“I agree with that sentiment. I am sure there are many dual income families that could make some changes so one parent could stay home. and in some cases that is the right choice for the family, and in others it's not. But seeing as how this article was about the cost to raise kids, including daycare, I am sure you can see why I responded the way I did.”
“your orignial comment was about how you and your wife saved money on childcare by her staying home. my response was simply that saving on an expense while forgoing a revenue stream does not mean that you saved money. now, as I said above, it's a wonderful choice to have a parent stay home. I personally don't have that choice right now, but completely respect the decision to do so, just as I respect the decision to have two working parents. I am not arguing either side. All I am saying is, for many people, the loss of income is higher than the lowered expenses.”
heymack on Nov 2, 2012 at 14:12:13
“My point was to elect a lesser life style (smaller home, etc) so that one parent can stay home...not about saving money...but I guess I did use that term. If 2 parents can afford a 4000 sq ft home and daycare then they can probably afford a 2500 sq ft home with one of the incomes and one at home....its about choices.”
“okay, but then you have to count lost income into the equation of raising kids. In one example, let's say husband and wife each earn $50K per year, for a total of $100K, and let's just keep it simple and net it down to $60K after taxes. Child care is $10K per year. Cost of childcare is high, yes. But loss of earnings is $30K after taxes. And then take into account the amount of money not going towards 401(k), other savings, raises, and promotions. It's a wonderful choice for one parent to stay home. But don't act like it always equals savings.”
heymack on Nov 2, 2012 at 13:40:04
“Who said it equaled savings? You can't put a price on the raising of kids by a parent at home vs not at home with outside caregivers. This is not about money...those that think it is are the ones that are wrong. Those that think its about money would rather make more money, have the child care and maybe save a little more....but as I stated, this is not about money, it is about the kids.”
Sep 5, 2012 at 10:51:13
“So true. I actually learned from watching the food network! My daughter is not yet 2, but I am already trying to teach her a bit about cooking, and plan to get her more involved as the years go by. I want her to have the basic knowledge of cooking, because I see it as a fundamental life skill. She might not always enjoy it, but she will be able to feed herself!”
“Thanks - you are right that there are a lot of other items I can bring for my lunch rather than just leftovers. I think I am going to try making my lunch side by side while I make my daughters. We enjoy many of the same foods, and if I am already taking the time to make one lunch, I may as well make two, right? Thanks for the support.”
WWJJD on Sep 5, 2012 at 10:51:31
“You are so welcome. It is hard to try and eat healthy when you are on the go. I try and take nuts with me wherever I go just in case. Are you on Pinterest? I found a lot of good lunch ideas there. ”
Aug 30, 2012 at 14:51:19
“I am with you, but I could do a much better job of cooking if I didn't work/commute so much. And yes dads should be involved. Often they are the most clueless of all, though! A good thing it keep in mind as we (collective) raise our sons for the next generation of dads.”
Mollyannie on Aug 30, 2012 at 16:00:30
“Those long commutes are the pits. I do think the younger dads are doing more childcare than previous generations, so that is good. Both my sons CAN cook healthy, but the younger does put it into practice more.
Aug 30, 2012 at 14:48:09
“even if you buy organic, if you are buying whole unprocessed foods it's doable for many. buying organic is important to me, but I wouldn't be able to afford it if I didn't cook from scratch.”
Antidiot on Aug 31, 2012 at 16:42:51
“Technically all food is "organic" since it is all derived from living things.”
Mollyannie on Aug 30, 2012 at 16:11:09
“There are a lot of young people, unfortunately, who do not know how to cook from scratch. One of the best wedding presents I got waaaaay back in 1970 when I got married was a cookbook. Still have. Still use it. Good ole Betty Brocker. :-)”
“agree! reminds me of michael pollan calling those things "food-like substances". I do my best to be healthy and cook from scratch, but it is harder for me because I work full-time. Not trying to make excuses, but I find lunches to be the hardest for me. I enjoy having a fresh, warm meal and not reheated leftovers in the microwave. Plus, I like going out to enjoy spending time socialized with co-workers. I think the flip side of the problem is the go-go lifestyle today where we are all expected to work 40+ hours a week, commute in traffic, need two-income households, etc. But, I cook as much as possible for my daughter's sake - she eats fresh, organic food made from scratch 95% of the time. I, however, slip up way more!”
WWJJD on Sep 1, 2012 at 23:36:31
“You are doing the best you can, which is WAY more than a lot of people. Do you like sandwiches or anything you can take that wouldn't have to be reheated (I am with you, I hate leftovers)? Or some hummus with vegetables and flat bread with some grapes? Something you can just eat without it being a big deal...”
“what kind of work did you do? I work 8 hours a day, with a commute. There is no way to "go home" for 20 minutes twice a day to pump - which is what would have been required of me if I had a horrible boss like this man or like you, and thankfully I never did. It would have taken me 40 minutes round trip to get home, plus the 20 minutes to pump. How would that have worked? How would that have helped my value as an employee, and helped my employer? Or, maybe I should have spent the extra 80 mintues driving home just to please you at the office, and taken away from my time with my baby.
I am SOOOO glad for you that you never had to pump at work. You are very lucky. I hated pumping and running around looking for an empty office to do it in. But, it was best for my daughter. Again, I am very glad there are LAWS in place, so people like you don't get to make the rules.”
“you don't know what you are talking about! going the car doesn't necessarily work. most pumps need to be plugged into a wall outlet. and who says she is trying to get rich? She just wants a safe place to pump milk for her baby. people like you are the reason these laws have been made.”
“I think it's great that health insurance has been expandded to cover kids until the are 26 (that is actually part of Obama's health care plan), and I do understand the dependent laws for taxes as well. But I personally do not agree that parents should HAVE to support legal adults. Wonderful if they want to. I know it helped me a lot, and I plan to do the same as much as possible for my own kids. But I disagree that all 18 year olds cannot support themselves. That is silly. Many do in this country, and many parents could not afford to support them. Again, they are legal adults. They can vote. They can die for our country. Unless we want to change the law of when a child becomes an adult, I fully disagree that parents should ever be forced to support their 18 year olds.”
SuzieV on Aug 22, 2012 at 12:57:31
“Actually my job has offered coverage for our kids until 26 long before Obama was in office. I started there in 01 and it has always been this way.”
“Hmmm, well in my family, my dad did. And with all of my friends who were lucky enough to have parental support, the father was part of that. So I guess it's just who you know. But, there is no law that parents have to pay for college anyway. I can't imagine there should ever be a time the courts rule that parents have to support 18+ year olds. And I don't think they should.”
SuzieV on Aug 22, 2012 at 11:21:23
“Actually another person posted information on this topic and provided information that prove's you and I are wrong. I did some research on the topic for my state and in fact a non custodial parent can be court ordered to support their children while they attend college. As we all know 18 year olds are not able to support themselves. Even health insurance allows for parents to continue to cover their children until the age of 23. Where I work my kids are covered until they are 26.”
“as a mom who breastfed, the issue for me is that infants eat ALL THE TIME, and not on a set schedule. if I never breastfed in public, I would not have been able to go anywhere, for fear that my baby would become hungry. And no, you don't withhold food from an infant (esp a newborn) like you would an older child who needs to learn a schedule. You feed on demand. On top of this, breasts produce milk, whether the child is eating or not. Esp if said child is crying, the mother will physically respond by producing milk and that could lead to leaking, engorgement, and other medical issues if ignored for a long period. Finally, breastfeeding can take time - 20 to 30 minutes each time. If I have older children who want to go out and have fun, but can't be left unattended, what am I supposed to do?
These are all answers as to why breastfeeding is different than pretty much anything else. Also, I really don't think anyone who has not breastfed a child can understand, as I did not before I had my daughter. A society that makes it this difficult to breastfeed in public, basically pushes women towards formula. And that is the problem - breastfeeding is best, and therefore needs to be encouraged.
I will say that I personally chose to cover up while in public - it's my comfort level. But, that should be my choice, and not anyone”
“I bottle fed baby could have just as easily spit up in a pool. In fact, my daughter had acid reflux, and as a baby sometimes spit up a couple of hours after nursing or bottle feeding. No one can control the bodily functions of an infant, and I assume that is why there is a kiddie pool for the small kids - to isolate them. But even still, I don't see how your point is relevant to the act of breastfeeding.”
Whatdoyou thinkof this on Jul 13, 2012 at 19:07:43
“You bring up a good point. no one can control the body function of a baby. Babies cry. It is not illegal for a baby to cry in church, at decibels that hurt ones' ears. However, it is very inappropriate. It is not illegal for a baby to cry at an expensive restaurant, but you bet that mothers will not be staging a cry-in to demand their right to have their babies express themselves.
Be considerate of those around you. it's not all about you.”
“Well I can't 100% agree with you. I believe ALL should be free from co-pays, but don't agree that no one should as an alternative.
But, I still feel like the part you are not getting, is that both men and women go get a physical every year (or they should). Both men and women pay a co-pay at that physical. At the same physical, men get a prostate screening, but women don't get a pap smear, a breast exam, etc. Women then have to make a SECOND appointment with a SECOND doctor to have that done. So, if they had to pay a co-pay for their pap smear, they would actually be paying two co-pays.
Regardless, my belief is that all preventative medicine should always be co-pay free. It's not currently. But, right now we have one item that is - women well visits. Instead of saying that we should take that away from women, how about instead we extend the same type of coverage to other preventative screenings?”
howie G on Jun 29, 2012 at 16:33:20
“I agree too. I'm saying it should never exclude any segment of society. Imagine if the bill said only whites should get full coverage for well visits. Would that be ok? If not, then why is it ok to say only women should get full coverage for well visits? That's the current way the bill is written. Men don't get full coverage for well-visits , only women do. So your statement that the physical is a copay for women is incorrect. Only the physical for men has a copay. And then the screenings the women are sent for are also paid in full.
Also, it's not true that only well visits are fully covered. There are several screenings and counseling services that are also covered in full -many of them only for women. (such has HIV+ counseling)
Here's that list again: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html”
“This is the dumbest argument EVER! Are you saying that MEN won't benefit from the hanky panky???? You are crazy. Women don't need birth control unless they are having sex with men, so I am pretty sure this is something men can enjoy too.”
“my husband has a "free" aka included prostrate screening every year with his phsyical. The difference is women go to a specialist (GYN) for pap, etc, and still need to get a regular physical. If men had to go to a urologist specifically for penis issues every year, then that should be covered too. But right now they don't. I am not saying they should or should not. However, most primary phsysicians won't do a pap smean, and GYNs won't do regular check up testing, so for us it's two doctors per year.”
howie G on Jun 29, 2012 at 15:44:10
“That's great. I know many insurances cover it as part of the policy. But if they don't then men have to pay while women are free from copays. All I am saying is that both should be free, or neither should. The govt. should not be excluding any segment of society from the full coverage laws they are enacting. Whether it's blacks, men, or Asians. Either all equivalent screenings should be covered for all, or no one should.”
“yes! Why are strollers acceptable and harnesses are not? Why is it okay to encourage children to sit and be pushed by parents, but not okay to use a tool that teaches them to walk independently and by your side? I don't even use a harness (yet), but have nothing against them and would if the situation comes up.”
“I agree with what you said, but need to remind you that you were doing this in your "little suburban town". For those of us that live in big cities, there are more opportunities for harm. But, I do agree that kids should be taught to stay by their parents. However, I don't think that using a harness necessarily means they won't learn that. It's all in the parenting.”
“This depends on the kid, in my opinion. I think first we should all try to teach our kids to stay by our sides or hold our hands. But let's be practicle. Not all kids will listen all the time, and one bolt into the street can mean life or death. However, I see leashes as a tool for toddlers, not older children (assuming no disabilities). If a child is old enough to be embarrased, they are old enough to not run into the street. Also, most walking toddlers do not want to be constrained in a stroller, as they want to move their legs. This is really not much different than holding their hands, except they feel they have more freedom. Toddlers usually appreciate freedom within boundaries, and I think a leash pretty much fits that bill.
I don't use one with my 19 month old, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't. So far, she has responded well to me saying "either hold my hand or I will carry you". Often times, I have to pick her up kicking and screaming. However, if I were pregnant or had two children or more, those possibilities would be limited. This is why I think it's important to remember every kid is different, and so is every family. So, you really shouldn't judge.”