When did we decide that raising one's own children was a luxury hobby for the wealthy, like yachting?

Question

Why do people think that our ecomomy is suddenly *so* terrible that only the very rich can afford to live on one income? The average one-income married couple makes about $26,000 *less* per year than the average two-income married couple. (source #1) They simply choose to live on less.

Even in the 1930's, most children were raised by family members, not strangers. (source #2) They didn't consider this to be a a "luxury". Does anyone else think it's terribly sad that people are apparently dreaming of the day when they can stay at home with their child?

Is the economy *really* so much worse now than in the 1930's? Or is it just that "time with the kids" is one of the first things on the list of priorities to be given up, not the last? Is this a personal choice or just fate? Does society pressure women to give up staying at home, and if so, shouldn't we object to this coercion?


(Sources: "The Two-Income Trap" Warren and Warren, "Home by Choice" Brenda Hunter)

Er, can people not *choose* to live somewhere other than San Francisco or Manhattan? Did I miss something there? My hubby had a great job offer in NY, but didn't take it because the cost of living is too high there - he took the job offer in Phoenix instead. So folks are choosing to live in an expensive city, they are not victims of fate.

Answer 1

the middle class is in a very peculiar position these days. for one thing, the middle class is dying, and for another, when they do exist, they sometimes struggle as much (if not more) than lower-income folks, because they CANNOT GET GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. they make too little to pay for health insurance, create a college fund, save for retirement, etc, but they make too much to qualify for any government assistance whatsoever. i grew up below the poverty line. when i graduated high school, my college was entirely paid for because of this. i have friends though, whose parents were lower middle class but not BELOW the poverty line, who couldn't even go to college because their parents couldn't pay and the government wouldn't help them.

this brings me to the debt issues. many of these children from middle class homes take out loans to pay for school. this often leaves them in perpetual debt for the rest of their lives, further compromising their ability to live on one income when they do have a home and family.

point is, things are more expensive now-a-days than they were many years ago. people could own their own house and car on one income. they really can't today.

see the link below for even more facts about the disappearing middle class.

Answer 2

"When did we decide that raising one's own children was a luxury hobby for the wealthy, like yachting? "

This is an intellectually dishonest premise. According to your reasoning...and sources...if the average family made $26K more per year they would be wealthy...and no doubt off yachting somewhere??

After federal, state and local taxes...social security, and all other appropriate monies are withheld (roughly 33%) that $26K in additonal gross pay will *net* the family a little over 15K per year....or about $1200/month. Think for a minute how much families pay every month for housing... food... insurance... transportation... heat...electricity...diapers... childcare (even single income households use babysitters occasionally!)...etc? While it certainly helps make ends meet, and aids parents in having security against the unexpected...and assits in planning for college...how can an extra $15K/ year make a family wealthy?

"Why do people think that our ecomomy (SIC) is suddenly *so* terrible that only the very rich can afford to live on one income?"

This is a terrible misuse of the Transitive Property. Working hard to have the income necessary to provide advantages to your progeny is a constant for most parents... regardless of whether the economy is growing or recessing. Your implication is that families would be somehow better off living a subsistence level existence!? That may be PC right now...but eventually most of those families will end up leveraging their children's future or burdening society with expensive social programs to fund college and/or retirement costs. How on earth is that better?

"Even in the 1930's, most children were raised by family members, not strangers. (source #2) They didn't consider this to be a a "luxury"."

Do you really want to compare the lifestyles, norms and mores of a typical 1930's family to a modern family? While families of that time may not have considered raising a child a *luxury*...they DID consider having a job and eating 3 meals a day to be a *luxury*! Finishing high school....never mind attending college....was a *luxury*. And, women typically weren't allowed to work outside the home...OR WEAR PANTS FOR THAT MATTER!! Sexuality, artistry and expression were repressed. Being divorced was akin to being a leper...and minorities were treated as subhuman. But hey...kids were reared more so by family members so that makes it all ok!!?? WTF?

"Does anyone else think it's terribly sad that people are apparently dreaming of the day when they can stay at home with their child?"

The ability to exercise their free-will is not a sad thing. Exercising free-will has consequences...both good and bad.

"Is the economy *really* so much worse now than in the 1930's?"

Your obsession with comparing 2007 to the 1930's makes your entire argument all the more suspect?? I'd venture to guess that the sources you've cited are the basis for your entire position and you're incapable of thinking outside the logic box they presented. In either case, there is no means or measure by which you could establish that our current economy is *worse* than it was in the 1930's.

"Is this a personal choice or just fate?"
LOL...if these are my only to choices I'll take personal choice.

"Does society pressure women to give up staying at home, and if so, shouldn't we object to this coercion?"

WOW!!! Ann Coulter is that you?? Next are you going to suggest that women are over-burdened with the right to vote?? Did women feel coerced into working outside the home in the first place....or did they spend generations FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT??? Does the average women need to be coerced into conceiving a child ...or is that (AGAIN) a personal choice?

You can object to perceived societal pressures if you choose...but in reality you're objecting to a women's decision to exercise her rights and freedoms (which AGAIN come with CONSEQUENCES!!)...not some ridicules notion that they're being coerced into NOT staying at home.

Answer 3

Children are a depreciating asset. Like a car or boat.
Children have no intrinsic value or inherent wealth.

They are a luxury item and should also be taxed just like any luxury good.

The reason for this i think has to do with not needing children for labor as well as inflation.
Inflation is also much higher the what the government officially says it as
Wealth is what you own resources and assets that appreciate as quickly or faster then inflation.
Labor has to do with productivity and its efficient use of capital. Its not vary efficient to have a child just to mow the grass.
So you need to ask yourself how does having a child increase my wealth?
The answer: it doesn't where as in 1930 it may have.
Children increase governments and a states wealth, if they become productive, but they do not increase the parents wealth.
While the parent or parents incur all of the costs.
Cut and dry really oh unless there are talented or gifted in sports etc. It would be a high risk undertaking at the vary least.
Even in the 1960s a single worker family could provide for a spouse, home, car, 3kids and new luxury items. Even "tech" items electric sowing machines, radio clocks etc..
Now no way, that's called inflation even after productivity.
Sad maybe but its not going to change so your going to need to adapt. Save up maybe one day you can afford the luxury of a child.

Answer 4

You are right to a point. We make our own priorities and it is a shame that it has become a luxury to stay home with our kids. But you are being judgemental. Maybe these people grew up in the city and that is where their family is, or where the jobs in their field are. Maybe the career choices they made were not the best (My husband is in tool and die and couldn't get a job to save his life so he took general labouring jobs for half the pay). I went into accounting because I always figured I could start a business from my home so I could be with the kids. We don't have extravagant things or a huge house or cable tv or cell phones. We live on the bare essentials and eat healthy home cooked cheap meals. We don't go out etc. I could go on and on.

Basically, what I am saying is that I agree that it's become a luxury and I think that you are very lucky to be in the position you are and should not judge others for not being able to get there too.

Answer 5

Boy oh boy - your question will gender a lot of opinions !! I am more than happy to try and give you an answer that helps........I have been around a long time, was born during the great depression. We had very little, but we had both parents at home.....and we felt safe even tho later on we had air raids and knew at any time we could be bombed. Yes, this was in America........when World War II came. So many men went to war that the American homes were pretty much without a husband and father. Women began to then wear slacks (they did not wear slacks prior to this) and to go to the factories to help the war effort. Women began to do men's jobs in the factories, like riveting and welding and such. This meant, of course, that they had to leave their childern in the care of others, but it was mostly family members, like grandparents. It was not baby sitters for the most part. After the war, folks liked the idea of two incomes. It gave them the MONEY they WANTED, to buy things. This seems to be the start of what we see today, that is, moms going off to work when it is not absolutely necessary. In other words, many women want what their income can buy, and they do not mind leaving their kids in daycare. In my humble opinion, this has been a major contributor to the lack of positive parental influence on our modern day kids. Kids need their parents....and they need a mom to be at home for them. I know this seems old fashioned, and maybe simplistic, but it is the truth. Modern families could get along on one income a lot more than they do.....and put off buying THINGS until after the kids are raised. Our children's lives ought to be worth more than the THINGS we want to make our homes lovely. But too often this is not the case.

Answer 6

Times have changed so much, I wholeheartedly agree with mairzydo. I dont judge people who choose to work outside of the home, because we all have to do the best that we know how. I do, however, feel that as a society, we have lost touch with the importance of spending quality time with our children and teaching them good Godly values at home.

I do believe that any mom who truly wants to stay home can find a way to do so if her family is supportive and willing to downsize a little. There are many things that you can do from home these days. Soon, young children will be at school and then there are more options. But thats if you have good public school options or resources to put your children in private. Otherwise, I would just have to homeschool, because in my city, public is not an option. We came from a wonderful public school district in Michigan, but this new city was quite a shocker for us. And there are some things that I would just not subject my kids too. (i.e. free birthcontroll without parental consent--- not in my school district, I would take my children out!)

If you are a mom and would love to stay home with your children ask God to show you a way, perhaps you could reduce to part time. There were some great books referenced in the original question. If that is your great desire, dont spend a lifetime trying to fill other goals, believe God to help you with this one. Nothing is too hard for God. We've had tight times, but God has always been faithful when we have trusted in Him and done all that we know to do, He has taken care of the rest.

Answer 7

Good question. I think that if a couple is financially very stable and the woman wants to stay at home raising her kids thats fine but the truth of the matter is that most couples are not stable enough to afford only for the husband to work while the wife stays at home to raise kids. Not only that but in today´s society a woman is expected to be in the work field, Unlike the 1930´s today´s women finish high school and go to college so women today want to get an education and not so much be in the home raising kids. Women of today want to have kids but want others to raise them, they wanna work and go to school while a family member takes care of their kids, its expected of today´s women to be working and have an education just like men do...

Answer 8

With inflation, tax bracketing, and high-paying jobs having been outsourced overseas, I'd say it's in pretty bad shape. There are highly demanding fields that leave little time for one's personal life. Besides, even if a married couple can survive on only one income, it's best for both of them to have their own money, just in case.

Also, the wealthy tend to leave their kids with nannies more than anyone — those women are very busy with nail appointments and luncheons.

Answer 9

I don't know where you live...but I live in Southern California, and trying to live on one income is a joke. It would be near impossible for my husband and I to raise kids on 1 of our incomes.

And I think that for the first time in history, people are starting to realize that they have options. Contrary to popular belief, kids that go to daycare are NOT attention-starved monsters, and that is a viable option. Yes, some people would rather have the 2nd income to make lives better for themselves, and their children. This is not selfish. It's practical.

Fact of the matter is, everyone has to make their own choices. What may work for one family, may not for another. There is no need for any blame or pointing fingers on either side.

Answer 10

Try living in a city where a tiny house is $800,000 and rent for a two-bedroom duplex is $1700 or, for a two-bedroom apartment, $1550. Sorry, but I'm not moving up to the middle of nowhere and living next to a trailer park and making my hypothetical husband travel three hours through rush hour traffic to get to work every day so that I can stay home with the kids for two years before they're in school.

Answer 11

Actually, it used to be, at least until Victorian times, that *not* raising one's own children was a luxury hobby for the wealthy. Many, if not most, children of wealthy families were raised by wet nurses and nannies.

The economy is really NOT so much worse. It's not worse at all. (People's wages in comparison to cost of living may be worse; the choice of full-time rather than crap part-time jobs may be worse; the way corporations treat their workers is considerably worse.) People just think they need all kinds of things that they actually don't need. I was raised in a single-income family and was never wanting for much. A colleague of mine belonged to a family of 12 children raised on one income; they kept a garden.

P.S. And, like Carrie said, we were all indeed raised in the middle of nowhere, U.S.A., with actually rather few things to do, few people to meet, and few things to experience. Though I nonetheless received a great public education in the middle of nowhere.