“But a family just can’t make it on one income anymore!” This is a complaint that I hear more and more from both engaged couples and families with young children as they consider whether both parents will continue to work outside the home after the birth of their child.
This issue is not one to be tackled by the fainthearted. Certainly there are strong emotions connected with both positions on whether both parents of young children should work outside the home. Before I share my personal viewpoint let me clarify a few points.
- Some families genuinely do not have a choice. Certainly most single parent families and any family below the poverty level truly cannot make ends meet on just one income even with a modest lifestyle.
- Please note that I always qualify “work outside the home.” I am well aware of the strenuous, draining, and demanding work that a parent of young children does at home. Not only is this truly WORK, it generally is very low gratitude and low self-esteem work. On the other hand, some parents’ employment is based in their home. For the purpose of this article, this counts as work “outside the home.”
- Although older children (ages 6 and up) still require a degree of physical care and certainly emotional care and presence, I focus here on the decision to work when there are younger children (under six). This is the time when psychologists tell us that the personality and values are especially formed. Besides, after the age of six a major portion of the child’s day is usually spent outside the home, in school.
- By work I mean full time employment. Even part-time employment can be a strain on a parent with home responsibilities, but at least there is some flexibility.
The advantages of both parents working outside the home are clear: increased income, standard of living, and general self-worth. The primary disadvantage is lack of time which includes not only time to do shopping, laundry, and cleaning, but more importantly, time to be with children and spouse – Relationship Time.
The advantages to having one parent at home are obvious too – more relationship time. The cost? Less income.
What distresses me most is how quickly most new parents assume they don’t really have a choice because “You can’t really make it on one income anymore.” Given the above disclaimers I’d like to challenge that myth.
It costs to work outside the home. Not only are there the costs of child care, clothes, lunches, transportation and higher taxes, but also the hidden costs of not having time to shop for bargains, cook inexpensively, and make items one would otherwise buy.
Does it really cost more to support a family today or have we raised our expectations of how high our lifestyle should be? Yes and No. Indeed, our tax structure is regressive and inflation has decreased the value of real wages, but sometimes families are not working for the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and health care. Instead, it’s the extras of fashionable clothing, owning a larger home, and electronic “toys.” Some young families assume their lifestyle should match what it took their parents 20 years to reach.
For example, in 1967 the average car cost 21 weeks wages of a median family. Today the average car costs 27 weeks’ wages. The catch is that today’s average car has a lot more features like air conditioning, a CD player, electric windows, instant locks etc. Actually, a current equivalent car would only cost 17 weeks’ wages. Of course car makers don’t make what we would consider a stripped down model today because what used to be considered luxuries are now considered necessary. (OK, I’ll admit airbags are a valuable safety improvement.) But perhaps we aren’t willing to tame our hunger for more stuff, for the sake of family relationships. The same pattern is true for families buying their first home.
By now you probably catch my drift that although there are circumstances that warrant both parents of young children working outside the home, too often it’s a self-deluding trap. It takes sacrifice, creativity, and independent thinking to have a parent at home but it’s not as impossible as the conventional wisdom leads us to believe. At least it’s no more impossible than the heroic effort needed to sustain the hectic pace of a dual income family trying to do it all.
Susan Vogt speaks and writes on marriage, parenting, and spirituality. She has been married to her husband, Jim, for 40 years and they have four young adult children who wander the world in search of meaning. Susan lives in Covington, KY. www.SusanVogt.net
Photo credit © Rick Lord | Dreamstime.com
I’d like to say that the one thing that is not mentioned in the article is health insurance. I know many women who are working because their families need the health care coverage. Maternity care is often not covered with private insurance so for young families trying to grow there aren’t any other options than the risk of uninsured birth. Others have family members who have a pre existing condition that must be covered, sometimes this being their husband. Many are willing to work the minimum to acquire health insurance but the only option is often full time employment.
From everything this article alludes to, it is assuming that the spouse (usually the husband) has a full-time job with benefits such as health insurance. If the mom is a single mother (and therefore would not have health insurance without being employed), she states this is usually a circumstance in which the mother would need to work outside the home. I think it would also be considered necessary for the mother to work outside the home if her husband has some type of disability that does not allow him to work outside the home.
In many cases, I think the excuse of needing health insurance is just an excuse. The majority of two parent families do not NEED two health insurance policies or could choose to use the husband’s policy even if it is not a great one.
By the way, I am a stay at home mom with 2 children whose family lives on barely more than poverty level income with a terrible health insurance policy. My husband’s gross income is $39,000 per year and our health care expenses (including premiums, co-pays, prescriptions, etc.) is estimated to cost us more than $10,000 this year. Yes, this makes for a tight financial situation. But year after year, the Lord blesses our decision for me to be at home with our children. We live within our means and have no debt other than our mortgage. We get by with creativity; saying “no” to extras like a second cell phone, cable tv, and all forms of childcare (mother’s day out and other part-time childcare services); eating simple yet healthy meals; buying only the essentials of clothing, shoes, toys, etc. My children do not feel deprived or like they are missing something. They enjoy spending time together as a family, going on frugal outings, and playing without the need for the latest and greatest gadgets.
I know it is not possible for everyone, but I would challenge everyone to seriously consider their situation. Decide how much of their expenses are non-essential (cell phone plans, tv, eating out, name brand clothes, nice cars, houses they cannot afford), and decide what the cost is of not being home with your kids during these early years. Will you look back and say, “I wish we had more stuff when our children were young” or will you say, “I wish I had spent more time with my children were young”? You can get more stuff and live more “comfortably” later, but you will never get those early childhood years back!