or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Article: Regrets of a SAHM. Thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Article: Regrets of a SAHM. Thoughts? - Page 7

post #121 of 242

My brother took it starting in 7th grade. I think he took it 3 times and the SAT 2. He chose to do that. It wasn't a high pressure thing! Some kids actually find it fun to see if they can do better the next time. That said, I don't think he got scholarships for undergrad and his grad school is work-study funded. But it's not inherently high pressure to take the tests multiple times. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamomile Girl View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sublimeliving View Post

 

You said, "I mean, unless people without near perfect academic records shouldn't go to college, or if you think its the author's fault her children won't qualify for a scholarship?"

What? I think anyone that wants to go to college should go. If they don't have the grades or scores to get scholarships, they should pay for it.  Most of the colleges that my dd applied to offer scholarships to kids starting w/ an ACT score of 23 (36 is perfect) and a GPA of 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale). That criteria is just above the national average for ACT score. To keep the scholarships, most colleges require a 2.5-3.0 average. That's just above average too. State schools are a little harder (because they have more people applying for them) than private schools to get scholarships. Saying that scholarships are "HARD to come by," only deters others from looking into it. I think people should start looking when their kids are in 8th grade, at what the requirements are for each school. Kids have a better chance when they know what they're up against. Most kids in gifted programs start taking the ACT in 7th grade. The great thing about the ACT is, the student only has to mail in their highest score. Many of the kids w/ perfect ACT scores have taken the ACT 5 times before graduation. I, in no way, fault the author for her sons grades or ACT scores. I also don't think the author should blame anyone (including her ex) for her sons not having money for college. Her sons can work, at a job, and pay for it. It wouldn't be wise for them to take out $100,000 in loans either. EEK, I don't know who would do that; unless it was for medical school (or some other job making six figures).

 

 


 


OK this is totally off topic (and really this whole discussion about her specific situation is pointless in the face of her premise) but I an honestly say I would never ever in a million years make my kid start taking the ACT in seventh grade. I took it once lol.Putting that kind of academic pressure on a kid that young is sick imo. Plus it assumes that there are only certain colleges that matter (or that college is the only acceptable path). I've seen way too many kids self destruct under that kind of pressure. Its not worth it.
post #122 of 242
Quote:

Originally Posted by sublimeliving View Post
 

It wouldn't be wise for them to take out $100,000 in loans either. EEK, I don't know who would do that; unless it was for medical school (or some other job making six figures).

 



LOL are you aware of how expensive college is these days?  It can be done for a good price when people go to community college, or live at home (when that option is available).  Medical school is often $150-200 thousand.  Law school is similar depending on where you go (I'm lucky in that my law school loans are under $100,000 but I only got about $400 in grants all 3 years COMBINED and I have zero income and am not considered dependant of family, medical school btw expects your family to contribute no matter how old or independent you are of them unless you're married - so even fewer financial aid is available for that).  Loans have to be used to cover living expenses as well, so unless you live with family rent free that costs additional money no matter what the tuition is (and certain scholarships/grants can only be applied to tuition and not room/board).

 

Paying your way through with a job is very very difficult - programs are getting longer and more specialized.  The average student takes 5 years to graduate instead of 4, which means more tuition.  Credit loads are getting bigger (no after school jobs), and jobs are hard to come by for even those who have degrees, people who don't have degree's certainly aren't getting any handouts in that department either.

post #123 of 242

Gifted programs through Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, John's Hopkins...require the ACT in 7th grade for their gifted programs. My dd didn't take the ACT 5 times either; I do know kids that have though.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamomile Girl View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sublimeliving View Post

 

You said, "I mean, unless people without near perfect academic records shouldn't go to college, or if you think its the author's fault her children won't qualify for a scholarship?"

What? I think anyone that wants to go to college should go. If they don't have the grades or scores to get scholarships, they should pay for it.  Most of the colleges that my dd applied to offer scholarships to kids starting w/ an ACT score of 23 (36 is perfect) and a GPA of 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale). That criteria is just above the national average for ACT score. To keep the scholarships, most colleges require a 2.5-3.0 average. That's just above average too. State schools are a little harder (because they have more people applying for them) than private schools to get scholarships. Saying that scholarships are "HARD to come by," only deters others from looking into it. I think people should start looking when their kids are in 8th grade, at what the requirements are for each school. Kids have a better chance when they know what they're up against. Most kids in gifted programs start taking the ACT in 7th grade. The great thing about the ACT is, the student only has to mail in their highest score. Many of the kids w/ perfect ACT scores have taken the ACT 5 times before graduation. I, in no way, fault the author for her sons grades or ACT scores. I also don't think the author should blame anyone (including her ex) for her sons not having money for college. Her sons can work, at a job, and pay for it. It wouldn't be wise for them to take out $100,000 in loans either. EEK, I don't know who would do that; unless it was for medical school (or some other job making six figures).

 

 


 


OK this is totally off topic (and really this whole discussion about her specific situation is pointless in the face of her premise) but I an honestly say I would never ever in a million years make my kid start taking the ACT in seventh grade. I took it once lol.Putting that kind of academic pressure on a kid that young is sick imo. Plus it assumes that there are only certain colleges that matter (or that college is the only acceptable path). I've seen way too many kids self destruct under that kind of pressure. Its not worth it.
post #124 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:

Originally Posted by sublimeliving View Post
 

It wouldn't be wise for them to take out $100,000 in loans either. EEK, I don't know who would do that; unless it was for medical school (or some other job making six figures).

 



LOL are you aware of how expensive college is these days?  It can be done for a good price when people go to community college, or live at home (when that option is available).  Medical school is often $150-200 thousand.  Law school is similar depending on where you go (I'm lucky in that my law school loans are under $100,000 but I only got about $400 in grants all 3 years COMBINED and I have zero income and am not considered dependant of family, medical school btw expects your family to contribute no matter how old or independent you are of them unless you're married - so even fewer financial aid is available for that).  Loans have to be used to cover living expenses as well, so unless you live with family rent free that costs additional money no matter what the tuition is (and certain scholarships/grants can only be applied to tuition and not room/board).

 

Paying your way through with a job is very very difficult - programs are getting longer and more specialized.  The average student takes 5 years to graduate instead of 4, which means more tuition.  Credit loads are getting bigger (no after school jobs), and jobs are hard to come by for even those who have degrees, people who don't have degree's certainly aren't getting any handouts in that department either.


Wow those are crazy prices. I knew it was $100k+ for med school which is one of the reasons I quit down that path. I do agree about jobs harder to come by for degree holding adults. With the economy, around here at least, it's a major disadvantage to have a degree. Just an innocent plug-Oregon State University Distance Ed. is cheaper than in-state tuition here for anyone interested. I have less than 10 credits for my BS and have thought about doing this while it's not too pricey.
post #125 of 242

 

Quote:
I work in a traditionally highly paid profession and we are seeing joblessness in unprecedented numbers right now.  It has less to do with the economy and more to do with saturation of the market. 

 

I'm not an economist or an expert by at stretch but it makes a lot of sense to me that if more parents (either mom or dad) stayed home to take care of kids, there would be less saturation of the market and less joblessness, all around. Part of me thinks that the huge numbers of two-income families and single parents contribute to the high unemployment rate we currently have. If more parents who were financially able to stay home, did so, then there would be more jobs open for those who need them (the income-earning parent, single parents, people without kids etc.). On a societal level it seems to me that encouraging all capable adults to work-full time (including mothers with income-earning partners) would simply contribute to the high rate of unemployment.  I'm not sure if society has enough jobs (that pay a living wage) for every adult to have one. 

I'm definitely not an expert...I could be totally off here, but it makes logical sense to me that it was much easier to secure a job when a smaller percentage of the population was in the workforce.  Perhaps our economy on a societal level can't support all these two-income families because there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.   Just a thought anyway.shrug.gif

post #126 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post

 

Quote:
I work in a traditionally highly paid profession and we are seeing joblessness in unprecedented numbers right now.  It has less to do with the economy and more to do with saturation of the market. 

 

I'm not an economist or an expert by at stretch but it makes a lot of sense to me that if more parents (either mom or dad) stayed home to take care of kids, there would be less saturation of the market and less joblessness, all around. Part of me thinks that the huge numbers of two-income families and single parents contribute to the high unemployment rate we currently have. If more parents who were financially able to stay home, did so, then there would be more jobs open for those who need them (the income-earning parent, single parents, people without kids etc.). On a societal level it seems to me that encouraging all capable adults to work-full time (including mothers with income-earning partners) would simply contribute to the high rate of unemployment.  I'm not sure if society has enough jobs (that pay a living wage) for every adult to have one. 

I'm definitely not an expert...I could be totally off here, but it makes logical sense to me that it was much easier to secure a job when a smaller percentage of the population was in the workforce.  Perhaps our economy on a societal level can't support all these two-income families because there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.   Just a thought anyway.shrug.gif


In a way I agree with you, but I believe people should be able to work if they want to. I think we would need more societal support for parents to begin with making it possible for more to stay home, though. But I wouldn't discount the high cost of outsourcing on our jobs situation. I can't count how many local industry jobs are gone to other countries just in the past couple of years.
post #127 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post

I'm not an economist or an expert by at stretch but it makes a lot of sense to me that if more parents (either mom or dad) stayed home to take care of kids, there would be less saturation of the market and less joblessness, all around. Part of me thinks that the huge numbers of two-income families and single parents contribute to the high unemployment rate we currently have. If more parents who were financially able to stay home, did so, then there would be more jobs open for those who need them (the income-earning parent, single parents, people without kids etc.). On a societal level it seems to me that encouraging all capable adults to work-full time (including mothers with income-earning partners) would simply contribute to the high rate of unemployment.  I'm not sure if society has enough jobs (that pay a living wage) for every adult to have one. 

I'm definitely not an expert...I could be totally off here, but it makes logical sense to me that it was much easier to secure a job when a smaller percentage of the population was in the workforce.  Perhaps our economy on a societal level can't support all these two-income families because there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.   Just a thought anyway.shrug.gif



That's a really interesting point.  I wonder if you are right.  It's interesting to think about the fact that if every family needs two incomes to live then people aren't really attaining a living wage on one job already. 

post #128 of 242

 

Quote:
In a way I agree with you, but I believe people should be able to work if they want to. I think we would need more societal support for parents to begin with making it possible for more to stay home, though. But I wouldn't discount the high cost of outsourcing on our jobs situation. I can't count how many local industry jobs are gone to other countries just in the past couple of years.

 I definitely agree people should be able to work if they want to and i definitely agree that our society needs more support for non-working parents.  And, while outsourcing of industry jobs is definitely a factor, there are also a lot of non-industry jobs that are saturated (ie. lawyers, and teachers come to mind) and in many cases that saturation is partially due to two-income families.  I think encouraging all mothers to work (even if they don't want to or financially need to) simply because they may end up divorced in 15 years is going to do more harm than good for society as a whole, as those people who neither need nor necessarily want to work could be taking jobs away from people who do need to work.  Again, I think anyone should be able to work if that is what they want to do, but I do think out society as a whole would be a lot better off if there was a lot more support for one-income families.

post #129 of 242
Thread Starter 

Thanks for posting this. It really helps to hear how people have avoided the trappings I am so concerned about.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EviesMom View Post

I am one of the people who say it couldn't happen to me, but not from blithe ignorance. I didn't SAH for 6 years because I needed to be on solid financial footing. There are three issues for me: divorce potential, death of partner potential, and business issues since we own a business. We've faced business issues before, and had to build back up reserves. But we *had* reserves, pantry supplies, savings accounts to pay required bills, etc. I wouldn't go without health insurance personally. We have good life insurance on both parents. We have written documents on how the business and housing would be split in a divorce. I would never try to stay in the very expensive area we are in currently (and I wouldn't have to leave this metro area or worry about court approval to move the distance I'm talking about either). 

 

I actually think one of the writer's issues in finding work now, and I work in a related field mind you, is the fact that she did part-time work on piddly little stories all along to make "easy income." That's probably actually hurt her in the long run, because that's what her old contacts all think of her for, rather than the heavy hitting work. It's a form of burning bridges that happens to a lot of part-time women. Had she not needed to make that income, she would have been freer to turn down the piddly stuff but thrown her energy into one or two big, heavy-hitting stories per year. She would have made less money that year, but she would have stayed top of mind for "when something really fantastic comes along that needs impeccable work, call [writer], because she only does top notch stuff." She also didn't branch out to other related industries and types of writing, which would likely have helped her career-wise. 

 

I can see a couple of things I don't really understand about what she's done--why is she still living in the same house? Why wasn't college funded over the last 15-18 years, why are they just paying for it now? Where is the ex's role in paying for it? Same for retirement--why not funded before? Also, if she's struggling as badly as she is, then as much as she might not like loans, they are just a necessity for her kids now and they are not the end of the world. 

post #130 of 242
Thread Starter 

On cost of education: My husband is in his final year of pharmacy school. We will be 150k in debt when all is said and done. The APR's are outrageous as well. From 6% to 8.5% depending on the type of loan. Most people who are graduating med school are looking at 200k rather than 100k if they did it on loans, rather than mom/dad paying their way.

 

Most degrees are no longer worth the money it takes to obtain them.

post #131 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post

 

Quote:
In a way I agree with you, but I believe people should be able to work if they want to. I think we would need more societal support for parents to begin with making it possible for more to stay home, though. But I wouldn't discount the high cost of outsourcing on our jobs situation. I can't count how many local industry jobs are gone to other countries just in the past couple of years.

 I definitely agree people should be able to work if they want to and i definitely agree that our society needs more support for non-working parents.  And, while outsourcing of industry jobs is definitely a factor, there are also a lot of non-industry jobs that are saturated (ie. lawyers, and teachers come to mind) and in many cases that saturation is partially due to two-income families.  I think encouraging all mothers to work (even if they don't want to or financially need to) simply because they may end up divorced in 15 years is going to do more harm than good for society as a whole, as those people who neither need nor necessarily want to work could be taking jobs away from people who do need to work.  Again, I think anyone should be able to work if that is what they want to do, but I do think out society as a whole would be a lot better off if there was a lot more support for one-income families.


I agree with that. sorry nak
post #132 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post

I'm not an economist or an expert by at stretch but it makes a lot of sense to me that if more parents (either mom or dad) stayed home to take care of kids, there would be less saturation of the market and less joblessness, all around. Part of me thinks that the huge numbers of two-income families and single parents contribute to the high unemployment rate we currently have. If more parents who were financially able to stay home, did so, then there would be more jobs open for those who need them (the income-earning parent, single parents, people without kids etc.). On a societal level it seems to me that encouraging all capable adults to work-full time (including mothers with income-earning partners) would simply contribute to the high rate of unemployment.  I'm not sure if society has enough jobs (that pay a living wage) for every adult to have one. 

I'm definitely not an expert...I could be totally off here, but it makes logical sense to me that it was much easier to secure a job when a smaller percentage of the population was in the workforce.  Perhaps our economy on a societal level can't support all these two-income families because there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.   Just a thought anyway.shrug.gif



That's a really interesting point.  I wonder if you are right.  It's interesting to think about the fact that if every family needs two incomes to live then people aren't really attaining a living wage on one job already. 


I think there a variety of factors that go into job unavailability and the two-income issues.  One of them is that our economy has shifted greatly from an industry-based and agricultural economy to more of a corporate economy.  Whole towns (think the auto and steel industries) used to be supported by the industry in their town.  We do very little manufacturing in the U.S. now (can't speak for Canada) and most manufacturing and even services (like tech support) have been outsourced to other countries, all in the name of increased corporate profits.  People at the top make more and more.  People in the middle and lower rungs have seen very little increase in income, despite the fact that costs have gone up and up and up.  Perhaps our economy will rebound as investments are made in new types of industry.  It will be a slow and perhaps painful process.  

 

Second, wages have stagnated but inflation has not.  My parents bought a huge house in 1976 for $20k.  Same house sold a few years ago for almost $300k, and this was in a traditionally low COL area.  Real estate over the last 10 years has risen at obscene rates.  Again, wages have remained pretty stagnant.  There has to be meeting in the middle between living wages and cost of living.  Even though DH and I belong to a food co-op and get significant discounts on our food, we still spend more per week for a family of three than my parents did for a family of five in the seventies...and we don't eat meat.  

 

Regarding saturation of the market:  I can only speak for the legal field, but law schools are graduating classes of 300 - 500 students every year.  I don't care if that is all men or all women or both, the market can't sustain that amount of saturation.  My dad is a dental professor and he has seen the same thing happen in the dental field.  Schools admit more and more people into professional programs every year, not because they have the general economy's best interest in mind, but because schools are seeking profits too.  Kids are less likely now to work on the family farm or to go to work in the town factory upon graduation, simply because those industries have decreased.  They are more likely now to go to college.  There has been a huge shift in the types of skills that people learn now and the availability of jobs for those skills.  

post #133 of 242

i thought the article was a little overdrawn and bitter. yeah, she kind of is blaming her current circumstances on a dying industry and questionable financial choices, BUT the overall points are still valid.

 

1. if you decide to seriously curtail or quit your career to SAH, are you aware that you are making a long-reaching decision that might affect your employability in the long run? you might think it's obvious that the gap on your resume is due to staying home with your kids, but to an employer it might not be so understandable.

 

2. if you do decide to make a "career" out of being a SAHM, are you adequately preparing for the future? Are you saving for retirement, properly insured and on the same page with your partner about divorce or job-loss? So many people today are not up to speed on their finances, and if you have not been out in the workforce and earning your own money, it's even more important that you and your partner are carefully preparing. I am not planning to SAH for a long time, but even the 2 years i have been out so far are already impacting my overall earning ability. If you are planning to be a home-maker or long term SAHM, you and your partner need to make sure you are getting "paid" too.

 

all of you SAHM's that are criticizing her article, are you sure you are protected?

post #134 of 242
Quote:

 

all of you SAHM's that are criticizing her article, are you sure you are protected?



 I believe that I am more protected than the vast majority of WOH and single moms, actually.  Insurance.  We have no debt aside from the mortgage, and it is almost paid off and we keep enough easily accessed to be able to pay it off at any time.  My own inheritance/wealth.  A will.  I've gone to all of our financial planner meetings, so I know the assets that we have.  We review our investment portfolio on a regular basis. DH has excellent insurance.  I know where all the most important documents are.  While I don't do the actual bill paying, I do run the budget.  I have access to my own legal counsel (hopefully I'd never need it, but I can afford, on my own, to pay for a divorce attorney if I need to).  We buy our insurance on our own, so my health insurance is not tied to DH's job.

 

Most of the woefully unprepared moms that I know are WOH.  They think they don't need to bother with all that stuff because "I have a job."  They don't know their investment income, they don't have a will, so they've never even really done a thorough asset review.  They don't even know how to assess their need for insurance for either partner.  :P

 

I really wish we would dump the mommy wars/ooooo you're more unprepared than I am crap.  Mothers need to be sure they are protected, and to be frank, most do NOT.  No matter if they get a paycheck or not.

post #135 of 242

something i had never really thought about, but that has been brought up is the difference between free lancing/part-timing to make a little money, and actually building/maintaing a skill set/certifications.  i adjunct at the local community college, and now i realize that this is building/maintaining a skill set - i have a semester worth of curiculum/planning that would go anywhere with me, i should try and pick up another, though different class as soon as one is available to me anywhere to continue building my skill set.  but, i also freelance write online.  now i realize that this writing freelance isn't really building a skill set and there is a difference.  i am trying to build up my writing history, but it isn't going to land me a job or make me more marketable, whereas having a couple different classes already to go is.

i think this is an important concept that i hadn't thought about and it is also a way to "protect" yourself.  the author did lots of freelance and she thought it was keeping her foot in the door, but she wasn't doing it and building up a specific skill set.  as a PP noted, she would have been better off focusing on one or two hard hiting peices a year and making less but being more marketable.

post #136 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekgolightly View Post

I think what she is seeing is her husband, who is making a nice living and comparing it to her own situation. She gave it up, willingly, for her kids. She and her husband were neck and neck before the kids and she dropped out of the race. Her husband didn't give up his job and didn't suffer the same consequences.


I agree but I am also confused about this....so much of her money stress is focused on her kids. I don't see how her husband escaped severe financial consequences...he has a steady, long-term job making 30k more than he did 14 years ago. He is paying big bucks in child support and still has to support himself. Why is SHE up all night wondering how SHE is going to pay her kid's college tuition?
Unless she has a really ridiculous prenup he is paying her alimony. (I have one of the least-advantageous-for-me prenups my lawyer has seen and it only restricts spousal support for the first 5 years of the marriage). The whole concept of spousal support is based on traditional SAHMs being at an economic disadvantage.

 

Many men (my dad for instance) get out of supporting their kids. Men with high-paying, respectable jobs have a pretty hard time avoiding support. What am I missing??

post #137 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by geekgolightly View Post

I think what she is seeing is her husband, who is making a nice living and comparing it to her own situation. She gave it up, willingly, for her kids. She and her husband were neck and neck before the kids and she dropped out of the race. Her husband didn't give up his job and didn't suffer the same consequences.


I agree but I am also confused about this....so much of her money stress is focused on her kids. I don't see how her husband escaped severe financial consequences...he has a steady, long-term job making 30k more than he did 14 years ago. He is paying big bucks in child support and still has to support himself. Why is SHE up all night wondering how SHE is going to pay her kid's college tuition?
Unless she has a really ridiculous prenup he is paying her alimony. (I have one of the least-advantageous-for-me prenups my lawyer has seen and it only restricts spousal support for the first 5 years of the marriage). The whole concept of spousal support is based on traditional SAHMs being at an economic disadvantage.

 

Many men (my dad for instance) get out of supporting their kids. Men with high-paying, respectable jobs have a pretty hard time avoiding support. What am I missing??


I agree. I just can't imagine a judge allowing a man making that much more to not contribute to his childrens educations. At least here, it's standard for college tuition to be a consideration in divorce decrees. Another thing that I guess depends on location. But I see this more a matter of her ex being a...you know what, than an issue with staying home.
post #138 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by geekgolightly View Post

I think what she is seeing is her husband, who is making a nice living and comparing it to her own situation. She gave it up, willingly, for her kids. She and her husband were neck and neck before the kids and she dropped out of the race. Her husband didn't give up his job and didn't suffer the same consequences.


I agree but I am also confused about this....so much of her money stress is focused on her kids. I don't see how her husband escaped severe financial consequences...he has a steady, long-term job making 30k more than he did 14 years ago. He is paying big bucks in child support and still has to support himself. Why is SHE up all night wondering how SHE is going to pay her kid's college tuition?
Unless she has a really ridiculous prenup he is paying her alimony. (I have one of the least-advantageous-for-me prenups my lawyer has seen and it only restricts spousal support for the first 5 years of the marriage). The whole concept of spousal support is based on traditional SAHMs being at an economic disadvantage.

 

Many men (my dad for instance) get out of supporting their kids. Men with high-paying, respectable jobs have a pretty hard time avoiding support. What am I missing??


I agree.  My DH and I went through a rough spot awhile back and I advised him to talk to an attorney about his responsibilities if our marriage ended before he did anything stupid.  After we got through it, I don't remember how the topic came up again, but I asked him if he ever called an attorney.  He said he did and the attorney basically told him that if we ever divorced, then he's screwed (DH's words, not mine).  Of course there are many things that factor into this conclusion (income, length of marriage, etc.), but there you go.

post #139 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post

I agree but I am also confused about this....so much of her money stress is focused on her kids. I don't see how her husband escaped severe financial consequences...he has a steady, long-term job making 30k more than he did 14 years ago. He is paying big bucks in child support and still has to support himself. Why is SHE up all night wondering how SHE is going to pay her kid's college tuition?
Unless she has a really ridiculous prenup he is paying her alimony. (I have one of the least-advantageous-for-me prenups my lawyer has seen and it only restricts spousal support for the first 5 years of the marriage). The whole concept of spousal support is based on traditional SAHMs being at an economic disadvantage.

 

Many men (my dad for instance) get out of supporting their kids. Men with high-paying, respectable jobs have a pretty hard time avoiding support. What am I missing??



Well, let's put it this way.  If you're married and have, say, one child: pretend that now your husband is going to give you just 17% of his income.  Not 17% on TOP of a fully paid house, necessarily - (some couples don't have a house in their assets, or if they do, it is not paid for upon divorce, so cannot be sold at full price).  Okay.  That 17% will help to keep you and your child afloat.  Home, utilities, vehicle, clothing, food, school stuff, activities, co-pays... and out of that in an ideal world you should also put money away for the child's future.  Now pretend your husband keeps the other 83% solely for himself, because you've got to find a way to squeeze that money out of the 17%.  Which of you would be worrying more about how to pay for college?  Who do you think would be better off financially?

 

Plus don't forget he's got higher earning potential, if you've been a SAHM while he's gone off to work and furthers his career.  Not everyone has a prenup, either.  Maintenance/alimony is not always a factor; the recently divorced mom I know who was married something like 16 years (with 3 kids) got 4 years of it.  So, the mom in the article is probably up all night wondering how she is going to pay the kids' tuition out of the smaller percentage, while her ex is rolling around in his 80 or so percent which he is spending all on himself.  If a married man paid just 17% of his income towards his children's food, shelter, clothing & future and kept rest for himself, he wouldn't be considered a very good provider. 

 

My ex pays "big bucks" in child support and I can assure you that he has even bigger bucks to spend on himself, while I am fully responsible for all childcare and budget carefully to make that percentage stretch over all the areas it needs to. 

post #140 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissLotus View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post

I agree but I am also confused about this....so much of her money stress is focused on her kids. I don't see how her husband escaped severe financial consequences...he has a steady, long-term job making 30k more than he did 14 years ago. He is paying big bucks in child support and still has to support himself. Why is SHE up all night wondering how SHE is going to pay her kid's college tuition?
Unless she has a really ridiculous prenup he is paying her alimony. (I have one of the least-advantageous-for-me prenups my lawyer has seen and it only restricts spousal support for the first 5 years of the marriage). The whole concept of spousal support is based on traditional SAHMs being at an economic disadvantage.

 

Many men (my dad for instance) get out of supporting their kids. Men with high-paying, respectable jobs have a pretty hard time avoiding support. What am I missing??



Well, let's put it this way.  If you're married and have, say, one child: pretend that now your husband is going to give you just 17% of his income.  Not 17% on TOP of a fully paid house, necessarily - (some couples don't have a house in their assets, or if they do, it is not paid for upon divorce, so cannot be sold at full price).  Okay.  That 17% will help to keep you and your child afloat.  Home, utilities, vehicle, clothing, food, school stuff, activities, co-pays... and out of that in an ideal world you should also put money away for the child's future.  Now pretend your husband keeps the other 83% solely for himself, because you've got to find a way to squeeze that money out of the 17%.  Which of you would be worrying more about how to pay for college?  Who do you think would be better off financially?

 

Plus don't forget he's got higher earning potential, if you've been a SAHM while he's gone off to work and furthers his career.  Not everyone has a prenup, either.  Maintenance/alimony is not always a factor; the recently divorced mom I know who was married something like 16 years (with 3 kids) got 4 years of it.  So, the mom in the article is probably up all night wondering how she is going to pay the kids' tuition out of the smaller percentage, while her ex is rolling around in his 80 or so percent which he is spending all on himself.  If a married man paid just 17% of his income towards his children's food, shelter, clothing & future and kept rest for himself, he wouldn't be considered a very good provider. 

 

My ex pays "big bucks" in child support and I can assure you that he has even bigger bucks to spend on himself, while I am fully responsible for all childcare and budget carefully to make that percentage stretch over all the areas it needs to. 


It really depends on individual states (and how they calculate support) as well as income levels.  Many jurisdictions will factor in in childcare if that is what is necessary to maintain a fair budget.  Every divorce is unique, and that is why family courts are overstretched and settlements are often contentious.  Most people, if they are already strapped for cash in marriage, are not going to be paying "big bucks" in child support.  It is all based on income.  Courts can't force the non-custodial parent to pay more than his/her income and budget allows.  Keep in mind that the working parent, after divorce, must now essentially pay for two households (the other parent (if alimony) and child support) as well as his/her own expenses (additional housing, food, utilities, insurance).  If the family is doing well in marriage (financially) than they will probably do okay with divided households.  This is not the reality for many, many people.  Many people live month to month, and barely pay their bills as married people.  Add the problem of paying two rents (if the other spouse doesn't go live with his/her mother) and there is an extra financial burden.  The whole alimony thing assumes that the couple is in a fairly good financial position in marriage.  Many courts (absent wrongdoing on the part of one spouse) will only grant child support - and that support is usually only focused on basic necessities.  Anything else is determined in the divorce settlement.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Article: Regrets of a SAHM. Thoughts?