'd like her to stay at home for at least a few years, both because daycare is so expensive, and I feel it is better for both her and the child to be raised at home without my wife having to stress out about work as well. She's in agreement with this, but wants at some point to reenter the work force on a part time, contract basis (fortunately her occupation suits this very well). My staying at home is not an option, since my salary is roughly 3 times that of my wife.

With the inheritance from her mother's estate, however, our options have increased to the point that she now has the option of staying at home full time or not, as she chooses and based on what our child's needs may be. Options are good!

The answer for women is simple, just don't have children. You can bask in your career.

I can't disagree that depending on someone else for your financial security is a risk. My mother is a great example. She had to go back to college at the age of 38 (with 4 young kids) when my parents divorced and those were some hard years. She is still struggling in the work force 20 years later.

I also believe the book misses one very strong and growing option: starting your own business. I knew I could not be a SAHM (just a personal choice!) but I also didn't want to travel as I had been before I had children. Starting my business 12 years ago was the best career decision I have ever made. As my business grew out of the home, I went through phases of different child care and coordinating schedules with my husband (who eventually joined my business) so one of us was there when the kids came home from school. Now they are pre-teens - a critical time for parental involvement - and I am able to be home most of the time when they get off the bus while working in my (third) business.

I am personally a better mom because I work and because I own my own business, I am available for my kids more than if I worked for someone else. I wouldn't trade it for the world and now work to help others find the empowerment that I have found!

ITA with this post. She took the easy way out. It's a lot easier to say what's wrong than what you should do about it. A lot easier to blame women than to blame the system.

While I don't agree with the conclusions, the book can be used as a warning of the pitfalls of a parent staying home. My most important advice - stay involved in your profession even if not employed. This is invaluable when you want/need to go back to your career.

We are preparing to send our twins off to college, and the childhood days are unbelievably just about over. My husband took family leave when they were infants, and then I was working part time from home up until they went to High School. Right now, I am so grateful for the option to have spent the time with them. Hard at times, absolutely, but worth it.

I think the facts laid forth in the book are useful information to people who don't yet have children. DH and I have discussed what we'll do when we're ready to have kids. Stats about the difficulty of reentering the workplace are useful for making a realistic assessment of your options. While efforts should be made to change realities of economics and the workplace, it doesn't help anyone to fail to inform people of current realities.

"The "Mommy Wars" are a media concoction designed to sell magazines, boost ratings, and to distract and divide women. Simplistic "us versus them" rhetoric does not reflect our experience and needs. This isn't a playground and we don't have to choose sides. The Mommy Wars promote ill will where we should be fostering connections. The truth is there are no sides and no real choices. [Click here to learn more at MOTHERS Book Bag]"

From
Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights.

To Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights: I disagree that there are "no real choices". We can play victim and whine, we can create our own reality, or we can go out and change things.

I choose the the last two. Create your own reality which helps to change things for other people. In creating my company to provide not only myself but my employees with a workable alternative, I proved that I could make a decent proft and have a life at the same time.

ParentPreneur it is from the website

"The "Mommy Wars" are a media concoction designed to sell magazines, boost ratings, and to distract and divide women"

The "Daddy Wars" are also a big bag of b.s.

Enough already!

I have not read Bennetts' book, but I will say that I watched the discussion the other day, and thought she was very defensive. Granted, she's been taking a beating, but she should have expected it given the nature of her topic. I work full time, but I was a stay at home mom, and I try to see both sides. There are a lot of things I love about being back at work, but there's a lot I miss with my kids. Bennetts seems to thoroughly discount any importance or value of SAHMs. I won't be reading this one.

I have to agree with the person who said that the author just wrote a book. If you don't agree, don't buy the book. SAHMs can be equally represented in the media by writing books or articles too. But then they'd be working... I'm sure you can find a vast amount of literature on the pros of staying at home with the kids--it's probably mostly found in Christian book stores.

I'm curious to know how people think "the system should change." Realistically, what are the problems that can't be solved by simply working instead of staying at home? It solves the resume problem and the financial independence problem. The only issue is the cost of daycare, which I totally agree is astronomical and should be reevaluated. The other risks are, well, the risks of staying home.

"The only issue is the cost of daycare, which I totally agree is astronomical and should be reevaluated"

The average cost of day care per day in my area is about $44 per day.

Given the current system, it is very risky to give up a career to stay home. I am advising my daughters against it. My mother, who was a SAHM, also advised me against it. It really is putting all your eggs in one basket.

Also, not having read the book, I'd like to hear what "system" changes are recommended. In other books/discussions, I hear about giving social security or tax breaks for SAH parents. I am against any changes the funnel more money like social security to people who are not paying in. I agree they are contributing to society, but not to the social security fund or the tax revenues. Giving more tax breaks or social security $$ to people who don't pay in is welfare in hiding. If we want to have welfare for people who choose not to work, then let's have an open debate and vote on that. Or, if we want to have the option of primary wage earners putting in double for SSA, so they can get more out at the end, then I'd be all for that too.

I will wait till this afternoon to check back when the blog jumps the shark.

I have not read any of the numerous book referenced in Brian's column, nor do I think I ever will. Are these parenting books in the "self-help" section of the bookstore? Or does "Parenting" now have a section of it's own?

it's probably mostly found in Christian book stores.

huh? I see it in all book stores.

Brian, I loved Ann Crittendon's book also and remember being completely fired up after reading it - think I will read it again. Don't think I will read Bennett's book - sounds too much like I will have my same old beef - life is not all about money, and I get tired of it being endlessly dragged into parenting decisions.

I personally appreciate the statistics provided by this book. It says only 30% of stay at home moms who attempt to re-enter the workforce are able to find full-time professional employment. While this statistic isn't particulary helpful to those already at home, it's a powerful tool for those who are on the fence or haven't had kids yet.

I'm sure that Ms. Bennetts has some good points to make about a problem facing women. Too bad she chose to wrap them in a book that's very title indicates what her answer will be. Who wants to run out and buy a book whose title might as well be "you're an idiot, and here's why. Now do as I say."

My other problem with Bennetts is that she seems to think that life is uncertain only for SAHPs. Aren't households where 2 incomes are needed to support the family in an equally precarious spot? If one person loses a job, dies or leaves, the remaining spouse can be left with too few resources and not many solutions. I don't see how SAHMs are unique.

Basically, life sucks sometimes. You should spend time thinking about and preparing for contingencies, but you can't structure your whole life around a possible worst-case scenario. I think Bennetts, in her haste to tell people that they should all emulate her life choices, seems to forget this.

Also, not having read the book, I'd like to hear what "system" changes are recommended. In other books/discussions, I hear about giving social security or tax breaks for SAH parents. I am against any changes the funnel more money like social security to people who are not paying in. I agree they are contributing to society, but not to the social security fund or the tax revenues. Giving more tax breaks or social security $$ to people who don't pay in is welfare in hiding. If we want to have welfare for people who choose not to work, then let's have an open debate and vote on that. Or, if we want to have the option of primary wage earners putting in double for SSA, so they can get more out at the end, then I'd be all for that too.

Actually the Congress has been talking for a while at going in the opposite direction. In order to keep SSA trust fund solvent, they are talking about eliminating the spousal benefit. So two working people would recieve their own social security at retirment. You can no longer choose the higher of the two and one income people would only get payments until the working spouse died. Of course this is being talked about being phased in. So current retires and their spouses would not be affected. But SSA wants to move in the opposite direction. If that goes into affect, it would make the trust fund solvent for several generations (estimates from economists). They also want to do away with dependent benefits from SSA. So if you retire or die with a minor child, you won't get any extra money. The idea is pay out to those who pay in. Make money on the actuarial fact, some will die earlier then others and no payment would be made.

"They also want to do away with dependent benefits from SSA."

I haven't read this book, but in general, I don't really care what the SAHM do in my neighborhood as long as they don't block my drive way, which they do almost everyday when it's time to drop off the kids at the bus stop.

However, the above statement that foamgnome posted does bother me. If I pay into the system and I die, my husband should get the money I paid to help raise our kids. Why should the government get to keep my money? That is just insane. What if the kid is an orphan and has to go live with his/her grandparents.

"It says only 30% of stay at home moms who attempt to re-enter the workforce are able to find full-time professional employment."

I haven't read the book but I wonder, just looking at that, whether it's controlled for women who HAD full-time professional employment prior to staying at home. And also by age.

If you stay home at say, 25, after 3-4 years of mostly entry-level work experience, it seems to me that your re-entry experience is going to be very different than someone who stayed home for a couple of years at 33, after a well-established series of career moves (and a broader network). On the other hand that person is going to be fighting the grey ceiling too, so... I don't know. But I would like to know, and I wonder if this research was the answer. If I have time to read the book I guess I'll get some answers. :)

I think I'm also skeptical because I have read the Two-Income Trap and I found that argument pretty compelling too. We have always, always lived on one salary as much as possible, and this is what has provided us with a lot of financial stability and ability to roll with the punches.

In my case I work part time and I am content with the risk level that involves. We have good insurance and we established good savings before having kids. The quality of life issues are huge for us and this is our current solution.

I also have been through a career change and weathered some layoffs and I happen to know that although employment /definitely/ helps, it is not a panacea. Look at the post-911 travel industry as an example.

I also think the statistics she quotes are B.S. The SAHMs I know who've had problems getting jobs are too picky -- they want the option to work from home, have a flexible schedule, get a full time salary for part-time work. That usually only happens for those of us who've put in some time at a company and established trust. Can't get the full monty for nothing.

"Make money on the actuarial fact, some will die earlier then others and no payment would be made." I smell the plot of a sci-fi scenario so close to Logan's Run that it's scary.

To elaborate: we would become a parasitic society, with a government fueled and benefitting by the timely deaths of citizens. Extreme, yes, but the slippery slope to vile corruption is slicked with oil already.

There were two things that bothered me about the interview --

First, she makes this statement about how few women reenter the workforce at the same high earning level at which they left -- but does she consider that when women reenter the workforce and renegotiate their salaries, money might not be at the top of their lists? They may actually have more power than she assumes, and might actually say "I'd like less money but I want to work fewer hours and travel less, etc. etc. etc." I also know that my 'returning to work after a hiatus' job search was fundamentally different than any previous job search for one crucial reason -- I was completely unwilling to relocate to other parts of the country, and actually preferred to work less than an hour from home. It wasn't, thus, a job search comparable to other's job searches, where they might actually have ended up making more money.

She makes this strange statement about how "the only women she knows who were left by their husbands were all SAHM's whose husbands found them boring." She claims to be this great analytical thinker, but here she is basically passing along the neighborhood scuttlebutt. And I've never understood that statement about how SAHM's are boring -- my husband says I'm much more boring when I come home from work all fired up about a project and won't shut up about it! Not everyone who works is fascinating -- I hate to tell you that.

However, the above statement that foamgnome posted does bother me. If I pay into the system and I die, my husband should get the money I paid to help raise our kids. Why should the government get to keep my money? That is just insane. What if the kid is an orphan and has to go live with his/her grandparents.

Posted by: scarry | April 19, 2007 08:49 AM
Scarry, it is the same thing that happens to single people. A single person can pay into the system till age 62. Retire and die the next day. His/Her heirs do not collect anything beyond the burial benefit (around $250). The system works based on the idea that you pay less or nothing to people who die before the actuarial age of predicted death and more for the long lifers. If we were going to pay out all that people put into (sort of like a return on premium), the system would die long before we could pay to a generation of contributors. I am not saying that I think the proposed changes are beneficial to society. I am just saying that beware that this is one of the changes being talked about. Economically it makes the most sense. Humanistically (not sure that is a real word) it is devastating to the elderly and families. But SSA and congress recongize they can't just keep adjusting the age of retirement. Cuts have to be made somewhere and this is the major one being put on the table. I would not be surprised if it does get passed in a decade and the changes would affect people born after 1967 with small phase ins along the way.

Along the lines of preparing and being financially smart, how much life insurance (as a percentage of income), should a SAHP have on their WOHS? Should a WOHP have on their WOHS? and vice versa, should a SAHP have on themselves? Should a WOHP have on themselves? My suspicion is most people are under insured if at all. What are the financial people recommendind?

Well, I don't agree that the benefit should be taken off of surviving children. Maybe they should look for other ways to save money, but that is just my opinion.

Armchair Mom,

Bennett's statement about SAHMs being "boring" was pretty much the last straw for me, with regard to whether or not I'm willing to read her book. She definitely seems to have a problem with SAHMs that goes way beyond her professed concern for our well-being. In many of her interviews, she makes no effort at all to hide her disdain.

FWIW, I blogged on Bennett here: paranoidmama@blogspot.com.

Scarry, the economic seminar, where the information was presented, seemed to say their were two reason for the dependent benefit reduction act. 1) older people having children later in life. So your 62 and you have a 6 year old. Again the situation that was presented on balance this week about late in life dads. The economists theory was if you were fortunate enough to have a kid late in life, you are probably fortunate to pay for them. Sort of owner responsibility. 2) purely money point of view. It saves money and non contributors (children and their guardians) do not benefit with out paying into the system. The case of orphan children living with extended relatives or parents did come up. Their answer was if you want kids-get life insurance. Smart but cold answer. Again, I don't agree with those proposed cuts but I do see congress moving in that direction. Like all changes, it won't be a hard and fast cut. It will be phased in gradually. Like a certain group may get a 40% spousal benefit instead of 50%. Slowly reducing the payout till one age bracket will get nothing. The theory is by the time it goes down to no benefit, the contributors would know this a head of time (just entering the work force) and plan accordingly. Good luck with that one. Americans are not too good with saving. But that is the theory as it was presented.

A lot of people who comment on Bennetts' book say 'I haven't read it'. I had a lot to say before I read it too, but my words would have been different. I urge you to actually read the book.

It is well written and makes many compelling points. Yes, it focuses on money - but not in a greedy, me-me-me way. Yes, it contains many examples of very wealthy women rather than a better balance across the financial spectrum. But there is so much that every one of us can learn here. Even working mothers.

I'm not ever going to bash a family's decision to keep a parent home or both stay working, but I think these decisions are often made without the big picture in mind (or the WHOLE big picture).

My biggest beef with the book is that it doesn't offer that many solutions. It just nibbles around the edges of personal solutions, and you are right that it does not describe external solutions (government or business changes). There are several excellent books about, and many organizations working on, government and business ends of the issue. As individual parents, Leslie B's book is our call to take responsibility for our end of the bargain. If we wait for government changes to trickle down to our own individual lives, we could be waiting a very long time...way past when they can actually help us or our children.

Creating a balanced, happy, fiscally-responsible life with children is possible TODAY for many, many parents who choose differently. Leslie B. says this too, although she doesn't exactly say how. Most of you know what I would include in the answers, and ParentPreneur may have another good selection. There is no one simplistic answer, but this book is worthy of a full read.

Foamgnome, we have $1 million on my husband and $500 K on me. We both wanted to ensure that if the worst should happen, lack of money wasn't going to add to the problem.

"Aren't households where 2 incomes are needed to support the family in an equally precarious spot?"

I think this is a really good point. Most two-income households rely on both incomes to pay the bills, which means there are comparable risks. On the one hand, if one spouse gets laid off, you at least have some income coming in to cover some part of the expenses; but on the other hand, with two jobs involved, you have a higher risk of facing a layoff, transfer, etc.

We discovered this the hard way. We always talked about trying to live on one income, but we let lifestyle things creep up -- things like eating out, playing golf, ski trips, etc. Heck, we were DINKs, so it was easy to let ourselves enjoy the moment. It was a big shock when my husband's company unexpectedly shut down. Luckily, we had kept our "fixed" costs low, so we were able to survive. But there's nothing like following the tech crash around the country to make you aware of your own vulnerability -- even with two incomes.

Life is uncertain, and there are risks inherent in every choice. I think it's a fallacy to assume that two-income couples are inherently more financially stable than one-income couples, if both salaries are needed to pay the bills. I applaud the attempt to provide real data to help people weigh the risks and benefits associated with each available option. But beyond that, good Lord, let people make their own decisions.

Foamgnome, we have $1 million on my husband and $500 K on me. We both wanted to ensure that if the worst should happen, lack of money wasn't going to add to the problem.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | April 19, 2007 09:13 AM

Wow, that is funny. We have almost the opposite. More on me and about 3/4 on DH. My reasoning was if I died and DH had to continue working, he would need a nanny. There is no way he could figure out a balanced schedule. The opposite is true with me. I would be able to work 5 days a week and be able to get my DD from after school care. I never see DH getting out of the office by 5 pm to get our kid. We also have separate mortgage insurance. So we knew our life insurance would completely pay for daughter's college education, house paid in full, and extra money to account for the lack of support the other parent provides to child care. Plus a small buffer. But we both make similar salaries too.

workingmomX we have the same thing, but I still don't think it is right. Foamegnome I bet that was an interesting seminar.

Scarry, what do you mean by not thinking it's right? Do you think it's low?

I guess the balance question is how many of your life choices are you going to make to mitigate potential risks and how many of your life choices are you going to make based on other values? I'm a SAHM because that is important to both of us but we are both well insured in case of a disaster. Do I have enough insurance to never work again? No, but I have enough to keep the house and buy myself several years to get trained and/or search for a new career. Certainly if he left me, things would be less comfortable, but I also invested my heart in this man which is no less valuable and no less a risk than my finances in my book. Taken to the nth degree, maybe women shouldn't get married either because it might not work out. As we saw this week, we can't prevent every tragedy so you make your choices and try to enjoy the trip which is the point of the whole thing anyway.

Scarry, it was interesting. It was mostly economists and financial people. So I was a bit out of my element. But it was presented by a policy person. So the language was clear enough for lay people to understand the gist. Of course I had limited understanding of the actual economic models being used. There were definite strong reactions for and against the current proposals. I just think the public is a little in the dark about what congress is thinking. I think it is nice to talk on a blog and in books about other government changes. But it seems there is a real disconnect (at least with this topic) between government and the people. Most people have no idea that this is a discussion being talked about in Congress.

I hadn't seen this book, but I might see if I can check it out of the library.

Because I love these books that lay everything out as if life consisted of simple decisions. You better believe her publishers helped her edit that book to cause these kinds of flame wars. After all, there is no such thing as negative publicity...

there were two things about the live discussion that impressed me.

first, the statistic she threw out that 80% of working moms are happy (or were happy ) with their childcare providers. I think this may help parents who are uncertain about whether or not to entrust their child's care to another person be nudged over to giving it a shot-- after all, the odds seem to be good that it will be fine.

Second was how alarmingly defensive she was! the way she treated the mother in Seattle was abominable. The mom from Seattle (I'll call her "Becky") did not attack Bennetts-- Becky merely said that Becky tried to be a working mom, got burnt out from all the daycare pick up and drop off and spit up on her suit, etc. so Becky opted out for awhile, got to feeling well enough to get back into the workforce, got in (maybe this is what annoyed Bennetts?) at a part-time position that is providing a real sense of balance in Becky's life, and now Becky is thinking of just saying with part-time work.

Bennets response? "Good for you honey, it sounds like you did just the right thing to take of yourself and your family. Part time work sound great for your peace of mind right now, and I'm sure you are taking steps to ensure that will be in fine shape if something bad happens like divorce, death or disability of your husband."

NOOOOOO! I can't recall exactly but it went something like "You will have no idea how much you have messed up your life by stepping out of the full-time workforce until IT IS TOO LATE! Bad Becky! You should have just strugged along, stuck in that harness because you really need to look at the long view-- no one ever thinks of the long view." Unbelievably patronizing.

I know someone who is living the Feminine Mistake right now. Her life would be significantly different had she made the choice to complete her college degree, stay in the workforce - even if part-time, and keep her marketable skills current. She did not and now she will be selling her car and house and taking whatever job she can find to scrape together enough to pay the bills - never mind save for retirement or college funds. And her kids are suffering the stress that this financial emergency has put on the whole family. But for those of you who keep screaming about everybody's right to choose for themselves, I agree. However, if your choice backfires, you need to work it out yourself and not depend on others to bail you out of your choice. Same goes for working parents who's choices might not trun out exactly as they had planned.

Scarry, what do you mean by not thinking it's right? Do you think it's low?

Sorry that is the lack of caffeine talking. I mean that I don't think it is right that they want to take away the SS benefit from kids. Ihope if they do it, they consider that some people are to poor to buy life insurance and they leave them with the benefit, but then again that seems like socialism. I don't know what the answer is, but it always seems like people (politicians) who have so much are always ready to cut things from people who have little.

Cuts need to be made, but perhaps they can be made in all the wasteful spending and pet projects instead of messing with the simple living resources provided to retired people. On military spending alone, if the money was wisely spent on effective durable armor, it would be a one-time investment and you would not have to keep paying for training new soldiers, paying life-long disability payments/death benefits, or getting new vehicles. Think of the billions of dollars that alone would save. That is just one common sense option... then there's the billions pocketed by corporations and corrupt politicians. No, I don't think the best option is to deprive a surviving spouse or child of the money their deceased loved one paid into the system. It is not fair, as that money was invested in the system for the sole purpose of going back to the family at a future point. For the government to profit on the death of citizens is wrong.

Scarry, the government is moving further and further to a personal responsibility policy. We saw that with welfare reform and the creation of 401Ks. This would be another layer of that philosophy. The eventual outcome would be 1 of 3 things. 1) People get it together and save vast more money and plan more before making the choice to have a family-highly unlikely but not improbable 2) we will have a two tiered society. the educated wealthy class who can afford to have kids and the noneducated poor who can not afford to have kids-highly unlikely because wanting kids is usually human nature, lack of planning, or just a societal norm 3) lots of poor people running around with no benefits-most likely outcome. Government response-you should have taken more responsibility in your financial/family planning.

Is it just me or does it seem like women would rather be at war with each other than support each other? Men support each other. Various religious cultures support each other. But women can't seem to stand up for each other.

foamgnome, the bromide that we've heard (from the insurance industry, of course) is that you need enough life insurance so that, if you invested the proceeds, the income from the investments would replace the spouse's salary.

That seems ridiculously high for our circumstances -- I don't need to replace my husband's salary for the rest of my life, because I can support myself, and vice-versa. What we really need is help with the kids' expenses -- given the trauma they would be facing anyway, we want to protect them from the additional trauma of losing the house they grew up in and the like. So we focused on what we would need for the next 15-20 yrs while the kids are at home and at college. And that's basically (1) cost of a nanny, (2) a cushion for unexpected big expenses that come up (like if the roof goes), and (3) some left over to help with college costs. For us, that worked out to @ $1MM apiece.

Cuts need to be made, but perhaps they can be made in all the wasteful spending and pet projects instead of messing with the simple living resources provided to retired people. On military spending alone, if the money was wisely spent on effective durable armor, it would be a one-time investment and you would not have to keep paying for training new soldiers, paying life-long disability payments/death benefits, or getting new vehicles. Think of the billions of dollars that alone would save. That is just one common sense option... then there's the billions pocketed by corporations and corrupt politicians. No, I don't think the best option is to deprive a surviving spouse or child of the money their deceased loved one paid into the system. It is not fair, as that money was invested in the system for the sole purpose of going back to the family at a future point. For the government to profit on the death of citizens is wrong.

Posted by: Chris | April 19, 2007 09:43 AM
Chris, the problem with your theory is SSA is not funded by general income tax. It is funded by the pay roll tax. So saving on pet projects will not increase the money in the SSA account. The funny or bad thing about SSA is non SSA money can not be added, but Congress can raid the SSA trust fund for non SSA usage. Money goes in the opposite direction. That is another one of the problems with SSA. Stop raiding the fund- you congressional idi**s.

we will have a two tiered society. the educated wealthy class who can afford to have kids and the noneducated poor who can not afford to have kids-highly unlikely because wanting kids is usually human nature, lack of planning, or just a societal norm 3) lots of poor people running around with no benefits-most likely outcome.

And now that the first step has been taken to eliminate abortion as a legal option, the poor and benefit-less people will also be running around with loads of kids. Yessirreee, society is heading down a great path. Thanks, George W.

Robin is onto something here. Any females care to disagree and thus support her? ;-P

Laura: I was thinking in lines of you. With the additional mortgage insurance, we are adequately funded. But I have more life insurance then most people I know. My initial guess is most people are under insured if at all seems to be true.

Robin, I agree with you. Don't know why we can't stop judging each other and work to some common goals. Guess the dudes are counting on that. I've generally preferred the company of men - more fun, no judging.

Chris - I thought Robin was a male (like Robin Williams, Robin Leach, etc).

I think Robin is right in the media. But in real life, I find most women supportive of each other's decisions. Even if they have strong feelings one way or another, they keep their mouth shut and realize this is American. People are free to make their own decisions. But the media likes to find the extremes. Most of us lowly people, are too busy to care or really think live and let live.

foamgnome

There are several errors in your statement concerning the current system.

Please correct.

Guess the dudes are counting on that.

Posted by: moxiemom | April 19, 2007 10:02 AM

Do you think the "dudes" even notice? The mommy wars have very little to do with men.

foamgnome

There are several errors in your statement concerning the current system.

Please correct.

If you think you know, help her out.

9:48, because we all know that the kids had a say in becoming a burdon. Excuse me, but I was the product of a "welfare-mom" as she was poor, single, and disabled- and encouraged to abort me. She did however encourage my learning and a desire to contribute to society. I have since earned scholarhips, served my country, and earned for myself a respectable position in which I still contribute to the safety and well-being of society. The potential accomplishments of any one child far outweigh any perceived burden they might be. People are always willing to adopt. A system geared towards the positive development needs developed across all classes, not just the elite. When you look down your nose at the poor having kids, you may be looking down your nose at your future boss if the kid uses his smarts and thick skin he acquired from living a tough life to make the right choices along the way to overcome all the barriers and pre-concieved notions that just because his origins are poor that he will not excel. He, or she, might be perfectly capable of climbing the ladder of success. Would you begrudge that right, just because they started out poor? Would you advise an abortion simply because it might pose an immediate difficulty, and thus ignor the long term consequences? Death is a permanent sollution, but with life, comes true possibility and potential for many better sollutions. Some worse, admittedly, but some better, and by declaring who is fit or unfit at a chance to determine their own destiny is playing god- even if you do not believe in such a being. So, had my mother caved to the condescending whims of elitists who would begrudge her the right to have me despite the trouble the prospect of raising a child might present to "society," I would not be here now to say: :-P to the self-centered anonymous dirtbag.

My husband and I also have $1M a piece in life insurance. It sounds like a lot until you consider paying off your students loans and mortgage and then thinking about roofs and daycare, etc.

$44/day is well below the DC average for daycare, to be sure! I think watching my kid is worth more than $5.50 an hour, but of course I want it free! That's human nature. Or, better yet, I want my husband and I to both work part time and stay with the baby part time, while keeping health insurance.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, how do people in DC live on one income? How high does that income have to be? I'd really love to know the nitty gritty of the budgets of an average family of 4 living a modest but comfortable life. You know, 2 used Toyotas, dinner out a couple times a month, a trip to the beach in the summer, a maxed out 401K. That kind of life. And does the worker have a 2 hour commute? Does he/she work over 50 hours/week? Is he/she happy with the arrangement?

foamgnome, I agree with you, I suspect most people are underinsured. But I suspect the insurance industry is part of the problem. Specifically, (1) they tell people that they need enough to replace their spouse's income for life, which can be like $2-5MM, especially in this area; and (2) then they try to sell you expensive whole-life policies to cover that. So people look at the monthly cost, figure they can't afford that, so why try?

My insurance broker wanted something like $450/month to provide the coverage that HE thought I needed. We ended up finding term coverage for $1.5MM total on both of us through my husband's industry trade group for @ $65-70/mo. total -- heck, even the small term life policy I got through my insurance agent 15 yrs ago would cost @ 3x that (if you pro-rated it up to the value of our other coverage). But how many people have access to that kind of resource -- or would even know to look beyond their insurance broker? I suspect most people would either throw up their hands at the whole thing or say, ok, what can I get for $XX/month, and settle for that.

If I knew there were errors, I wouldn't post them. So please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm sure you can find a vast amount of literature on the pros of staying at home with the kids--it's probably mostly found in Christian book stores.

Posted by: Meesh | April 19, 2007 08:31 AM

This comment doesn't sound like you, Meesh. There's nothing Christian-centric or religious about parents preferring to stay at home with the kids. Did I misinterpret?

http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/1999speechesandeditorials/ENDTHERAID.html

Here is an article about raiding the SSA trust fund.

Make no mistake, as your Congressman I remain committed to setting aside every dime of the Social Security Trust Fund to provide retirement security for every working American. As such, I will vote against any legislation that would attempt to siphon Social Security funds to help pay for unrelated government programs.

With more than 76 million baby boomers marching toward retirement - we will soon witness the greatest
demographic challenge our nation has ever faced. Quite frankly, the federal government is presently not prepared to meet their Social Security needs. Also alarming is the fact Medicare is expected to be insolvent within the decade. Instead of exercising real leadership and addressing these issues, the White House has chosen to score political points by offering new and expanded programs with little attention as to how to pay for them.

Seniors on average rely on Social Security for 42 percent of their retirement income, while Medicare provides 95 percent of seniors with their basic health insurance coverage. For many seniors, however, Social Security is their only source of retirement income. This said, it is obvious that something must be done. Ending the 30-year raid on the Social Security Trust Fund must be our first priority.

Last May, I authored Social Security "Lock Box" legislation designed to set the Social Security Trust Fund aside for that purpose, protecting it from the Washington money machine that has robbed the fund to pay for other federal programs over the last three decades.

Did I make a mistake in saying that the government could not put money into the system? That may be true. I may have misunderstood. Maybe the proponents of lock box law is saying they don't put money into SSA from the general fund. Which is not the same as they can't. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. I just try to understand the information as it is presented and may be wrong. I am always up to learning the truth.

This comment doesn't sound like you, Meesh. There's nothing Christian-centric or religious about parents preferring to stay at home with the kids. Did I misinterpret?

It does sound like her.

This whole mommy wars thing is worse than the clone-wars of Star Wars. There ARE benefits of staying home- time with the kids, having fun, raising them, educating them. There are always trade-offs, but therein should be the search for balance, not in some quest to have it all under your control like some puppet master who will inevitibly find themselves tangled beyond all logic and reason. You will find your life has passed you by if you do not learn to seek contentment in little batches along the way.

Robin, I agree with you. Don't know why we can't stop judging each other and work to some common goals. Guess the dudes are counting on that. I've generally preferred the company of men - more fun, no judging.

Posted by: moxiemom | April 19, 2007 10:02 AM

I agree with you both. But I wonder if women are somehow socialized to be super-competitive with each other in an unhealthy way? One-up(wo)manship and all.

foamgnome

"Most of us lowly people, are too busy to care or really think live and let live."

Ha, Ha! Then why do you seem to have an uninformed opinion on every gosh darn topic under the sun?

When a parent dies leaving one or more children (under 18 or in college), each child is eligible for SS benefits as a consequence. I don't know the precise details (because I have no need to), but those who are interested can surely look them up online nowadays. But what I DO know is that DH (who was young when his father suddenly died) collected benefits as a minor child following his father's death, and continued to even after his 18th birthday while attending college FT.

So it's not as though a child loses everything the deceased parent paid into SS (unless his surviving parent or guardian inexplicably chooses not to apply for the benefits, I suppose). And in the case of the death of a young parent of a young child, I wonder if the total benefits could in some circumstances even outweigh what was paid into FICA.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to get life insurance. Every time I've applied I've been denied because of a chronic illness. If anything happens to me, my husband will be left to figure things out on his own. We do have a rider on the mortgage ($20/month) to cover the mortgage if something happens to me. And my husband has a life insurance policy on himself.

10:08: OK, I correct myself. I couldn't highlight it in the pdf version. But it seems like OASDI if funded by the trust fund and SSI is funded by the general revenue. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and

It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

OASDI is the familiar Social Security social insurance program into which participants make payroll contributions based on earnings. Benefits are paid to insured workers and eligible family members when they retire or become disabled and to the survivors of deceased workers.

So if we were talking about Chris' comment, how would the general revenue help? Because OASDI is funded by payroll tax( spousal benefit, retirement benefit).It seems as if SSI which does not include retirement income, spousal benefit or dependent benefit, is the only part of SSA that can accept the general revenue?

But I wonder if women are somehow socialized to be super-competitive with each other in an unhealthy way?

Posted by: theoriginalmomof2 | April 19, 2007 10:28 AM

Why does it always have to be something external causing women to be less than perfect? Why can't it just be that women are human?

"She is rejecting out of hand the choice that a huge number of savvy parents have made."

That's a myth. Do the "parents" really make the choice, or is it the result of pressure from husbands?

Take, for instance, this paternalistic justification from John L.:

"I'd like her to stay at home for at least a few years, both because daycare is so expensive, and I feel it is better for both her and the child to be raised at home without my wife having to stress out about work as well."

HE feels that it's better for his wife if she stays at home.

Wonder what her opinion really is.

Sorry Brian - I disagree with you.

The "we need to change the system" cry is OK, as long as you don't quit your job and have your husband die a year later. The system may change, but I think it's a little risky to quit your job assuming that will happen in your lifetime.

I was one of the commenter's on that book talk who told about some of the unexpected things that happened to me that caused me not to quit my job for motherhood.

I'm all for changing the system, but it won't put money in the bank for me tomorrow, or probably even the day after. So I think keeping your job is the way to go.

10:29, why do YOU seem to have an uninformed opinion, much less the need to share it- especially when it is invariably derogatory in nature. At least when I throw something tasteless out, it has some trivial value. When you post your textual flatulance, it is as a filthy troll, and nothing more. If you feel the need to throw stones, grow a pair first, and then, by all means, please throw them as hard as you can so that you might feel an inkling of the misery you bring to the world with every shallow character you type.

Chris

Is it very interesting that you use the words "quest" and "puppet master."

You seem to have a "hero complex"; intent on being a white knight (savior) and kicking some a*s.

Sounds a lot like a "quest."

foamgnome

"Most of us lowly people, are too busy to care or really think live and let live."

Ha, Ha! Then why do you seem to have an uninformed opinion on every gosh darn topic under the sun?

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:29 AM

She does just to torture idiots like yourself. Troll.

Furthermore, :-P

Jake, you got me there... it's all those da*n fantasy novels I read growing up. Stupid high-handed good always triumphing over evil and the like. I mean, who am I to attempt to do the right thing no matter what? But therein lies the fix. I am questing for good- trying to bring happiness and joy to all I encounter, while others seek to crush the less fortunate under their heel. So yes Jake, I would rather be identified as a white knight who can kick @$$, than someone with an evil-overlord complex who is destined to fall, simply because good must always triumph. ;-)

That's a myth. Do the "parents" really make the choice, or is it the result of pressure from husbands?

Wonder what her opinion really is.

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:35 AM

Do you really believe that? I was going to say the opposite. I think women are in total control of this decision, I have seen women quit their jobs against the wishes of their husbands.

Regarding the notion that "the system needs to change":

The system isn't going to change much more than it already has. It's gotten about as accommodating of family issues as can be expected in the society we inhabit. Yet so much of the advice on the blog today is geared toward staving off the negative effects of leaving the workforce. If you do this and this, then you'll be prepared, and everything will be rosy.

This issue is, in some ways, similar to what we were discussing yesterday. What can we do to guarantee that the unthinkable won't befall us?

Can't be done.

Women and men have to make these choices and then live with the consequences. Life doesn't offer the kind of safety net you all seem to be looking for.

"The system" isn't going to protect you any more than it protects the working poor and the unemployed. And, given the attitude that many on this blog have about handouts for people in need, why should it?

Agonizing over difficult decisions is a very human activity. Ultimately, though, you have to make the choice and live with what you've chosen.

Guess the dudes are counting on that.

Posted by: moxiemom | April 19, 2007 10:02 AM

Do you think the "dudes" even notice? The mommy wars have very little to do with men.

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:09 AM

You are oh so wrong. Many men have very firm opinions on whether women -- not just their wives -- should stay home with children. Men I barely know have commented derisively about my work schedule (or perceived work schedule, since all they know is my occupation or whether my car's in the driveway) and suggested that they would never prioritize X over their children. The mommy wars is merely a convenient title for a battle in which most parents have a firm opinion, and express it on a regular basis.

To Chris: What you said at 10:39! Also, generally, re the potential of children who aren't lucky enough to be born into or grow up in economically privileged circumstances (this covers DH and me, too).

To 10:29: Foamgnome is one of a number of well-informed posters here who's interested in eliciting light, not heat. She has the courage to admit when she wants to learn more about something, instead of pretending she already knows it all. For this, among a number of reasons, a lot of us treasure her contributions.

10:29, you are the lowest form of troll who is unworthy of even a sage-green cave. Whenever Emily arrives, I'm sure she'll say the same thing to you, only more pithily. So either contribute constructively, or go stifle yourself.

"You will find your life has passed you by if you do not learn to seek contentment in little batches along the way."

But Chris, YOU'RE dictating what women should get contentment from.

Who's the puppet master now?

I think it's both depending on the people involved. I've also heard the exact same thing from a husband saying that he wants his wife to work (not that they need the second income) and NOT stay home with the kids full-time. I thought it interesting and wondered what the wife thought.

catlady - is pithily a word?

You are oh so wrong. Many men have very firm opinions on whether women -- not just their wives -- should stay home with children.
Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:50 AM

And that opinion is just that, an opinion. That is looked at by you as a hostile expression of sexism. Do you think that it holds any value in the real world? Maybe for weak women who are looking to be supported. But for most women the decision is theirs to make. Most women make this decision with the input and support of their partners, but I think you are wrong in stating men have a large say int this decision.

Wait sarcasm and snark are allowed on the board? Or is it only allowed when someone agrees with the topic it pertains too, like trolls?

Begone vile troll! I am not dictating what women should get contentment from. ALL should seek contentment on their journey through life at every stage in life, regardless of the challenges they face. I once found contentment in a moment of introspection that scrubbing greasy pizza pans afforded me. Had I not been "in the zone" of that lowly task, I might have missed something amazing- the realization that no matter what you are going through, being positive will see you through. If you judge a certain seemingly mindless task to be a miserable experience, it will definitely be one. But, if you see it as a chance to set aside the other worries of life, and rest your mind, you will find strength to face the worries when you are confronted with them and actually have an opportunity to do something about them.

I feel so naive when I hear people like Bennetts talk about the gloom and doom and destruction of possibly making this choice or that choice. I do not live my life like this. It's not that I haven't experienced problems or obstacles along the way as a result of stupid decisions or random events (hurricane, layoff, etc.), but I try to view them as challenges or at least character building, even when what I'm going through sucks.

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

Mark Twain said this. It's on my fridge and I try to live it every day.

Foamgnome, just an unsolicited suggestion, and I apologize if you've considered this already: I bet that if you researched it, you'd find that upping your regular life insurance coverage is more cost-effective that maintaining separate "mortgage insurance" (I assume you aren't talking about PMI, which benefits the bank, not the homeowner). For the most part, any type of credit insurance is a ripoff - an affordable term policy of the type Laura discussed is a better option. Even if the credit insurance costs more, you have to read the policies VERY carefully - the number of exclusions is absolutely incredible. Credit insurance is a huge scam, and generally is appropriate only for people who can't obtain or afford ANY standard life insurance, which doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Again, sorry for the unsolicited financial suggestion.

catlady, according to the Social Security Web site, survivors benefits are available to children under 18 or up to age 19 if they are still attending high school full time. The benefit to survivors while still full time college students was phased out many years ago. At the time the thinking was that there were student loans programs available to survivors who wanted to attend college and otherwise would have relied on a parent's income to help pay college costs. My siblings and I all received survivors benefits while full time college students. This was a tremendous help to our family. We have all been employed in jobs that required college degrees, and have "paid back" to society in terms of income taxes and contributions to SS. Glad your husband got to benefit from this program too.

WorkingMomX- that is enlightened, not naive. So do not let the discouraging crowd make you discouraged. Their sorts of prophesies are often self-fulfilling, and the ones who give them the time of day, waste that much more of their life contemplating disaster rather than working towards something positive. ;-)

I'm one of those people who did take time off (a couple of years), then went back part time for a couple of years, then went back full-time. I also lost my husband when my kids were 11 and 13. Could I have made more money, have risen higher in my work? Probably - but I've made (and make) enough to support us, and we live outside of Boston, so the cost of living isn't cheap. Did we have millions of dollars in insurance? No, but we had enough to pay off the house.

So, while I think it is good to think about these things, the either/or argument seems kinda silly.

BTW, SS pays to each of my kids (so they get half his monthly payment) my husband's SS payment until they're 18. We haven't had to use it yet, but nice to know it was there.

Do you think the "dudes" even notice? The mommy wars have very little to do with men.

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:09 AM

And that opinion is just that, an opinion. That is looked at by you as a hostile expression of sexism. Do you think that it holds any value in the real world? Maybe for weak women who are looking to be supported. But for most women the decision is theirs to make. Most women make this decision with the input and support of their partners, but I think you are wrong in stating men have a large say int this decision.

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:59 AM

10:59, I was responding to the quote first pasted above, and not making any coment on whether men have a large say or any say in this decision. Trust me, I am not weak, dude - only commenting on whether men care. Many do.

cmac asked: is pithily a word?

According to Carrie Ann, it's a word ;-)

Foamgnome, just an unsolicited suggestion, and I apologize if you've considered this already: I bet that if you researched it, you'd find that upping your regular life insurance coverage is more cost-effective that maintaining separate "mortgage insurance" (I assume you aren't talking about PMI, which benefits the bank, not the homeowner). For the most part, any type of credit insurance is a ripoff - an affordable term policy of the type Laura discussed is a better option. Even if the credit insurance costs more, you have to read the policies VERY carefully - the number of exclusions is absolutely incredible. Credit insurance is a huge scam, and generally is appropriate only for people who can't obtain or afford ANY standard life insurance, which doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Again, sorry for the unsolicited financial suggestion.

Posted by: On the Insurance Issue | April 19, 2007 11:05 AM
No problem. I just want to learn. We don't have PMI because we put 20% down. We have separate mortgage insurance to pay off the mortgage in case either one of us dies. It pays it as a lump sum cash payment. So we could pay off the house or invest it. We also have term life insurance subsidized through our employers. It is actually based on your annual salaries. Not a set dollar amount with different options added on. I don't have credit insurance. Not sure exactly what they are. But my term life insurance policy is very affordable but contigent on federal employment. If we were to ever quit our jobs, we would have to look for another term life policy. Thanks for the info.

catlady, I think that one of the issues foamgnome was talking out was a potential proposal to phase out these very SSI survivor benefits that you are talking about. And I agree with scarry and others that, if this is really on the table, it's a really bad way to try to balance the budget. It's one thing to tell people like me, who are fully capable of working for a living, that we need to be responsible for ourselves in retirement. But it's another thing entirely to deprive orphaned children of this support, just because their parents weren't smart enough or able enough to provide for their future. If anyone deserves a safety net, it's those kids, who aren't in any way responsible for the situation they find themselves in, and who don't even have the option of going to work to support themselves.

I'd hope that in a healthy couple, both partners have an equal say in how they'll deal with kids, whether one parent should stay home, and who that parent should be.

Beg to differ, Chris.

You said:

"There ARE benefits of staying home- time with the kids, having fun, raising them, educating them. There are always trade-offs, but therein should be the search for balance, not in some quest to have it all under your control..."

To what, specifically, does "therein should be" refer to?

Decoded, this passage says:

The search for balance should begin with the mother being at home, accepting that trade-offs are her lot in life.

To Laura: I may have misunderstood Scarry. I thought she was saying that children who lose a parent should get back from SSA a lump-sum equal to what the parent had paid in.

I had a nice career and when my daughter was just over a year I lost my job after my company merged. After finding nothing in my area of expertise for 2 months I decided to stay home with her until she got older. I started my own business unrelated to my professional background from home after a few months. Because of my uneven income there were some months we kept coming up short. I was torn about going back to work, and I thought nobody would want me because I was out of the traditional workforce for several years. My husband and I realized I had to back to work and I was very worried. However, within 4 weeks I had three offers that paid more than my old salary and had much better hours than my old job, plus a short commute. I am not saying everyone would have the same experience as me, but the fear that this author tries to instill belies my experience. When I was at home SAHMs did not sit around bashing working moms and at work the parents don't criticize stay at home parents.

"My siblings and I all received survivors benefits while full time college students."

Same here for me & 5 siblings. We also received monthly benefits from the VA and our state because my father was a (WWII) vet.

Mother mismanaged my father's life insurance proceeds into oblivion.

Flash forward and my husband dies suddenly at age 40. I had learned my lessons well.

For those who have actually read the book- Does Bennetts address in her book the choices made by low-income women as well? For example, I can imagine that a professional woman loses a lot economically if she decides to stay home for a while and then can't return to a similar job at the same level, but what about the Walmart cashier who decides to stay home with her kids for a few years? I can't imagine that it would be _that_ hard to get a new job like that, so all she would be missing out on is a few years of relatively low wages and meager raises. Or maybe there's more than that?

Foamgnome wrote: "So if you retire or die with a minor child, you won't get any extra money."

Laura, maybe I'm just getting all semantic hair-splitting on you guys, but... there's a difference between a minor CHILD (or one over 18 attending college FT) collecting SS following a parent's death, and the surviving PARENT collecting extra money because of having a child.

Based on DH's personal experience, I strongly believe in the benefit accruing to both the child who has lost a parent and to society at large from the continuation of this payment program.

To Laura: I may have misunderstood Scarry. I thought she was saying that children who lose a parent should get back from SSA a lump-sum equal to what the parent had paid in.

Nope, not at all, I was just saying that they should be able to collect the benefit whatever benefit that is. I mean I know I will never get back what I paid to SS, that doesn't bother me. I idea of someone losing a parent and the other parent or for that matter grandparent struggling is hard for me to bear.

Posted by: On the Insurance Issue | April 19, 2007 11:05 AM
OK, I did a little reading on credit insurance. We pay around 30K for the mortgage insurance (which falls under credit insurance). We have a return on premimum. So if we pay off the mortgage and pay into the credit insurance, we get our premium back. If one of us dies, we get the balance of the mortgage paid back. Now you may be right that uping the term life insurance may be more cost effective but we have term life insurance through our employeer. So we have already taken the maximum. If we want to drop the mortgage insurance and pick up a private term life insurance that seems like it could work. But the amount of money on the mortgage insurance seemed low. But I will look into a different term life insurance policy. I liked the idea of the return on premium. Because if we live all we would loose in the invested interest on that premium. Thanks for the tip. I will look into it.

By decode, you obviously mean confuse. I am sorry you feel the need to decode things as you can not comprehend them on their own without adding words to smear mud on the valuable point that would be easily gleaned were you not so busy attempting to misdirect and tarnish things all the time. Simply put, you are selling yourself your own feces and enjoying the process and wallowing in the suffering you bring yourself by imagining sexism where it is not. While you may attempt to cipher for sexism and be unsuccessfull, there is however a generous dose of mockery here for you, and plainly written, so you should find no need to decode anything!

I never said mother.

The search for balance should be in the trade-offs of the individual staying home. WHOEVER stays home should seek contentment and satisfaction in that they will be successful in raising a wonderful child- if they do their best. Whoever does ANY job should do their best and seek the contentment a job well done can provide.

Sure, Brian, let's not "judge" anyone. Let's "respect" everyone's "choices." Any choice is just as good as another, just as long as it's a "choice."

I'm so tired of this simplistic outlook.

Can't you see that it could possibly be a bad choice for so many women to let themselves be taken care of, throwing themselves on the mercy of their husbands always supporting them? It hasn't worked for most of our history - not only does it result in women struggling to support themselves when they lose their husbands, but also, when women are the default primary caregivers, they turn over much of the running of society to men.

And it makes it harder for women to establish themselves as individuals, breadwinners, people who change society. Yes, being a caregiver is very important, but it's important mostly to the person who's receiving the care. We need women to be Senators, doctors, attorneys, CEOs, CFOs, computer programmers, electricians.....and please don't tell me that being a good mother is more of an achievement than being a good Senator, etc. Perhaps, but you can do both. You CAN. Aren't most of the male CEOs, politicians, etc., etc., fathers too?

My mom has her own law firm and is a respected attorney, and she is also the best mom I could have hoped for. (My dad too - shout out to you both, mom and dad!) It's not a good example to set for your children that (1) women by default are meant for motherhood, and some also work; and (2) men by default are meant for work, and some also take an interest in being parents.

I liked Ms. Bennett's book (I tried to keep track of how many "I haven't read the book, but...." opinions have already been posted & lost track). I also don't have a problem with people staying at home. That said, I have the same amount of pity for stay-at-home-parents who end up alone & broke as I do for people who have been taken by one of those Nigerian email scams. If you haven't taken obvious, logical steps to protect yours and your dependents' financial and physical well-being (I'd include procurement of health care under physical well-being), then you're a knucklehead. In this day & age, believing "it can't happen to me" (being left by a spouse, etc) is too self-righteous a belief to have when it can seriously damage your dependents' futures.

As an aside, if "Seniors on average rely on Social Security for 42 percent of their retirement income," that is horrifying. Social Security was meant as an insurance program, not as a means for main direct income upon retirement. People should supplement their savings with SSI, or save it for a rainy day fund, not try to pay rent with it.

Foamgnome wrote: "So if you retire or die with a minor child, you won't get any extra money."

Laura, maybe I'm just getting all semantic hair-splitting on you guys, but... there's a difference between a minor CHILD (or one over 18 attending college FT) collecting SS following a parent's death, and the surviving PARENT collecting extra money because of having a child.

Based on DH's personal experience, I strongly believe in the benefit accruing to both the child who has lost a parent and to society at large from the continuation of this payment program.

Posted by: catlady | April 19, 2007 11:29 AM

Catlady: The seminar was discussing the dependent benefit to minor children. So a parent with a child under 18 years of age, would get a reduced or no benefit based on the SS income their parent or parents paid into the system. So in short, parents take out life insurance because after the payee dies, the proposal is stop all forms of payment. So only the payee can accept a benefit. Is that clear?

Chris

Your rantings show that you have some serious anger issues.

Please seek treatment.

In contentment of a job well done, we find confidence, and in confidence (and God) we find the strength to overcome even greater challenges, and down this path we can find success of whatever measure we choose.

If you want to be doom and gloom and ruin your own life, that is your right. I feel sorry for those you convince to drag themselves down with you. Maybe you will look up from the pit you dig someday, and instead of the dank walls you created while digging, you will see some light, and you will climb up notice the mud you scooped out of your pit, and use it to build something great and positive.

Bennetts was inspired to write from her family's own experience. I agree with her because that is the experience for my mother. After her third failed marriage, she found herself over 40 with three kids (two of us under five) and no job skills. Her socioeconomic status plummeted, and we grew up in poverty as a result.

If I had been a stay at home mom, my daughter and I would be in a real mess right now. Some women don't trust child care to friends or professional day-care providers. I didn't trust my child's complete socioeconomic well-being to my ex-husband. This is the guy who said he would love us forever and always be there for us...he's now in Autralia married to another woman and he has never paid any sort of child support. So much for true love forever...for me or his daughter.

Last year I read an article about how middle class women find themselves at the lower end of the economic spectrum in older age because they stayed at home to raise children, and they ended up either divorced or widowed. Many of these women are 60-70 years old and are working low-wage jobs to make ends meet, and they have no plan in place for when they are no longer able to work. (My mother is 80 and indigent).

I absolutely agree with Bennetts, especially given the divorce rate. And then consider how many women are forced to stay in horrible marriages because they fear being poor...

No thanks. I choose to make my own destiny, not throw mine (and my daughter's) into the hands of a man. I am inherently risk-averse.

Chris

Your rantings show that you have some serious anger issues.

Please seek treatment.

What? Anytime someone doesn't agree with someone the poster is:
1) angry
2) sarcastic
3) stupid
4) lonely or a
5) troll

To ss clarification: Thanks for the update. I'm sorry about your message, but know better than to blame the messenger.

But I wonder if women are somehow socialized to be super-competitive with each other in an unhealthy way?

Posted by: theoriginalmomof2 | April 19, 2007 10:28 AM

Why does it always have to be something external causing women to be less than perfect? Why can't it just be that women are human?

Posted by: | April 19, 2007 10:35 AM

So, it's "human" for anyone (just happened to be referring to women here) to interact with someone else in an unhealthy fashion? Certainly, personality and attitude play a role. But I think socialization plays a role as well.

theoriginalmomof2 has already taken a ton of flak for asking: "But I wonder if women are somehow socialized to be super-competitive with each other in an unhealthy way?"

Both men and women are socialized to be super-competitive with other members of their own sex and with members of the opposite sex. Duhhhhh!

Women can't have both. No matter how hard they try, something will suffer for their jugging act - either the kids or their career. Why not accept that fact? Choose to have a career or choose to have kids. Simple, really. Companies can't get much work done if half of their work force leaves at the drop of the hat every week for Timmy's soccer game or Suzy's ballet recital.

"Wait sarcasm and snark are allowed on the board?"

Dripping sarcasm and venomous snark are preferred.

Randommom makes a good point: for women with low-income earning potential, staying at home may actually be more financially advantageous. If she is earning $8/hour, the cost of day care would consume her entire paycheck (unless she were getting subsidized or free childcare).

Of course for low-income single women, there are no real choices: go on welfare for five years and/or work.

Liz, your inability to see, much less laugh at my silly banter indicates a serious humor issue; particularly the lack of that divinely imparted sense... or a lack of taste. Then again, we all appreciate exquisite things differently. You, in all your condescending glory, might think that the inspired works of Beethoven, Michaelangelo (not the turtle), and even that geek Plato are beneath you. ;-P

Please seek treatment by watching or reading something mind-numbingly humorous. Start with Monty Python and work your way up to Princess Bride... eventually you may find yourself reading funny things in a different light.

However, if you do not enjoy how I wax philosophical while turning a witty phrase, thus solving all of the worlds problems and maintaining a non-chalant attitude, perhaps you should skip my posts or seek enlightenment (true balance) on some other blog, perhaps one in which everyone agrees with you, and nobody steps out of line, ever, not even an eency weency bit! You could start your own... but no doubt it would get awful lonely with yourself and that vile troll to keep you company (I'm sure he (or she) would LOVE tagging along to spread mirth). ;-P

Childfree, I disagree. I have a very satisfying career in public policy, and I have a very well-adjusted child who makes good grades and is well-socialized. I don't take off work every week for some event--my kid doesn't have something going on every week. I may take off early half a dozen times per year...but others in the workforce take off for various reasons as well.

I remember right after I had my daughter, I missed far less time at work than a co-worker who partied all the time and came in hung over...and sometimes was too trashed to make it in at all.

Maybe you cannot balance work and parenthood, but there are plenty of working parents who do. And I am doing it without a spouse.

See, even the anonymous trolls are defending me. I am thus exonerated, and now in their debt. Hmm... maybe next time they say something mean about someone I will spare them the dripping sarcasm... well, maybe just a drip or two. I must think of my public, you know. ;-P

Chris,

You left out "Blazing Saddles." A joke every 15 seconds and something to simultaneously insult and humor anyone without regard to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnic heritage.

Chris

You have anger issues, no question.

To single western mom, who wrote: "he's now in Autralia married to another woman and he has never paid any sort of child support. So much for true love forever...for me or his daughter."

I'