Shasta had an interesting post about the debate most moms face -- work vs kids. Even before knowing that I was pregnant, that's been a debate that's been raging in my head. Admittedly, Shas had an interesting question as to where the men were in the debate about staying home vs working.
I remember when Jeff and I were dating, the question came up along with the other questions about whether we'd want children, where we'd live, etc. Jeff and I came to the mutual agreement that it whoever earned more money would be the breadwinner and the other person would stay at home. Then we got married and well, careerwise, he's earning a hell of a lot more than I am.
So when I got pregnant, the answer seemed obvious -- even more so when I look at my salary and realize that it's not worth it to work. I might be losing money with playing for child care, gas, lunch money. And in all honesty, the money I would be bringing in would be less than minimum wage.
Let me break it down for a second -- according to the Office of Child Care and Family Resources, the average cost of infant care is about $12,000 a year, while preschool daycare averages $8,500. While having one child in daycare would cut my income by more than half (once taxes and bennies were taken out), two children in daycare would put me in the hole. Jeff and I want more than one child, so it's obvious that having me work would be a losing proposition.
The hard thing is that careerwise -- to stop everything for a few years so I can take care of kids -- is tantamount to career suicide. We all know how employers look at it when there's a five (or more) year gap in your resume.
And I hate that, because I love what I do. While I'm lucky in that I can work from home and create my own thing, I know that it's not going to offer the same health benefits, vacation perks and steady income like my job.
I agree with Shasta that it sucks that men don't have to deal with that question, but I don't think it's as simple as "well, the man works, and the woman stays at home." If you're earning the median income of approximately $43,000, you can't stop working, but at the same time, you're not bringing in enough money to take care of things and save up for education or retirement.
I guess that what I'm saying is that I think that this is a symptom of a higher problem in our society, or perhaps the death of idealism. We say that we should be able to do a job we love, but if it doesn't pay enough, do we have to sacrifice our careers for our families?
1 comment:
I think the question you pose at the end is the essential one. The cost to consider isn't only a financial one, in my book. Of course, who makes more is an important consideration, but who is best suited to a life of unpaid labor focused on the care of others? Whose identity is more likely to crack with the absence of performing the kind of tasks that pleasantly define oneself? Does childcare so often go automatically to the woman, perhaps because men in our culture tend to define themselves by their work and very little else?
I dunno. Just another disturbing thought to throw in the pot. I think procreating takes a hell of a lot of courage. . . .
Post a Comment