or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Frugality & Finances › Forgive me if I'm ignorant but...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Forgive me if I'm ignorant but... - Page 3

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post


Yeah, I think it's a city by city thing maybe? I know we were wrongly investigated by DCFS about two years ago. Our place was maybe 800 sq. ft with the 6 of us-2 bedrooms. Other than the co-sleeping scare tactics, living space was not even an issue they brought up. My kids share rooms. Always have-even when we had space for them to have their own rooms they never wanted to and would just end up bunking in the same room and have a "play room".


It definitely is a city by city thing, at least in Illinois. I know here locally the law was put into effect because of a fires where several students who had been living in an overcrowded situation all died in the fires. I know Champaign and Urbana, where the University of Illinois is, also has a similar law but they allow for any room besides the kitchen, bathroom and hallways to be considered sleeping rooms. Our law doesn't specifically state only bedrooms, but when we spoke to our lawyer about it when having difficulties with our previous landlord not repairing the electric he said the local courts have interpreted it as bedrooms only unless it is a studio apartment.

post #42 of 65

Where I live there are the same laws.  I think it's typical but maybe it's enforced more in some cities than others.

post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by vbactivist View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post



Quote:

Originally Posted by jennlyn View Post

 If one feels that each child needs their own bedroom, yes, your housing costs will increase .  That is a choice,so rather than telling OP that having a second child will break the bank, I think it depends on her choice of lifestyle, plus the variables such as medical and dental ( the great unknown).  

 

 

Even without every child having their own room housing costs can increase with more children depending on local laws. Local housing code requires that a sleep space must have 70 sq ft for 1 person, but if more than 1 person occupies it there must be at least 50 sq ft per person over the age of 1. Also that there be at least 150 sq ft for the first person and an additional 100 sq ft for every person living in the home. So for us, that means we have until 1 year after baby #3, due in March, is born to move to a larger place. Either another two bedroom with one of the bedrooms being at least 150 sq ft and the other 100 or a 3 bedroom with at least two rooms of 100sq ft and one of 70 sq ft. Either way more space will cost us more money.

Are you talking about renting?  Because I have never heard  of this being a problem when owning your own home (unless you are being investigated for other stuff by DCFS or something).
 



The law applies to both renters and home owners. While it may not be a problem for someone when you own your own home because no one says anything about it, it is still the law.



I'd be interested in taking a look at the local law you are referring to (that applies to both renters and home owners).  I'm just curious to see how such a law could apply to private property and if it is somehow related to fire code or building code, or if it relates to something archaic or to reduce of the possibility of immigrants house-sharing.  I'm also curious if it applies to all private properties (including single-family homes) or to private properties with multiple occupancies (like a landlord renting out a floor or rooms of her own house to others).  Do you have the citation for it or can you steer me in the right direction? 


Edited by CatsCradle - 12/8/10 at 12:00pm
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post

I'd be interested in taking a look at the local law you are referring to (that applies to both renters and home owners).  I'm just curious to see how such a law could apply to private property and if it is somehow related to fire code or building code, or if it relates to something archaic or to reduce of the possibility of immigrants house-sharing.  I'm also curious if it applies to all private properties (including single-family homes) or to private properties with multiple occupancies (like a landlord renting out a floor or rooms of her own house to others).  Do you have the citation for it or can you steer me in the right direction? 



It can be found here http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=470. Under Title 4, Chapter 4 section (?) 11 

 

 

[Edited for Copyright by fullofgrace. Please see Mothering's Copyright Concerns Policy here: http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/copyright-concerns Thanks! :)]

post #45 of 65

IDK about square footage, but when I lived in MD and worked as a leasing agent at an apartment building, the law was that only two people were allowed per bedroom. So for an efficiency apartment with no bedroom, there was a 2-person limit. For a 1 BR, same two-person limit, even though it was 50% bigger square footage-wise than the efficiency (and two could have slept in the living room a la the efficiency layout). For a 2 BR the limit was 4. The building manager enforced this tightly, but said it was the law, not the building's rules.

post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post

I'd be interested in taking a look at the local law you are referring to (that applies to both renters and home owners).  I'm just curious to see how such a law could apply to private property and if it is somehow related to fire code or building code, or if it relates to something archaic or to reduce of the possibility of immigrants house-sharing.  I'm also curious if it applies to all private properties (including single-family homes) or to private properties with multiple occupancies (like a landlord renting out a floor or rooms of her own house to others).  Do you have the citation for it or can you steer me in the right direction? 



It can be found here http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=470. Under Title 4, Chapter 4 section (?) 11 

 

 

 

Okay, sorry I'm a lawyer, so these things interest me.  Usually you need to read the statute or code in its entirety to understand how it applies.  Chapter 1 of the code that you cited states:  

 


A. Adopted By Reference: The International Code Council ("ICC") international building code, 2003 edition, (hereinafter referred to as "building code for multi-family and commercial applications"), is hereby adopted by reference, except for such portions as are specifically hereinafter deleted, modified or amended.


B. Multi-Family And Commercial Application: ICC international building code, 2003 edition, is adopted for the purpose of establishing rules and regulations for the construction, alteration, removal, demolition, equipment, use, occupancy, locations and maintenance of all buildings except one- and two-family dwelling units within the jurisdiction of the city.

 

Sorry, I tried to reduce the size of the above, but couldn't.

 

I've highlighted some things in red. The preamble to the Building Code that you cited specifically states that the ordinance/code applies to multi-family/commercial applications.  It also excludes one and two-family dwellings.  So it may apply to condos and co-ops (which are owned but are multi-family), but it does not apply to one or two family dwellings (like a house or double townhouse; or a house where a landlord occupies a a section and a tenant occupies the other part of the house).  The whole title needs to be read in its entirety.  As someone who is pretty familiar with building codes, it seemed pretty odd to me that a town could pass an ordinance requiring certain space limitations, etc. for private house owners.  Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it concerned me a lot!  There are certain property rights that are pretty tried and true and the idea that individual homeowners were subject to such requirements really raised my antennas.  :)

 

 

 

[Edited Quoted Post for Copyright by fullofgrace. Please see Mothering's Copyright Concerns Policy here: http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/copyright-concerns Thanks! I also shrunk the font a bit. :)]

post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post


Yeah, I think it's a city by city thing maybe? I know we were wrongly investigated by DCFS about two years ago. Our place was maybe 800 sq. ft with the 6 of us-2 bedrooms. Other than the co-sleeping scare tactics, living space was not even an issue they brought up. My kids share rooms. Always have-even when we had space for them to have their own rooms they never wanted to and would just end up bunking in the same room and have a "play room".


It definitely is a city by city thing, at least in Illinois. I know here locally the law was put into effect because of a fires where several students who had been living in an overcrowded situation all died in the fires. I know Champaign and Urbana, where the University of Illinois is, also has a similar law but they allow for any room besides the kitchen, bathroom and hallways to be considered sleeping rooms. Our law doesn't specifically state only bedrooms, but when we spoke to our lawyer about it when having difficulties with our previous landlord not repairing the electric he said the local courts have interpreted it as bedrooms only unless it is a studio apartment.


I'm also in Southern IL and I know it's not the case in Charleston, Rockford, or here, but I can see why it would be a bigger issue in the larger towns. I never lived in CU but worked there. When did the fire happen? Was this recently? CatsCradle seemed to clarify it being for multi-unit dwellings. That's good! I know that this is an issue in hotels-it's a PITA to reserve one room with 5 kids though we co-sleep.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post

 

I've highlighted some things in red. The preamble to the Building Code that you cited specifically states that the ordinance/code applies to multi-family/commercial applications.  It also excludes one and two-family dwellings.  So it may apply to condos and co-ops (which are owned but are multi-family), but it does not apply to one or two family dwellings (like a house or double townhouse; or a house where a landlord occupies a a section and a tenant occupies the other part of the house).  The whole title needs to be read in its entirety.  As someone who is pretty familiar with building codes, it seemed pretty odd to me that a town could pass an ordinance requiring certain space limitations, etc. for private house owners.  Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it concerned me a lot!  There are certain property rights that are pretty tried and true and the idea that individual homeowners were subject to such requirements really raised my antennas.  :)

 

That's good to know, I didn't bother reading it because our lawyer told us that. We will still be required to move after baby #3 is a year old as buying a home isn't an option for us thanks to my husband's lovely father.@@ but that's another thread lol.

post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post

I'm also in Southern IL and I know it's not the case in Charleston, Rockford, or here, but I can see why it would be a bigger issue in the larger towns. I never lived in CU but worked there. When did the fire happen? Was this recently? CatsCradle seemed to clarify it being for multi-unit dwellings. That's good! I know that this is an issue in hotels-it's a PITA to reserve one room with 5 kids though we co-sleep.


It was December 6, 1992 the Pyramid Apartment Fire in Carbondale, it was arson five students died.

post #50 of 65

OK even without throwing the housing thing issue in: when it comes to more space necessary for more people its true whether you are renting, owning, camping, staying in a hotel whatever.  As a family of five when we stay in a hotel most cities will no longer, due to fire codes, allow 5 people to a room.  Nor will they allow roll aways in a room with two beds.  Hence a second room.  So we rarely go to a hotel.  Camping-we have to have two tents for gear and sleeping room.  Some campsites will only allow one tent per site.  Hence a second campsite.  There is no way in heck I am putting three teenage boys in a regular sized bedroom.  Could I?  Sure.  Will I?  No for their and my sanity.  We have five people in a three bedroom house.  We have 1.5 bathrooms.  Thats fun trying to get all of us ready to go somewhere at the same time.  But we make do.  

 

There is no way around it.  The more kids the more expense.  You can try and get around it, but you can't.  We would have loved to have four or five.  We can't afford them so we have three. 

post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaof3boz View Post

OK even without throwing the housing thing issue in: when it comes to more space necessary for more people its true whether you are renting, owning, camping, staying in a hotel whatever.  As a family of five when we stay in a hotel most cities will no longer, due to fire codes, allow 5 people to a room.  Nor will they allow roll aways in a room with two beds.  Hence a second room.  So we rarely go to a hotel.  Camping-we have to have two tents for gear and sleeping room.  Some campsites will only allow one tent per site.  Hence a second campsite.  There is no way in heck I am putting three teenage boys in a regular sized bedroom.  Could I?  Sure.  Will I?  No for their and my sanity.  We have five people in a three bedroom house.  We have 1.5 bathrooms.  Thats fun trying to get all of us ready to go somewhere at the same time.  But we make do.  

 

There is no way around it.  The more kids the more expense.  You can try and get around it, but you can't.  We would have loved to have four or five.  We can't afford them so we have three. 

 

When we travel we prefer to stay at Embassy Suites if they have one where we go. They have their 2 room suites with 2 queen beds and a fold out bed in the living room area that we've been told is allowed to house 6. It ends up costing us anywhere between $100 and $130 a night, but you get a free made to order hot breakfast and drinks/snacks at night which we've made our dinner more than once.

post #52 of 65

Yes, it does get more expensive but honestly I think the expense depends a LOT of what you think is a "requirement" of growing up. For example, sports. Dh and I already agreed the kids can play one pay sport a year.. however most of our friends their kids are in 3-5 sports a year plus some sort of dance/karate/swimming etc lessons plus music lessons plus whatever else the child wants to do.. 60 or so per child per year is a LOT less than several hundred then having a child decide they don't want to do that anymore. If you want to get every toy on the shelf, of course your children are going to cost more. If you want to send them to private school or preschool then they are going to cost more. So some of the costs are things you can alter.. Others like food, clothes, transportation isn't something you can change.

 

We are actually feeling the pinch a little now that we are adding out third. We need a new carseat, new vehicle (ours only sits 4 people), clothing (maybe its here but hand me downs isn't something that offered to someone having their second or more child so since this one is a boy we are purchasing everything clothing wise), diapers (cloth lasts only so long, ours are thread bear), our food bill is starting to rise (my kids eat ALOT), school supplies (we are homeschooling but art supplies, paper, books, crayons etc all cost), etc.

 

I wouldn't change it for the world though and I hope we are blessed with more children in the future. Its totally worth pinching pennies to have them.

post #53 of 65

I agree that a LOT of it is expectations.  However, I'm talking about low expectations.  Yesterday, we went on a field trip to the Christmas tree farm.  It cost $2.50/person.  But, I paid 3 times more than my friend with a single (only) child.  I'm fine with that.  That's part of having 3 kids, and I accept that, and I love my boys with everything I've got.


I'm just saying that of course it's pricier to have more than 1 kid.  It's silly to think they just tag along the family for free.  Unless you pop them on the back of your bicycle (and even then, the pedaler would expend more calories hauling 2 babies than one, thus higher food costs), then everything is going to be a little more expensive.  Worth it??  Absolutely, without a doubt.  Would I do it again??  Absolutely.  But each one of them isn't free. 

post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaof3boz View Post

When they are teenagers is when it really hits.  (see my signature for my knowledge base).  They eat like locusts.  And not one of my children are overweight.  Seriously, you can't imagine how much they eat.  You can't pass down anything but shirts because everything is worn out when they outgrow it.  jeans and shoes are a nightmare.  Thrift stores dont cut it for rapidly growing teens.  you can't ever find what you need when you need it.  braces.  glasses. acne treatment.  sports.  driving. and don't forget about college.  not that we are paying their way, but we certainly want to help them if possible.  computers.  flashdrives for school.  increased electricity use and water consumption.  Not that i am detering anyone from children but I'm just being realistic.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahwhat View Post

It's not baby number 2 (or 3 or 4) that costs much money.  It's child and teenager number 2 (etc.).  My 3yo costs us next to nothing.  My 12, 9, and 7 year olds, however, eat a ton of food, need space of their own (bigger house), take swimming lessons, like new (to them) clothes and toys once in a while, and have school fees (even in public school), among other costs.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Curious View Post

Our little boys (4.5, 3 & 10mo) cost us very little. It's the teenagers that kill us!

 

When my kids hit the age to start sports ... yikes! Cleats, basketball shoes, fees, gas, gate admissions.

 

But the first five years ... nah.



Yes, yes, yes!  ITA.  BABIES cost practically nothing....toddlers not so much...but KIDS cost more, and TEENS cost OMG a lot. 

Right now we have at home a 17, 14, 13, 6 and 3 yo, just so you know where im coming from.

 

1 to 2 kids isn't as bad, since you are just multiplying by 2.  but it does still add up.  A single week of horse camp is over $500.  Times 2 .  (or 3 or 4..etc)   Even just by letting each child do ONE activity, it adds up.  Wrestling cleats are $100, and they were outgrown before the end of the season!!! Even little things like gymnastics and dance classes at the YMCA, at $50/class...well..times 2 or 3...adds up.  At the 2 kid mark, you wont need a minivan, or to book 2 hotel rooms for trips, etc, or even a bigger house necesarily, but yes, stuff like that adds up.  We will NOT TALK about how much 3 teen boys eat.  Really. 

 

I also find it much easier to SAY you'll just never go anywhere or do anything than it is to actually do it. Sure, some stuff is free...but like a pp said..what about when your kid is older and has friends and they get invited to birthday parties?  That costs money.  scouts? sports? clubs? electronics, school fees, homeschooling costs, pets?  And teens don't want a $5 dolly for Xmas..thety want their own laptop, cell phone, etc.  Clothes, shoes, boots, coats....and yes, the gifts drop off dsramatically after the baby stage!

 

Plus, as someone has said, the loss of a SAH parents income, even if you  would be working a min. wage job, is $15k/year, minimum.    That affects overall lifestyle as well as lifetime earning potential, retirement savings, social security, etc.

 

Then.. to talk about the "what if" questions if your marriage doesn't work...if you end up a single mom to 2 kids instead of 1, and have to pay daycare for 2, after school care, etc...stuff like that can really become significant. 

 

'And of course there are the other "what if" questions..the next child could have serious issues, medical problems, allergies, etc.  There is both a financial and emotional cost to those potential issues.  Your planned homebirth could end up an emergency C Section with a 15 day NICU stay..even with good insurance, a 10% co-pay on that could be thousands of dollars.  Special formula for an allergic baby  could set you back hundreds per month. 

If you have a boy and a girl, maybe dh loses his job, you lose your home, and you have to rent..except with 2 kids of opposite genders you MUST rent a 3 bedroom....little things like that. 

 

 

So...anyway...we have a ton of kids, lol, I'm not trying to talk anyone OUT of having kids they desire...but yes, there is a lot to consider, and as a mom of a child barely more than an infant, a lot of it is stuff you can't even conceive of right now. :) 

post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobandjess99 View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaof3boz View Post

When they are teenagers is when it really hits.  (see my signature for my knowledge base).  They eat like locusts.  And not one of my children are overweight.  Seriously, you can't imagine how much they eat.  You can't pass down anything but shirts because everything is worn out when they outgrow it.  jeans and shoes are a nightmare.  Thrift stores dont cut it for rapidly growing teens.  you can't ever find what you need when you need it.  braces.  glasses. acne treatment.  sports.  driving. and don't forget about college.  not that we are paying their way, but we certainly want to help them if possible.  computers.  flashdrives for school.  increased electricity use and water consumption.  Not that i am detering anyone from children but I'm just being realistic.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahwhat View Post

It's not baby number 2 (or 3 or 4) that costs much money.  It's child and teenager number 2 (etc.).  My 3yo costs us next to nothing.  My 12, 9, and 7 year olds, however, eat a ton of food, need space of their own (bigger house), take swimming lessons, like new (to them) clothes and toys once in a while, and have school fees (even in public school), among other costs.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Curious View Post

Our little boys (4.5, 3 & 10mo) cost us very little. It's the teenagers that kill us!

 

When my kids hit the age to start sports ... yikes! Cleats, basketball shoes, fees, gas, gate admissions.

 

But the first five years ... nah.



Yes, yes, yes!  ITA.  BABIES cost practically nothing....toddlers not so much...but KIDS cost more, and TEENS cost OMG a lot. 

Right now we have at home a 17, 14, 13, 6 and 3 yo, just so you know where im coming from.

 

1 to 2 kids isn't as bad, since you are just multiplying by 2.  but it does still add up.  A single week of horse camp is over $500.  Times 2 .  (or 3 or 4..etc)   Even just by letting each child do ONE activity, it adds up.  Wrestling cleats are $100, and they were outgrown before the end of the season!!! Even little things like gymnastics and dance classes at the YMCA, at $50/class...well..times 2 or 3...adds up.  At the 2 kid mark, you wont need a minivan, or to book 2 hotel rooms for trips, etc, or even a bigger house necesarily, but yes, stuff like that adds up.  We will NOT TALK about how much 3 teen boys eat.  Really. 

 

I also find it much easier to SAY you'll just never go anywhere or do anything than it is to actually do it. Sure, some stuff is free...but like a pp said..what about when your kid is older and has friends and they get invited to birthday parties?  That costs money.  scouts? sports? clubs? electronics, school fees, homeschooling costs, pets?  And teens don't want a $5 dolly for Xmas..thety want their own laptop, cell phone, etc.  Clothes, shoes, boots, coats....and yes, the gifts drop off dsramatically after the baby stage!

 

Plus, as someone has said, the loss of a SAH parents income, even if you  would be working a min. wage job, is $15k/year, minimum.    That affects overall lifestyle as well as lifetime earning potential, retirement savings, social security, etc.

 

Then.. to talk about the "what if" questions if your marriage doesn't work...if you end up a single mom to 2 kids instead of 1, and have to pay daycare for 2, after school care, etc...stuff like that can really become significant. 

 

'And of course there are the other "what if" questions..the next child could have serious issues, medical problems, allergies, etc.  There is both a financial and emotional cost to those potential issues.  Your planned homebirth could end up an emergency C Section with a 15 day NICU stay..even with good insurance, a 10% co-pay on that could be thousands of dollars.  Special formula for an allergic baby  could set you back hundreds per month. 

If you have a boy and a girl, maybe dh loses his job, you lose your home, and you have to rent..except with 2 kids of opposite genders you MUST rent a 3 bedroom....little things like that. 

 

 

So...anyway...we have a ton of kids, lol, I'm not trying to talk anyone OUT of having kids they desire...but yes, there is a lot to consider, and as a mom of a child barely more than an infant, a lot of it is stuff you can't even conceive of right now. :) 


I agree about gifts dropping off, by the time they hit school age my experience is that a lot of the lovely gifts you have come to expect drop off just at the time they are getting more expensive. It's not even about having a lavish lifestyle but as kids grow they develop interests. My son from 9-14 took violin and while he got lessons via bartering there was still the expense of the instrument as he grew. In high school he did drama which is low cost but as he got better at it, he was in competitions and shows that required travel. His senior year of high school he needed a car because with his school/theater schedule he left the house at 6:45 and got home at 9:00 and from a practical standpoint he could no longer mooch rides and his Dad wasn't able to always pick him up.

His grandmother gave him an early graduation gift of a car (used beater) but guess what? I had to start budgeting for gas and his school schedule didn't allow for a part time job which while it sucked from my budget perspective, he got a $20,000 scholarship at the college he is attending based on his grades/activities. So in the short run it sounds good to say kids need to work for their pocket money but I looked at it long term and realized whatever little money he may have earned was not going to be worth what he could gain by focusing on school/drama/etc.

 

All that to say as someone who had raised one kid to legal adulthood and with a 5 year old, hands down kids cost more money.

post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post

I'm also in Southern IL and I know it's not the case in Charleston, Rockford, or here, but I can see why it would be a bigger issue in the larger towns. I never lived in CU but worked there. When did the fire happen? Was this recently? CatsCradle seemed to clarify it being for multi-unit dwellings. That's good! I know that this is an issue in hotels-it's a PITA to reserve one room with 5 kids though we co-sleep.


It was December 6, 1992 the Pyramid Apartment Fire in Carbondale, it was arson five students died.


Ah...I had just moved to the area, so that's why I didn't know about it.

I'll keep Embassy Suites in mind, thanks!

As for losing $15k income minimum by being a SAHM, I strongly disagree. I worked a good job at the hospital making more than minimum wage and working 70+ hours a week and barely took in $16k gross. That was several years ago, but I can not see how this would be true for anyone just working min wage nowadays-especially with high unemployment, high daycare & school costs, and high transportation costs among other things.
post #57 of 65

I think what some people are trying to say is that each child costs more money.  Please don't be unrealistic/naive and say that they don't or there is a way to make it free. 

 

Most of us are also saying, don't let cost deter you from having the children you want.  Just go into it with eyes wide open.

post #58 of 65

I think what it comes down to, is that in our modern day/life/time...yes more kids cost more money.

 

That has not always been true of course.  In times past, when most people only had a few items of clothing, families grew all their own food, it was normal for 5 people to live in a one-room cabin, etc. then more children did not equal more cost.  In fact, more children meant less cost (in a way) as there would more people to share the hard work of living on a farm and growing food.

post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post

I think what it comes down to, is that in our modern day/life/time...yes more kids cost more money.

 

That has not always been true of course.  In times past, when most people only had a few items of clothing, families grew all their own food, it was normal for 5 people to live in a one-room cabin, etc. then more children did not equal more cost.  In fact, more children meant less cost (in a way) as there would more people to share the hard work of living on a farm and growing food.


Kids may cost more now in terms of dollars/pounds, but there is a tradeoff.  Kids back then may have not incurred the monetary costs, but there was a cost.  For one, shortened childhood (childhood as we now know it) in terms that they worked to contribute to the family economy (whether working in the fields or going off to the factory).  Most kids now have the luxury of being a child for a much longer time than in previous history.  Children now have better access to a whole lot of things that children didn't then.  Not that either is ideal, but there are tradeoffs to with both.
 

post #60 of 65


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExRxMom View Post





It was December 6, 1992 the Pyramid Apartment Fire in Carbondale, it was arson five students died.



Ah...I had just moved to the area, so that's why I didn't know about it.I'll keep Embassy Suites in mind, thanks!As for losing $15k income minimum by being a SAHM, I strongly disagree. I worked a good job at the hospital making more than minimum wage and working 70+ hours a week and barely took in $16k gross. That was several years ago, but I can not see how this would be true for anyone just working min wage nowadays-especially with high unemployment, high daycare & school costs, and high transportation costs among other things.

I think I'm the one who said that we lose income from me staying home.  My family does.  I have a Masters degree and a decent earning potential.  Even with full time daycare and transportation and all of that we would be way ahead if I worked full time.  I'm also putting myself on the line with a massive gap in my resume.  I want to return to work full time when my kiddo(s?) are older.  Right now I am sacrificing my career as well as my retirement and SSI by staying home.  I consult and do small jobs now and then to keep a foot in the door, but it's still a sacrifice.  We feel that it's worth it now, but me staying home is a major financial loss for our family.  It's a major win in several other categories, but financially, it's a loss.  

 

I know that everyone's financial situation and earning potential are not the same, which is why I'm speaking about my experience and my family.  Clearly, staying home makes financial sense for women with many small children and little earning potential.  
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Frugality & Finances
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Frugality & Finances › Forgive me if I'm ignorant but...