Home

S/O Mommy wars - Need two incomes?
Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Household Management -> Finances


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


keym




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 11:54 am
Op, technically you're right. A family when they only have a few small children CAN survive on only one income.
That's why the kollel system is able to work and has worked for the first 5 years or so. It's the same or almost the same as the SAHM model. One parent works, and the family looks for the cheapest childcare options for the least amount of hours. (Hence the creation of the 9:30/9:45-1:45/2 babysitting in Lakewood). Plus living as cheaply as possible.
But then it's time for the child to go to school and the school demands a certain amount and the prices get raised every year and the other kids and they start eating more and needing uniforms.....
And that's when many kollel families leave kollel, yet they take years to catch up.
Back to top

amother




Hosta
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 11:58 am
amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:
But you are using the money. You are using it for healthcare and tuition and for things your bought in the past.

My employer pays the majority of my health insurance. Otherwise my DH would be paying hundreds of dollars more a month to cover family insurance.
Tuition is like childcare. The same kid that goes to the babysitter will be going to school in two years. It’s the same expense. At least you have a job to cover it.
And the CC debt was for tuition my DH couldn’t afford to pay so he put it on the CC and for food we couldn’t afford because I wasn’t working.(this is debt from a number of years ago. My CCs are no longer active) it all had cc interest added on top of that . It’s not paying for things from now.
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:06 pm
keym wrote:
Op, technically you're right. A family when they only have a few small children CAN survive on only one income.
That's why the kollel system is able to work and has worked for the first 5 years or so. It's the same or almost the same as the SAHM model. One parent works, and the family looks for the cheapest childcare options for the least amount of hours. (Hence the creation of the 9:30/9:45-1:45/2 babysitting in Lakewood). Plus living as cheaply as possible.
But then it's time for the child to go to school and the school demands a certain amount and the prices get raised every year and the other kids and they start eating more and needing uniforms.....
And that's when many kollel families leave kollel, yet they take years to catch up.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm puzzled by everyone saying that it's tuition that makes them go to work. I got that, I get it that even $500 more a month is better than no money more a month.

But is $500 to $1000 a month a second income????

There are some lucky women who are making WAAY more than that, maybe they have family that handles childcare on gap days (kids sick, etc) and people have all kinds of cheshbonos that they make.

But I'm not understanding how tuition costs are coming in to this whole conversation. If I make $1000 a month after taxes/childcare/etc, and the tuition for ONE child is $1000 a month (even here in Lakewood high school, bais medrash can be that much), and let's say you have 8 to 10 children (average size Lakewood family). How does this equation work?

You're not covering your tuition anyway.
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:07 pm
amother [ Hosta ] wrote:
My employer pays the majority of my health insurance. Otherwise my DH would be paying hundreds of dollars more a month to cover family insurance.
Tuition is like childcare. The same kid that goes to the babysitter will be going to school in two years. It’s the same expense. At least you have a job to cover it.
And the CC debt was for tuition my DH couldn’t afford to pay so he put it on the CC and for food we couldn’t afford because I wasn’t working.(this is debt from a number of years ago. My CCs are no longer active) it all had cc interest added on top of that . It’s not paying for things from now.

Some of us have more than one kid.

I'm sure it pays for many to work, but I'm just wondering if it's really cost effective for others. It may not be, as far as I can tell.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:08 pm
amother [ Hosta ] wrote:
My employer pays the majority of my health insurance. Otherwise my DH would be paying hundreds of dollars more a month to cover family insurance.
Tuition is like childcare. The same kid that goes to the babysitter will be going to school in two years. It’s the same expense. At least you have a job to cover it.
And the CC debt was for tuition my DH couldn’t afford to pay so he put it on the CC and for food we couldn’t afford because I wasn’t working.(this is debt from a number of years ago. My CCs are no longer active) it all had cc interest added on top of that . It’s not paying for things from now.


Healthcare is a current expense. And money isn’t free so debt incurs interest.

I get that it sucks to work but don’t say your not using the money.

Many people (in the US) work just for healthcare
Back to top

amother




Wandflower
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:11 pm
Obviously you crunch the numbers but for most people there is enough net income for a second income (whether from male or female) to justify working because being a SAHM is a luxury for almost all people.

In the secular world only people where one spouse makes an extremely high income aren't two income families.

However, as many have pointed out, many people have long term goals and are willing to struggle to continue in the work force even if the net increase in family income isn't that high at the beginning.

A significant factor in the disparity between female and male incomes (both frum and secular) are because of years out of the work force. You lose seniority; you lose skills and even your SS earnings are probably lowered because of the years out of the work force.

It is almost impossible to make up that earning gap and the experience gap and women who drop out of the work force for a significant period of time are almost always behind the eight ball in terms of earnings as well as employability.

If one is a SAHM with no real marketable skills, at least use that time out of the paid work force to obtain skills so that one is more marketable and one's resume looks more attractive to potential employers. Even if one can't do it full time, someone with motivation can always find the time to take at least one course at a time.
Back to top

amother




Saddlebrown
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:12 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Some of us have more than one kid.

I'm sure it pays for many to work, but I'm just wondering if it's really cost effective for others. It may not be, as far as I can tell.


It’s not. Some people work because they want to. And some women don’t work (which prompted the other thread ‘why aren’t my friends working’ or whatever)
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:13 pm
Ok, hypothetical situation.

My husband makes $160K a year ( he doesn't, this is hypothetical). He has medical insurance through his job. (We covered all bases now?).

I have two small children and older children in school. My childcare costs, if I work, would be approximately $1000 a month.

I can keep my two small children home and I can tighten my budget elsewhere.

What is morally wrong with this scenario???? Why would you call this woman "spoiled"? She's not living the high life. She's not rich. She might even be in debt. She just made a decision to not work and have more time for her children and it's not really costing her a huge amount of money. Why is that wrong, or even why is that not financially responsible?
Back to top

keym




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:14 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
I hear what you're saying, but I'm puzzled by everyone saying that it's tuition that makes them go to work. I got that, I get it that even $500 more a month is better than no money more a month.

But is $500 to $1000 a month a second income????

There are some lucky women who are making WAAY more than that, maybe they have family that handles childcare on gap days (kids sick, etc) and people have all kinds of cheshbonos that they make.

But I'm not understanding how tuition costs are coming in to this whole conversation. If I make $1000 a month after taxes/childcare/etc, and the tuition for ONE child is $1000 a month (even here in Lakewood high school, bais medrash can be that much), and let's say you have 8 to 10 children (average size Lakewood family). How does this equation work?

You're not covering your tuition anyway.



I don't Know anyone making the exact same amount for 20 years.
A woman starts off working 22 hours a week at $20/hour. That's after taxes, say $1600/month. That's enough in Lakewood to cover 2 playgroups+tuition. (Approximately).
But 5 years later, she's making $30/hour. And by the time she's dealing with high school tuitions, she's been promoted to manager and making $50/hour for the same 22 hours weekly. So now post tax, she's making $4000 a month. Goes a lot further in the tuition dent.

BTW, I'm using approximate numbers from RL situations.
Back to top

amother




Magenta
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:17 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Ok, hypothetical situation.

My husband makes $160K a year ( he doesn't, this is hypothetical). He has medical insurance through his job. (We covered all bases now?).

I have two small children and older children in school. My childcare costs, if I work, would be approximately $1000 a month.

I can keep my two small children home and I can tighten my budget elsewhere.

What is morally wrong with this scenario???? Why would you call this woman "spoiled"? She's not living the high life. She's not rich. She might even be in debt. She just made a decision to not work and have more time for her children and it's not really costing her a huge amount of money. Why is that wrong, or even why is that not financially responsible?


What does morals have to do with It? Each woman and family makes the choice that works for them. Morality, immorality, right or wrong don’t play in at all.

Also your calculations involve such low numbers for the woman’s income. It sounds like this woman has a job rather than a career. For many of us who have careers (that perhaps we went to school and trained for before or after marriage) BH our earning and our earning potential is much higher than your calculation. And I’m not an outlier

So not only do I disagree with your question I disagree with the entire premise
Back to top

keym




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:20 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Ok, hypothetical situation.

My husband makes $160K a year ( he doesn't, this is hypothetical). He has medical insurance through his job. (We covered all bases now?).

I have two small children and older children in school. My childcare costs, if I work, would be approximately $1000 a month.

I can keep my two small children home and I can tighten my budget elsewhere.

What is morally wrong with this scenario???? Why would you call this woman "spoiled"? She's not living the high life. She's not rich. She might even be in debt. She just made a decision to not work and have more time for her children and it's not really costing her a huge amount of money. Why is that wrong, or even why is that not financially responsible?


Nothing is morally wrong with the situation. Enjoy.
I would be bothered if the way she tightens her belt is to ask the school for a tuition reduction. Or chooses to Shul-hop rather than pay a shul membership fee. To me it would be like choosing to cut costs by signing up for Tomchei Shabbos.
Back to top

amother




Khaki
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:21 pm
amother [ Magenta ] wrote:
Getting off the career train has major costs as well! My job BH pays more than my childcare costs, plus I have amazing benefits.

Agreed. It's not just current income to take into account, but also future income. Entering the job market with a gap in your resume is not fun.
Back to top

amother




Dandelion
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:24 pm
You're making short term calculations for an issue that really requires long term thinking. TODAY she might be barely breaking even, but 5 years from now, there are raises, more potential opportunities (for even higher salary) and skills and experience gained. I've dealt with the whole breaking even for a few years so that I could get past the initial stepping stone. It's often very much worth it in the long run, even if it doesn't look like it at the moment.
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:26 pm
amother [ Magenta ] wrote:
What does morals have to do with It? Each woman and family makes the choice that works for them. Morality, immorality, right or wrong don’t play in at all.

Also your calculations involve such low numbers for the woman’s income. It sounds like this woman has a job rather than a career. For many of us who have careers (that perhaps we went to school and trained for before or after marriage) BH our earning and our earning potential is much higher than your calculation. And I’m not an outlier

So not only do I disagree with your question I disagree with the entire premise

I was using 25 hours a week times $30 an hour = $3000 a month. It's not that much but it's not minimum wage either. I'm older so I'm not keeping up with average salaries today, in my day many women were secretaries or playgroup Morah's and they didn't make much more.

You are right that if someone is a professional who has worked on her career she can make much more. But many on this board are coming from communities where women are not necessarily encouraged to become professionals, and I was coming from that viewpoint.
Back to top

imaima




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:29 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
But if you're coming home with, let's say - $800 a month after childcare costs and taxes, etc, that's maybe the cost of one tuition. Or one and a half if the school is nice. I mean, that's nice, but that's hardly a second income.

Many of us in the frum world generally have both small children and school age children at the same time.

ETA: It's the phrase "second income" that I have issue with. A mother with small children and in a higher tax bracket is NOT bringing home a second income. It's pin money, unless she has a VERY high paying job.


The same child cannot have both childcare costs and tuition costs. At some point you transition from one to the other. Of course tuition is higher though.
Back to top

amother




Magenta
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:30 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
I was using 25 hours a week times $30 an hour = $3000 a month. It's not that much but it's not minimum wage either. I'm older so I'm not keeping up with average salaries today, in my day many women were secretaries or playgroup Morah's and they didn't make much more.

You are right that if someone is a professional who has worked on her career she can make much more. But many on this board are coming from communities where women are not necessarily encouraged to become professionals, and I was coming from that viewpoint.


Ok I’m also referring to a full time position. Full time is key since that’s how you get benefits (my benefits are worth, at least 30k)

If your referring to a woman woman part time in an office making bobkes, well, it’s hard to argue that. But my question would be why? Yes working full time is hard and it’s a juggle but as others have mentioned, it is what it is. We do what we do to help support our families.

But morality doesn’t play into it at all
Back to top

amother




Chartreuse
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:34 pm
So I'm not even slightly understanding the math here. I have a very standard frum job (granted with a degree) and am making significantly more than $800 a month after I pay for child care and am very far from wealthy. I would imagine that many ppl are making more than that because your math was a $30/hr estimate based on what you said and based on all the other threads ppl post on, many ppl make more than this or they make the decision to be SAHM.
Back to top

amother




Slateblue
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:38 pm
Just want to add that the mother is not the default childcare for the family. Families with two working parents are bringing in a joint income that enables the family to pay for childcare. I hate this idea that’s it’s the woman’s job that is automatically worthless if she’s only covering childcare plus a bit more, but it’s a given that the husband should be out earning an income of however much. Women have just as much value and potential as men in the workplace, and there are men who would be happy to take over the domestic responsibilities if needed.
Back to top

amother




OP
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:39 pm
amother [ Magenta ] wrote:
Ok I’m also referring to a full time position. Full time is key since that’s how you get benefits (my benefits are worth, at least 30k)

If your referring to a woman woman part time in an office making bobkes, well, it’s hard to argue that. But my question would be why? Yes working full time is hard and it’s a juggle but as others have mentioned, it is what it is. We do what we do to help support our families.

But morality doesn’t play into it at all

Because in my little world, it's almost impossible to work full time (9 to 5).

Playgroups start at 9:15 or so. The long, long, long playgroups maybe end at 3:30, maybe, maybe 4.
Girls schools start at 9:15 and end at 3:45. My primary boys walked into the door at 1:55.

In other communities I have heard that there is no bussing so mothers are busy with carpools.

There would be a huge amount of juggling necessary in order to work full time, and even so, it would probably be logistically impossible (unless your spouse has a flexible job, etc.).
Back to top

groovy1224




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Oct 13 2021, 12:40 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
There is FICA, Medicare, State and in New York city, city tax.

Check your numbers again.

It was a hypothetical bracket, if you want exact numbers I can calculate them for you.


I think you are misunderstanding how taxes work. On each paycheck, you have FICA taxes (social security and medicare, things like that). Those taxes are basically 7.65% of the first 142K you earn. If you earn more than that, you only pay the medicare portion (1.65%) on the excess.

Then you have federal, state, and sometimes local withholding. And this is where I think you are getting confused. Say you have a combined household income of 150K. Puts you at the 24% federal tax bracket. That doesn't mean that your entire income is taxed at 24%. It's a marginal rate. The first 20K is taxed at 10%, the next 60K at 12%, and so on. 150K does not equal $36,000 in federal withholding. Your effective rate is significantly lower. Same goes for state withholding. And all that is before you take into account any deductions and credits.

Obviously everyone has to take a look at their earning potential before and after taxes and compare that with their expenses as a frum family, but no one should be thinking they only walk away with half their gross pay after taxes. It's just not the case.
Back to top
Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 2 of 3 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Household Management -> Finances

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Good mommy. Bad mommy.
by amother
10 Tue, Nov 30 2021, 12:36 am View last post
Help me match these two skirts from Shein 5 Wed, Nov 24 2021, 9:42 am View last post
Recommendations for game for two players? 11 Mon, Nov 22 2021, 4:20 pm View last post
Two Yr old on Buggy board-how to keep warm in the cold? 2 Wed, Nov 10 2021, 12:31 pm View last post
Infant ears pierced and now infected two months later
by amother
26 Tue, Nov 09 2021, 9:28 pm View last post