Be a quitter! Rebecca Hagelin urges mommy's to reconsider their life's mission

Interesting. My wife stays home with the baby, we wouldn't have it any other way. Sure, there's a sacrifice, the same sacrifice our parents made for us - our time. My wife was there for our son's first words, his first steps, and his first fever. And there's never been any confusion over who he calls "Mommy."

How tragic for society when a family's choice to raise their own kids has become stigmatized.

And the economy is the same as it was in 1950, that being a free market economy where "we makes our choices and we pays our money." The one omission where I find fault with the article is that it assumes a father for every household. No fault divorce and the feminist drive toward Daddy-state government is fast driving fatherlessness into the rule rather than the exception.

First of all, we're living in a mixed economy, not a free market economy. Secondly, the cost of living has skyrocketed over the years while real-wage earnings have fallen. I'm not going to quote figures here, because they are readily-avilable elsewhere, but the days when a single breadwinner could support a middle-class suburban family lifestyle are long gone.

Perhaps it's time to define "need."

In our home, our needs don't come close to those listed (no SUV, no Nintendo, one television, etc). Our needs are the utility bills, the mortgage, auto insurance, food and diapers...and very little beyond that. None of these things are free. At this point in our lives, they are also not completely paid for by my husband's salary alone. I work the absolute bare minimum necessary to supplement my husband's income: 16 hours a week. I work two weekday evenings (I leave for work immediately after we've had dinner together) and overnight every Saturday night. Talk about guilt-free employment! My kids are with their father the two nights I can't tuck them into bed, and they have no idea I am even out of the house on Saturdays. No childcare, no welfare. All it takes is some innovative thinking, some sacrifice, and finding an employer who is willing to work around weird schedules. It can be done.

Having said that, I am going on maternity leave next month and have NO intention of returning to work afterward. My husband got a promotion. Yippee!!!

I quit work about 5 years ago when our kids were both under 7. I have to admit that there are times when I feel worthless and/or guilty because I don't contribute monetary-wise. But my husband sees the difference in the kids now that I am home, and he thinks I should be here. Thank the Good Lord that we can swing it now, the early days were full of the screams of the nickles I was pinching ! But when my kids tell me how much they like my being home instead of working, it's worth every sacrifice. I can have pretty things later.

"...the cost of living has skyrocketed over the years while real-wage earnings have fallen.

That's simply not true. See post 19.

"I'm not going to quote figures here, because they are readily-avilable elsewhere,"

That's the classic response of people who can't back up their claims.

"...the days when a single breadwinner could support a middle-class suburban family lifestyle are long gone."

This will come as a surprise to my wife and the significant number of women in our neighborhood who stay home with the kids on the middle class incomes of their middle class husbands.

When commuting and daycare expenses typically exceed $500 per week (with one child), there is no question that without generous government subsidies and tax credits, staying home with the kids would make the most economic sense for the typical middle income family. Daycare is an ideologically - not economically - driven phenomenon. Feminists hate the family. The loathe the traditional roles of married heterosexual parents.

That's the classic response of people who can't back up their claims.

No, the data is readily available, and here it is. This was taken from DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2000, which can be found here:

Despite recent increases, the real wages earned among the less-educated remain well below their levels from 20 years ago. For instance, the real earnings of men with only a high school diploma are almost 20% lower than they were in 1979; those of men without high school diplomas are over 30% lower. These changes reflect the many changes in the structure of our economy (such as new technologies, growing international trade, etc.) that have created a premium for workers with high levels of education or skills.

It's nice that you know people who can survive on one income while maintaining middle-class standards, but that is no argument, since I know just as many who can't. It's the height of presumtion for you to apply your moralistic position to everyone, regardless of their personal financial and economic circumstances.

Please explain how my brother who makes $20,000 per year should be able to support his family on that income alone. His essential bills are a car payment of $233 per month, $150 per month for auto insurance, $250 per month for student loan repayments, $80 per month for utilities, $300 per month mortgage, $150 home insurance, $100 per week grocery bill. Those are not all of his essential monthly bills, but probably a good representation of them. Keep in mind that his job offers no healthcare benefits, so he must deal with that out of pocket when the need arises for his family of three.

A lady I know studied "communications", got a teaching degree, was all set to "make a difference" and go out to preach the liberal gospel. Then two things happened. She had a baby, looked into its eyes and thought (her words)" "What am I doing in a party which encouraged me to abort my baby?" At the same time, she tuned in to Rush.

Now she is a dittohead and her garage is her workshop. She does folk art she sells at arts and crafts shows. The kids are with her all week and her husband, who busts his back doing construction, takes care of them on the weekend. He picked her up at a show and told me his job is so much easier because he knows the kids are being taken care of.

Financially, they haven't sacrificed much if at all. If they need more money, she does more shows.

Cute, using the word "moralistic" as if there were something evil about morals.
The blurb you quote refers to the uneducated and the undereducated - a population dominated by none other than the same young singles as 20, 30, and 50 years ago. I was one of them once. Incomes increase with age if you're fit and willing to work, regardless of education level. The one thing the poverty pimps alway fail to mention is that the "poor" demographic is a transient one, with only a minute permanent membership enabled by social welfare.
And I'm not your brother's keeper, so I have no idea what to make of his extreme condition of underemployment. Is he a missionary or something? Personally, I get by by not worrying about a new wardrobe, 50 inch TV screen, or expensive vacations - and I drive a beater.

And I'm not your brother's keeper, so I have no idea what to make of his extreme condition of underemployment. Is he a missionary or something? Personally, I get by by not worrying about a new wardrobe, 50 inch TV screen, or expensive vacations - and I drive a beater.

That's exactly the problem--your view assumes that everyone is working in a high paying IT job or some other professional field. The fact that you write off and casually dismiss the lower-middle class as "underemployed" is an indictment of your position. If the rich and upper middle class are capable of following your advice, then that is fine, but painting everyone with the same broad brush as you have done is certainly erroneous.

You have quite a talent for cutting and pasting HTML code!

"That's exactly the problem--your view assumes that everyone is working in a high paying IT job or some other professional field. The fact that you write off and casually dismiss the lower-middle class as "underemployed" is an indictment of your position. If the rich and upper middle class are capable of following your advice, then that is fine, but painting everyone with the same broad brush as you have done is certainly erroneous."

This is America. As soon as you start talking about some "class" of people, the idea alway seems to follow that there's a victim somewhere that needs us to help him out, usually out of our pockets via our tax dollars. That's generally where massive government subsidies to the daycare industry set in. Before daycare, low income - implying poorly educated - couples who both worked used relatives as babysitters. Anecdotally, I recall the kids of such couples in the neighborhood being the bullies and the delinquents. Today we're raising an entire generation of such kids courtesy of the daycare industry.

At $20,000 per year ($10 per hour), I don't care who he is, he's underemployed, especially considering the college education implied by the college loans you mentioned. You can make more than $20,000 pumping gas nowadays without even having to work overtime.

I'm very qualified to contribute to this subject. Eight years ago I was laid off from a very good paying position. My husband was/is a high school teacher. When I was laid off, I was earning 60% of the family income ... and I remember feeling back then how we were always 'broke.'

We decided that I should stay home, and somehow we would make it. It was amazing to me the amount of money that we just wasted --- child care, new cars, lawn service, cleaning lady, errand service, gasoline, fancy clothes and shoes for Mom, dinners out, splurging at the mall, etc. We were able to cut back an enormous amount right away. Our children at that time were 7 and 17. And, I must be honest here, I still hate the housework part of staying home--my house is not as clean as when I had a service keep it up.

It has not always been easy, and we have borrowed from Peter to pay Paul many times. But I don't regret it for one moment. I realized that I missed most of our older child's early years. She was raised by caretakers and teachers at school. That old "quantity" of time argument is just not true!

I now drive a 10-year old car, but my husband has a 2 year old car. We don't eat out often, or spend money on too many extras, but we've been able to take our kids on 3 cross country trips in our motorhome over the summers.

The biggest myth that I see is the one that says Mom and go back to work once the kids are in school. In hindsight, I truly feel that children need Mom at home MORE in their older years, especially high school. At this point in my life I tell younger women that if they must work, do so when the kiddies are young, but come home and be in the home when they are in junior high and high school. You won't be rewarded with a nice new car or fancy house, probably, but you'll have a much better chance of your kids turning out OK.

Flame away at me if you must, I can take it. I am a woman who has raised children!!!

The very term "underemployed" implies a class of people, does it not? Remember however, that I am not here to argue for governemnt assitance for such people, but rather that both husband and wife shold be out in the workforce to make ends meet. Thus, my argument is actually one of personal responsibility and is anti-big government.

There are lots of people in America who make little more than ten dollars an hour. Especially if they work in the service industry, which used to pay much more in many cases, but no longer does. of course, such people can get by if both spouses are working, but not if only one is. That's the whole point of my argument!

"The very term "underemployed" implies a class of people, does it not?

Depends on your mindset, I guess. To me, it implies individuals who have not reached their full income potential, whether it be for lack of education, youthful inexperience, or laziness. In Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed, the second chapter goes into deep statistical explanation of how the working poor consist almost entirely of the young, inexperienced entry level workers. In other words, poverty is a temporary condition in all but the most socially hardened cases. The socialist model does not stand up to the slightest analysis unless poverty is defined as a static permanent condition suffered by a specific class, most popularly today women and minorities. Feminism, race baiting, and poverty pimping are the industries put into place to maintain this socialist status quo.

"Remember however, that I am not here to argue for governemnt assitance for such people, but rather that both husband and wife shold be out in the workforce to make ends meet. Thus, my argument is actually one of personal responsibility and is anti-big government."

You haven't convinced me that your argument is anything but ideological (or moralistic, heh heh). Who gets to decide the definition of "Making Ends Meet?" The answer to that question is invariably some social welfare agency at the ready with an upward sliding scale should the economy inconveniently improve.

Who gets to decide the definition of "Making Ends Meet?" The answer to that question is invariably some social welfare agency at the ready with an upward sliding scale should the economy inconveniently improve.

No, the answer is that it is neither you nor any social agency who get to decide. Rather, it is the decision of the couple invovled whether both of them should be working outside the home or not. If both spouses believe that they need to be out working to support the family, then that is a moral decision. It would be immoral for the couple not to support the family by any means sufficient, or to go on welfare simply so the mother could be at home with the children.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.