Jennifer, good point!! We are an uneducated town, and the closest uni is an hour away, the next, 3 hrs away... so parents have to be able to afford uni, and them living away from home.... so few actually go.....
Bath, my sister is in the same boat!! her DD is at my sons preschool, and her weekly fee is more than my monthly one, and Za goes more days then her DD! She couldn't earn enough to cover the cost if she returned to work and lost all of her CCB....
I assumed that this meant that it was bad for the economy because these women are not in the workforce and no longer contributing to taxes. I guess also that the government feels hard done by as they have put a lot of money into educating these women and are getting shirty as they are not paying it back in the taxes they were hoping to get from them.:
"We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society,
There are many studies that show that there are pros and cons to being a SAHM or a working mum (part-time or full-time) - basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. I don't feel guilty about my choices and I refuse to let anyone make me feel like I am not doing a good job or the right thing by my girls. They know they are loved and they get plenty of time with mum and dad plus they also get time with friends, grandparents and carers.
I have a tertiary education, and then some, and right now I am a full time sahm, and plan to be for some time. Sometimes I feel like I am wasting my education, and feel bad as my mum and dad paid for me to go to uni. Going from a double income no kids family, to one income has been incredibly difficult, and we have had to make a lot of sacrifices so that I can stay home. I got no paid leave and in my profession, paid maternity leave is rare. It would be a hell of a lot easier if I went back to work, but then I would miss out on so much of my DD's life. She is only going to be young once, and I do not want to miss a thing. My DH works hard to support us and he wants me to be home with our DD. One day, when I am finished having babies, and they are in school, I will return to the workforce, and again use my education.
Yeah, but wouldn't this be less of an issue in the US, where the education system is mostly user-pays (particularly tertiary)? And I can see your point on taxes, but the inference here is that the family income is probably still high and if the women go back to work at some point, they'll still be tax payers. Given the lack of social welfare in the US and the constant cry for tax cuts I'd think that this is minimised anyway. Plus, over her lifetime, even if a woman does stay at home for an extended period, she will pay more tax than her non-tertiary educated sister because her wages while she is working are usually higher. There have been studies on this and the tax return rate for a tertiary education overall is very high, irrespective of individual choices.:
And then there's the fact that women with a tertiary education are more likely to have healthier children (less demand on health resources) and also more likely to send their children to uni, which would again have a positive impact on society and taxes.
Hence my confusion as to where the problem lies.
Personally I think the US system where alot of people are only entitled to 12 weeks leave from time of leaving work (not talking about paid leave many companies over there will only hold your job for 12 weeks from time of leaving meaning if you leave at 38 weeks then you could have as little as 8 after born) makes more people choose to be a full time Sahm because they simply can not bring themselves to go back that early and then finding a new job later on is more difficult. Tertiary educated women are also more likely to have partners who can support a Sahm and children so they have that option. Bit of a dumb article and if she really cares should look at addressing issues to support those who want to work full time, part time flexible time whatever, and get women a decent amount of maternity leave in first place.
The only legitimate concern I feel is one that she never even raised - with a finite limit on places in tertiary education, a person who gains tertiary qualifications and then does not utilise those qualifications in the workforce (whether on a temporary or permanent basis) may leave a shortfall. I could see this being of particular impact on, for example, the already stretched medical industry, where educational places are not sufficient to stock the demand in the workforce.
In general, it would be interesting to see the total number of university graduates who do not utilise their qualifications in the workforce, compared to the number of women who do so in order to raise a family.
I think that is a legitimate concern - but it's the only one. But a lot of medical professionals work shifts or part-time, so maybe they all repay the investment in the long run.
I will return to work at some stage. I chose this life. We are making financial sacrifices too (boohoo no cable, poor me).
I dislike the media trying to create some sort of divide between our choices. I hope we can all see through it and be confident with our own decisions.
I should add that my concern would apply to anyone attaining a qualification for which there is much demand but limited training places and then not utilising that qualification, not just potential mothers. Otherwise, I think the entire article is an elitist and divisive crock of poo.
Jen, that's what I was thinking too - that she seems to be assuming that these mothers will never return to the workforce, when in reality, most of them probably do once their kids are old enough to be self sufficient. Plus another thing she neglects to mention is that Uni education women are more likely to be able to walk back into the same career area with a great salary after several years away, but a non-Uni education woman may find it harder to pick up where she left off ITMS.
I think this woman is either totally career driven with no desire to ever become a SAHM or she is reacting in a rather negative way to not having the luxury to do it herself, so she is lashing out with a touch of jealousy.
Im working towards getting an ecudation to get a job to support my family...but more importantly give me some adult time...
I think it's a bloody awful article. Sweeping statements with nothing to back up what she actually means. Maybe she has some interesting arguments but the article doesn't explain them so I'm left wondering. If I was going to be sarcastic, I'd say her tertiary education has been wasted if that's the best she can come up with.
I have two degrees and am a SAHM. Don't know for how long. Why did I choose this? Partly because I want to spend a lot of time with DDs and partly because of the absolute lack of challenging part-time work for a professional like me. I returned to work 12 months after DD1 was born for five days a fortnight. The company, which has 36,000 employees, claimed they could not find me any work at my previous level so demoted me two levels to a job that I could have done straight out of uni. But still paid me my old wage so $20-30K more than they should have been. Waste of money for the company and a waste of my skills. I did more work in my five days than the full-timers did because the only challenge for me was to work against the clock and challenge myself.
I will have the same dilemma when my current 12 months maternity leave is up except now the decision will be easier to make because we rejigged our lifestyle and moved to the country so that we have more financial flexibility. I did not want to have to go back to a crappy (in my eyes) job in order to pay a mortgage.
In my circle there are many, many women in the same boat. In an ideal world they would work part-time but can't find decent part-time work that uses their skills. So rather than under-utilising their brain, they opt out and stay home instead until the kids are school-aged.
Fionas - I absolutely agree - companies are very narrow minded in terms of part-time work - so many jobs can easily be factored into part time hours (or approaching full time if allowing work in evenings from home) but companies are very narrow in their mindset I find and still think that a body present in office 9-5 equals the most work completed which is far from true. Sometimes if you have worked full time for a company you can work out a flexible arrangement but even then is difficult, and with a new employer seems virtually impossible.
Extremely narrow-minded wysiwyg.
I wish researchers would put some time and energy into studying the relative productiveness of women returning part-time versus full-time employees so that we could mount a case for part-time work options/job-sharing being a great financial option for companies. At the moment they think they are doing us a favour if they entertain it.
I agree it's tough to find part-time work when you're qualified, depending on who you're working for. Which is one reason I work for myself. I was looking ahead at my career path before kids and watching those ahead of me trying to juggle young families and highly-paid professional full-time jobs. It looked very stressful! (FWIW for both men and women, but especially women with children).
It took years to get myself established and a lot of luck, support and the right connections. Lucky I started well before DD came along. I had something to build back up without taking too much time out. And I'm well aware my area of expertise is an exception. Many women I see putting off having children to get their careers to a certain point. They are then in a better position to come back to the same job with only 12 mths off, but usually have to resort to full-time childcare. Which is not necessarily what they want to do.
Even when they do manage to negotiate part-time, it's usually part-time in the office and then more hours at home. Because full-time above a certain level does not mean 9-5. It means whatever time it takes you to get the job done (whenever, too, especially if you're working for a company with overseas connections). So part-time isn't half (or whatever) of full-time hours. It's handing off a few tasks/KPIs, but still getting what's left done, however you can. If some jobs have taken 60 hrs or thereabouts a week to finish (maybe not all the time, but definitely when it's busy), then even dropping back half of that is still leaving you a hectic week, especially when you have a child!
From what I can see, when you're paid well, the company expects you to be devoted to your job.
Hmm. I'm tertiary educated (Bachelors degree plus a graduate diploma) and I'm a SAHM.
So... it's better for my son for me to be working? Excuse me while I cry complete BS to that one! I know that I'm dealing with health issues that generally don't come into the equation for most people, but seriously? Teaching is such a demanding occupation and even if I was completely well, I wouldn't have had much time left for Sam once I do my job properly.
What's alarming about me staying at home? Apart from the fact that my non-tertiary educated husband is the main income earner and can't earn as much as I did... but I can only see how that would alarm us, not others.
I honestly can't see the point behind the article!
BW