BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Mothers Face Hiring Disadvantages

this is really interesting, too.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Another good article. As I was reading, I was thinking that the study did not show all factors that could go into job hiring and salary. They were just looking at women with kids vs. women without. What they didn't show was how long the maternity leave was for the Mom and if it was paid leave. It also didn't show how long the Mom may have been out of the work force before returning to work which could affect their salary. Is it fair to pay a Mom who has just now returned to work after five years off the same as a woman who has been working the whole five years? It seems to me that the salary diffence is more a factor of work experiene and length of employment.

The difference that exists with Fathers can be explained by responsibility. In our society, women are expected to take care of the kids if they are sick or have a recital that might cause them to miss work. Most Moms will put their kids needs before their own. Therefore they are a risk to any employer of not staying with the job for a significant amount of time. They may not stay in a job if they have to choose between the job and their child. Fathers on the other hand are seen as being responsibile and having more responsibility and are less likely to quit their job since they may be the main bread winner in the family. A single guy could be seen as a risk because he may not have commitments that would tie him to his job. He would have more flexibility to take chances on his career.

I was just surprised that the research did not address any of these issues that affect job hiring and salaries.

I wish I had a link, but I read somewhere that this conventional thinking is actually not supported by data. It turns out men are more career oriented and therefore more likely to leave a job for a better offer, while women are more likely to stay in jobs longer (despite the kid issue).

Of course changing jobs more often probably does lead to better salary increases over time. But the idea that women are more risky to hire, because they are more likely to leave just isn't supported by any research.

ARTICLE IN THIS WEEKEND'S NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE

"Do worker's have the right to care for their families"
The latest front on the job-discrimination battle.
By Eyal Press

I do not know if you can access this for free on their site.

The article sites the intense discrimination against not just mothers but primary family caregivers. Some peoples case's are an outrage and darn-near-inhuman. However, I can sympathize with some small employers who simply cannot afford to pay workers who are not productive.

My husband runs a tiny company. I suggested he fire an employee because he was constantly out of the office, leaving early, not showing up at all without phone calls, and busy with personal family business (mostly argueing and consoling his stressed-out wife with three small children)

While socializing with the other employees, they complained to me it was a distraction to them and their work. They all found it they were unfairly expected to overcompensate in his absence and that they all stayed extra hours to get work done which would be done if the pre-occupied worker had been there to do his job. I understand people need personal time. I certainly do! My husband overlooked it all but saw production going down and felt tension all day from the other workers.

Where does one draw the line? What is reasonable and what is not?

The worker did his job OK when there, but the other workers (All CF except one with a teenager) were always teeming with resentment when he was.

Similarly, at my job a new hire has only shown up 1 1/2 days of her first 4 days. The half day with her sick 3 year old in tow. I'm sure we will all be sick now, but most of us stick it out and don't stay home. To make up for her lost hours, she is to come in today on Saturday. My boss asked me to come in to supervise. I said no. I sure I will be repremainded at some point for this. But, really it's not fair.

My opinion is you cannot have it all. Someone must be the stay at-home-mom/dad if one chooses children. Our society begs for it, but most people cannot afford not to work because children are so expensive.

How is it that 30 years ago married people earned more and saved more money while only one spouse worked?

Greedy insurance companies & CEOs, out of control interest rates, and yes I will say it to manys offense, illegal immigration. Blue collar people have seen their jobs disappear or their paychecks shrink. Those who actually earn a living wage spent all of it on what should be our basic right as Americans living in the so called "richest nation on earth" Healthcare, shelter, and education. We are only the "richest" nation because a small percentage earn vastly more than most. It's a farce. The average Frenchman is vastly richer than the average American without the worry and 3 times the vacation time.

You can save a lot on childcare (which apparently your Saturday-working co-worker hasn't heard of) if one parent does stay home. If you don't have childcare expenses, don't have to buy and sometimes dryclean a work wardrobe, pay for lunch when you're having an extra busy day, etc., etc., there are a lot of savngs which can be realized.

But 30-50 years ago (I'm going back to the 50s, because that's the time that people most think about when thinking about SAH parents...by the 70s, that was starting to change), real estate wasn't only absolutely less expensive (y'know, taking into consideration overall inflation); it was *proportionately* less expensive. The average mortgage could be paid by 1/3 of the average single salary. These days, the average mortgage takes more like 1/3 of the average dual salary. Things have, proportionately, gotten more expensive --- due to inflation and the fact that, as we get more (over)populated, real estate just goes up and up. As they say, "they're not making any more of it".

That said, though, a lot of it has to do with what we think we "need". In the 50s, it was:

a 1200 SF 3 bedroom, one-bath Cape-style house for a family of four or five;
ONE car (mom would often drive dad to work, or drop him at the train station for a commute to the city);
maybe a TV;
a radio or two;
a subscription to the local paper;
a single rotary telephone;
record player with one lousy built-in speaker, and LPs/45s;
bicycles;
maybe a dog or cat;
books;
clothes;
pretty simple furniture;
a simple kitchen (sink, fridge, stove/oven);
a simple walk-behind lawn mower;
a couple of 3-speed bikes...etc.

Now we've got this expanded expectation of the average middle-to-upper-middle-class "good life" as:

a 2500 SF, 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2 or 3 car garage McMansion;
one car per adult;
home security systems;
flat-screen TVs and cable (or digital cable) in the living room/den;
smaller TVs with cable throughout the house;
home computers, internet access, wireless routers, printers, photo printers, computer speakers, power strips, surge protectors;
CD players, DVD players, MP3 players, surround sound systems;
alarm systems, back-up generators, central air;
automatic garage door openers;
cell phones (and maybe Bluetooth and Blackberries);
digital cameras and camcorders;
Nintendo/Playstation;
jet skis, 4-wheelers, road bikes, mountain bikes, snowmobiles;
xc skis, downhill skis, skateboards, rollerblades;
maybe a pool out back, a grill, a big playset for little Susie;
a pedigreed dog or cat or two;
dishwashers, trash compactors, Cuisinarts, microwaves, French-door fridge/freezers, self-cleaning dual-fuel convection ovens/ranges; under-counter radio/CD players; granite countertops and birch cabinets (all of this in a kitchen that's used less and less for actual cooking; takeout rules the day);
custom task lighting through the house; washer/dryers, sometimes with their own separate laundry rooms;
mud room;
full basements, ready to be finished into yet more living space;
gym memberships and/or home exercise equipment;
riding mowers, power leaf blowers/hedge trimmers, sprinkler systems;
power washers, gutter leaf-exclusion systems, etc;
subscriptions to multiple specialty magazines (Rolling Stone for your high school kid; US magazine for trash reading for mom at the gym; FlyFishing Monthly for dad; Tiger Beat for little Susie)...
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc....

Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am. I'm exhausted...even thinking of all of the stuff on that list took forever (particularly since I don't have most of it). Again, it might not be the reality for many middle class people, but it's their expectation of what's normal. It seems the only thing we've cut out is, on average, the newspaper subscription. Everything else has just been added onto and expanded.

I plead guilty to having a really nice stereo, a really nice Mac laptop, an 80-gig iPod, and a really nice CD/MP3 collection. I have perhaps $25K worth of beautiful instruments, too, collected over a lifetime. But I'm a musician and I use all of these things professionally as well as for leisure. I don't have 85% of the stuff I listed above --- due to lack of funds and lack of wanting them. But it seems as if the list of stuff "needed" to attain the middle-class "American Dream" (or to keep up with Joneses, something that fortunately, very few on this forum seem to give a flip about) has expanded...a lot.

And we're not even talking about extra costs and premiums associated with having kids. Health insurance; orthodontia; perhaps an additional car; car insurance for teens (trust me: it's prohibitive! The stories my students' parents tell me!); summer school or camp; user's fees, even for public school sports programs; music/tennis/riding/ballet lessons; outfitting said kid for lessons (instruments/pointe shoes etc., etc.); new clothes and shoes, even for the least fashion-focused kid, due to growth spurts; boffo additional food costs; etc., etc., etc.

Add to the more-expensive real estate costs the increased costs of almost everything (food especially) due to higher gas costs, and no wonder people are road-raging on the highway and biting people's heads off in line at the grocery store. No wonder we're forgetting our basic manners: "Please...thank you...excuse me". They're looking at InStyle magazine at the checkout, parading J-Lo's and Britney's lifestyle in front of them. And for some crossed-wires reason, they think that they have to try to "keep up", poor things...worse stilll, some of 'em had kids for the same reason. Though I'm not a religious person, I have no problem taking a moment of silence for them...life must be hell on earth for them. Everyone in that equation must feel pretty shortchanged.

I'm not saying I feel sorry for these people who seem to think that "having it all" is the most important thing in life. I sort of do, but at the same time, they're not using their heads; instead, they value going along with the flock as much as possible. But I think I'd do well to be a bit wary of them. If DH and I are getting by (not easily, but OK, given that we're trying to save generously for retirement) with a small 1800 SF house, few frills, and no kids, then how are these other people (parents, mostly) doing it?

My guess, having watched Oprah's "Debt Diet" series (before I cancelled my cable a few months ago! The only show we were watching regularly was Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I fund out I could get it on iTunes for about 20% of what I was spending on monthly cable; spending $15 rather than $55 seemed like a win to me), is that most people are "doing it" via massive, crushing credit card debt, home equity debt, 5-year car loans, your own student loans not being paid off until a few years before sending your own kid to college, etc.

So, my CF pals...watch your backs at the grocery store and on the highway! It's not just your carefree lifestyle that parents and would-be parents envy. It's not so much just the spontaneity. It might be the fact that most of us are in the black (or if not, we're in the red far, far less than average). We're living within our means --- not only regarding our personal budgets, but in keeping with the overall planetary picture (I don't think I'm the only one who feels a bit...crowded...lately?). These folks are angry, tired, stressed, and right on the edge. Worse yet, it's completely taboo to talk about being in over one's head in terms of debt, so they can't even confide in their friends, lest the entire charade be exposed.

People seem to think they can have kids and make no adjustments or sacrifices. Bunk. There's nothing in the life that's not a trade-off and kids are the biggest trade-off there is. If you're going to have them, make SURE you want them, because you'll have to make due with less...either less stuff, to free up funds for the kid's needs (the figures say that raising a kid in even the most bare-bones manner costs well over $100,000; I don't remember the exact figure)...or less leace of mind due to racking up the debt to pay for the house-of-cards, breathlessly-running-after-the-Joneses life you're leading.

People who really want to be a parent (not just "have a baby") make those financial sacrifices happily and willingly. Other people with kids don't make the sacrifices, rack up the debt, end up in a ditch, and expect to be able to file for bankruptcy and have the rest of us bail 'em out, without complaint. No thank you.

Deep down, a lot of folks agree with us, but it's so much easier to just blame the messenger. We're the messengers, guys...and the message is "SIMPLIFY". Or, as the saying goes, "Live simply, so that others may simply live" (I've always read that statement in terms of "others" meaning other species...but at the rate that overpopulation and climate change is occuring, I'm starting to realize that its also for the wellbeing of human beings.)

You beat me to the punch, bonsai! I have no tolerance for people who lavish themselves with every available luxury and then whine about how broke or in debt they are. Sadly, it seems like it's the way most people live anymore. My last stint working in the mental health profession was mindblowing in that the main clientele were parents living in poverty, most on welfare and disability. They were required to bring in a couple of bills to prove residence. What bill did EVERYONE bring in -- CABLE TV! And all of them smoked lots of cigarettes. These same people would rant over any kind of copay whatsoever, though.

I also agree on those hiring illegal immigrants ruining things for blue collar workers. My husband runs a framing crew and has lost a few big builders who tried to persuade them to charge what the illegal crews do, which is not possible if you pay people appropriately for that type of work. Meanwhile, the customer is paying the same as they always do. The difference is the guy at the top is rolling in it. It's the new slavery as far as I'm concerned.

rant over, heh.

There's also a growing gap between what the CEO of a company makes compared to the worker bee. There's a real inequity there, that makes it harder and harder for the average person to get by. The fascinating thing is if you read Good to Great, which is a study of the best performing companies in the US, CEO salary is not proportionate to performance. Paying more at the top does not necessarily do anything to make the company more successful, but it does leave less to pay people at the bottom.

I also heartily agree with the average person thinking they NEED more than they do. I find it so frustrating that my partner just doesn't see things the way I do on that front (fortunately, it's not that bad). All I have to think about is my grandparents raising 6 kids in a 3 bedroom house, to realize that we do NOT need a 3 bedroom house. And we d@mn sure don't need a pool, but unfortunately most of the houses in this area seem to have one.

And all you have to do is think about how the real estate market really jumped about 5 years ago (more or less), in some cases doubling the value of houses. I know I didn't see a double in my salary. So cost of living does seem to out pace increase in wages, in my opinion, because the top makes more and the bottom stays the same.

I have wondered about this exact question a lot. Granted, my husband is an artist so we're not exactly rolling in income, but we both work hard and do okay overall. The positive part is we both get to do what we want since it's just us. But still, it is really challenging for us to save enough money to do ALL we want. We live very simply, and most of our extra money goes into our house. We looked closely at our budget while making this decision whether or not to have kids, and it was scary. Our health insurance is already outrageous, but with a kid we'd probably pay over $1000K/month (we're self-employed).

Plus, the generations ahead of us (in Cali. at least) had much lower property taxes, and thanks to Prop 13, they get to keep their property taxes at the same rate, while anyone who bought real estate after that has to pay wwwwaaaay more. The average/(or maybe it's median) house price here is around $700K, so property taxes are over $7000/year, and go up every year.

I'm constantly amazed when I see families out buying groceries, going to movies, flying on planes, out to dinner, buying new houses and cars... and just can't imagine how they do it.

I realized how much security and peace of mind it gives me to just have to support myself in life.

I come from a mom who was constantly looking for "a good provider" and to me that just seems obnoxious. I can carry my own weight, thankuverymuch, and really, long term, wouldn't want it any other way. I find it scary and a huge leap of faith to allow myself to become dependent on another person. I was there when I was a kid, and I couldn't WAIT to be an adult and not have to rely on other people for whatever I wanted/needed.

"I don't have 85% of the stuff I listed above --- due to lack of funds and lack of wanting them. But it seems as if the list of stuff "needed" to attain the middle-class "American Dream" (or to keep up with Joneses, something that fortunately, very few on this forum seem to give a flip about) has expanded...a lot."

I absolutely agree with you. There are very few things I really want. Mostly my wish list is comprised of things I need ... a hardwood floor in the living room (really, any floor, we just have to get rid of the carpet - it's about 20 years old and in really, really bad shape.)

Also, a weed-free lawn, achieved without chemicals, and a car that works.

I actually spent the weekend getting rid of stuff I don't need. It was very, very cleansing. We also moved the furniture around after shampooing the carpets.

That did WAAAAAAAY more for me than buying a Blackberry or a video game.

And the reason that so many people are buying so much [censored] that they can't afford is that they are doing it on credit. I am happy to say that we now have NO money on our credit cards, and we are keeping it that way. We are putting that money towards savings and paying off our house.

Wow. I freak if I have over $1000 on my credit cards. Some people I know have $15000 or more, and mortgages twice the size of mine (for houses that aren't twice as nice).It's easy to have things mount up though. I just paid off $1100 of vets bills for my older dog's brush with pancreatitis in March. Now it's back to school and I have $900 in school fees, and $600 in dues for the accountant's association.... and the vet wonders why I blew off the annuals for the animals this year - that would have run me another $600!

I make good money - as a single I probably earn as much as a lot of working two parent families - and I have no idea how I'd afford a kid even if I wanted one.

You're right about the "have to haves" though. I spend a lot of money on travelling because that's what I want to do. But I save hard for it. I live in an older house that is sadly in need of renos (thank God I'm handy), and drive a seven year old car. I prioritise stuff. That seems to be a big problem for a lot of people these days - they can't do that. They just want it all and want it now, and we'll worry about paying for it later. There's a lot to be said for if I can't afford it, I don't have it ...