SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (618301)7/6/2011 8:10:44 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583412
 
"Eventually you can't keep up with the Joneses without both parents working."

You laugh, but (R)enomics will have the children back working soon!



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (618301)7/6/2011 8:12:17 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1583412
 
"Just long enough for the kids to be self-sufficient, like around the age of seven or so."

If that seven year old hurt itself alone at home, who would go to jail?



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (618301)7/8/2011 4:40:12 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583412
 
Ted, let me clarify what I said. Our materialistic society is resistant to single-income families for a variety of reasons. One of which is that the cost of living has shot up tremendously, especially real estate. As more and more families go dual-income, prices for just about everything go up. Eventually you can't keep up with the Joneses without both parents working.

I see. In your economic view, prices go up because families have two incomes. Please support your theorem with fact. TIA.

Another reason is the whole Little Prince syndrome. Everyone wants their kids to be princes and princesses. Parents are spoiling them rotten, even buying them premium fashions like Juicy Couture and True Religion jeans. (Male disclaimer: I knew nothing of these brands until I met my wife.) These parents also want to drive their kids around in big-honkin' SUVs, send them to shockingly elite preschools, and sign them up for all these extra-curricular activities which will no doubt cost a lot of money and gas.

That's true for CA. Only partly true for the rest of the country. The kids in my neighborhood start doing odd jobs when they are in their tween years. Most get their clothes from Costco's and Target. They wear skinny jeans etc but not with designer labels. They are good kids who like spending time with their families. I use them to do work in my yard. I would say my neighborhood is upper middle class.

There are a ton of reasons why I left CA. This is one of them

I know I'm probably describing the attitudes of the "upper middle-class" elite rather than the vast majority of America, but I'm pretty sure this mentality affects all classes, cultures, and races. Those who choose not to participate, or can't afford to, still have to deal with it among their peers. Even in low-income neighborhoods, more emphasis is put on the "bling" and the big tricked-out cars than on family and education.

Its the mentality that's pervasive in certain aspects of our culture. I know its true in CA as you assert. Its probably true in places like NYC and Texas. Can't be sure about the rest of the country. However, its not true everywhere. And I'd like to think that my position is the majority one. May well be wrong.

Anyway, back to my original point. Yes, if one of the parents stayed home to take care of the kids, the family may have less disposable income overall. But I would argue that the family may end up happier in the long term. The breadwinner can focus on excelling in his or her career (usually "his" because that's the way the sexes are hard-wired, but if it's "hers" I personally wouldn't mind), while the homemaker can focus on maintaining a nice comfortable home with (hopefully) well-behaved, well-loved kids. They'll have to shop at Costco and Old Navy instead of Whole Foods and Saks Fifth Avenue, but in my opinion the family is worth it.

Frankly, I think having disposal income is a luxury for most families. From what I am hearing, most families need two incomes for just the basics.

And even then, the parent who stays home doesn't have to do it for the rest of his or her life. Just long enough for the kids to be self-sufficient, like around the age of seven or so.

But hey, WTFDIK? I still don't have kids yet.


Are you still thinking of having some?