I work at home, 30 hrs a week. DD used to attend daycare PT and now she's in kindy. I think I'm pretty much in the same position as the author, as it sounds like she was working, but less hours and making less money. Trying to keep her connections and skills up to date.
The thing is--these days--there are no guarantees. I could have stayed fulltime at my old job, kept commuting, and been fired and out looking for a job for the past two years. Things are bad out there, and there's no safe, easy way to glide through it these days. (In my opinion) I have my own safety nets in an income property that I owned before I was married and SEP (self employed pension plan) which is like a 401K with no match.
I am glad that I was able to take the time when DD was small--because it does go really fast--now that she's in kindy I can really see how fast it went. And, similar to what others have said--I'm not too worried about ending up poor. Maybe part of it's the MDC mindset, but I have more than 95% of the world, just as a middle-class
American. I am not going to crumble because I can't buy my child "electronics" or completely fund her college education. I'd love to do both--but those are not rights, you know? They are gifts that would be given lovingly, if I am able.
The article doesn't make me angry, but I do think it has a lot of holes. It's also a big rehash of The Feminine Mistake--which is a great book to read if you are working out of the home--it will give you a lot of reasons to get up every day and keep going if you feel like you really want to stay at home. And I say that as someone who really enjoys working. But part-time, on my own terms, which I know isn't realistic for most of the world.
Oh, and that's another thing--the article is very skewed towards upper middle class women. Yes, we lose money. But how much money does a mom of 3 lose who was either waitressing or working retail without investment benefits. Probably not much.