Quantcast

Comments about ‘Is investing in child care worth the high costs?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 23 2013 4:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Rock
Federal Way, WA

Simple economics here:
In the 1970's and earlier almost 100% of women stayed at home.
In the 1980's women entered the workforce in droves. When you double the supply of workers without doubling the demand for jobs wages go down. This is the underlying cause of "stagnant wages".

Families used to be able to survive on a single income. Not so today.

My mother baked bread, sewed our clothes, worked in the garden and volunteered at school, cooked everything from scratch. When women are not available for these activities, the cost of clothes goes through the roof, home production of food plummets, etc.

In the 1960's the courts ruled that banks had to consider both incomes when a working couple applied for a home loan. Housing prices doubled in two years, and then doubled again, until nobody on a single income could afford a to buy a home.

The two income household has resulted in lower individual income and much higher prices.

redbaron
logan, UT

"Heffernan argues that the importance of a woman investing in herself outweighs the admittedly striking costs of child care."

What about investing in your children? Taking the time to teach them, love them, play with them, and care for them in a way that child care never could. At the end of my life I won't look back and wish I had spent more time at work.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

In the 1980's business sent jobs overseas in droves. When you remove the jobs that underpin the middle class it can take two of the remaining service jobs just to keep even a modest household functional.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

Hutterite

"In the 1980's *Government Regulations forced* business to send jobs overseas in droves...

There, fixed that for ya.

Government regulations continue to do the same thing today.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"In the 1980's *Government Regulations forced* business to send jobs overseas in droves...

Wasn't Reagan president from 81-89?

Didn't the GOP also control the senate for all those years?

oops

jeanie
orem, UT

A woman who is also a mom "invests in herself" by being there (when financially feasible) for her children, creating memories, teaching them to work, being there when they come home from school to listen to them talk about their day, etc. This investment lasts longer and runs deeper than any other. A woman who works full time does not have the energy to be a "fully there" mom. I know, I have been there. The time I was able to stay home with my kids was one of the best investment I have made in my happiness and feelings of fulfillment.

Children in our home won't last forever either and our relationships with our kids are largely built on the foundation of their growing up years. It is sad to me when this amazing opportunity is seen as second choice to a woman's career - if the money she would make could be done without.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:TheRock
"In the 1970's and earlier almost 100% of women stayed at home."

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1970 43.3.% of women worked, 1980 51.5% and 1990 57.5%.

Did women's participation increase as a result of ever increasing household income stagnation and inflation, or was it the cause of stagnation? The numbers favor the former.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments