Investing In One's Career
Many times, I've done things that do not really pay -- in hopes that they will pay later.
I've been doing my radio show for over a year and a half now, for which we pay $40 a month. Yes, PAY. And I read and annotate, beyond my regular science reading, and take about 8-10 pages of notes on a science book a week.
I do this because I think this will eventually pay -- and frankly, it has, by making me far more comfortable when I'm on TV or doing other media, and better at radio than I've ever been.
On a related note, there's a letter about the cost of things in The New York Times -- specifically whether a woman should work when her individual salary doesn't justify the cost of child care, and I think it's right on:
Tax Disincentives for Working MomsThe attitudes described in "How the I.R.S. Hurts Mothers," by Lilian V. Faulhaber (Op-Ed, April 4), are precisely those that keep women from "leaning in." The notion that a wife should not go back to work if her individual salary does not justify the expense of child care is wrongheaded.
When my husband and I were starting our careers and family, I was making less than he was, but we did not calculate whether it made economic sense for both of us to work based on my salary alone. We recognized that the expense of child care was an investment in both of our careers, and one that would enable us jointly to achieve a certain level of income and support our family. The result: We both invested in our future by working. Eventually, my annual income exceeded his.
If women take themselves off the career track based on whether, early in their careers, child care costs eat up a significant portion of the family's income, they will never achieve income parity or career success.
AMY SABRIN
Washington, April 4, 2013
Well if your primary goal in life is income equality, and career success, then. "Why exactly are you having kids again"?
because possibly they are cute little ornaments of how genetically superior you are?
if you and your husband or wife don't have a partnership where you both put your individual goals, and sometimes careers on hold, for the sake of your children and sometimes your elderly parents, and other elderly relatives who need care, I am not sure why you got married to begin with.
We have a name for people who successfully put career and high income ahead of children and family.
They are called "single and childless" and should remain so.
Isab at April 13, 2013 11:43 PM
My wife is a successful School Psychologist. Well respected in her job, and well educated with both undergrad and graduate degrees. We have 3 children, all over the age of 25, and all have successful lives.
How did she do it? We married at 19 and 24, had children by the time she was 30, and she completed her grad degrees by 31. The first full time job she had was when she was 32. Of course, my being in the military had a lot to do with that...I think my credit score is still recovering.
We've been married 34 years. And I don't think we'd change anything. We know it's a partnership, and we're in it for the long haul.
Mike43 at April 14, 2013 12:31 AM
I'm with Isab.
Ppen at April 14, 2013 12:37 AM
Ironically enough, both my parents made choices that did not maximize their incomes or their potential in order to do right by the marriage, their extended family responsibilities, and me.
My father stayed home and ran a small business out of the garage in back of the house that he had built himself for his family to live in. His job was work that he loved, and he did it well until a week before his death at 80.
My mother a Phi Beta Kappa college graduate in 1946, went to work as a school teacher when I was 4.
Work and money are the "means" to an end, the end being a good life where you are able to pursue your values and your interests.
Only a "me generation" narcissist like the letter writer in the NY Times could get the means, and the ends so totally fucked up.
Isab at April 14, 2013 3:40 AM
Excuse me, Isab, but work is not a mere means to an end for many people, including your dad in the example you provided yourself. For some of us, work includes our greatest interests and values. Taking joy in one's work in and of itself is one of the secrets to a happy life, and certainly does not restrict one from building a family. There are workers of all kinds--artists, CEOs, mechanics, hairstylists, etc.--who are passionate about their work while successfully raising families. Many are financially comfortable, some even rich. But yes, many of these fulfilled workers may work at a loss at some point, and some of these loving parents may choose not to stay home with their kids at some point--horrors!
I think of it less as investing in one's career and income potential (though it can certainly pay off in those areas) than investing in one's happiness, personal potential, and quality of life, all of which can make one a better parent and set a good example for kids. I also don't see a certain amount of non-parental caregiving for kids as unhealthy. Yes, Mommy-at-home-till-they-go-to-school is "cheaper", but isn't it healthy for kids to get a lot of non-parental socialization? I can say that my brother and I were very isolated in an otherwise loving nuclear family till we went to school, and we suffered for it.
Anyway, families have to work out their own balance and solutions, innovate and find their own way to "do it right". I think the letter raises great points and didn't find it to be entitled at all.
DS at April 14, 2013 5:22 AM
I believe in income parity.
But the thing most people seem to miss is what happened to the time that income parity didn't really matter because a single average income could support a family of four.
Now a family pretty much needs two incomes to survive
Jim P. at April 14, 2013 7:21 AM
I'll preface by saying that I am a stay at home mom, for those that don't know, since I don't comment very often. My parents (and step-dad) also worked full time when I was growing up, so that's where my opinion is coming from.
I think of it less as investing in one's career and income potential (though it can certainly pay off in those areas) than investing in one's happiness, personal potential, and quality of life, all of which can make one a better parent and set a good example for kids.
We recognized that the expense of child care was an investment in both of our careers, and one that would enable us jointly to achieve a certain level of income and support our family.
The problem, DS, is that those two statements are contradictory. I agree that for some people, the happiness and fulfillment they achieve from working exceeds the possible economic setbacks from paying more in daycare costs than they get from the second income. But that's not what the letter writer was talking about. She was looking at it purely as an economic investment, not as a personal fulfillment investment. I'm sure this woman isn't representative of every working mother, but I'm just as sure she is representative of many of them.
As to the second half of the excerpt, yes a parents (or more specifically, let's be honest, a mothers) fulfillment can make her a better parent, but only if she is so selfish as to put her own personal happiness above what is best for her children, in which case, IMHO, she wasn't going to be a great parent either way. Not to mention, what better example can you set for kids than that they were so wanted that their mother chose to spend her time with them rather than working for her own fulfillment. This is from a woman who chose and planned to have children knowing that nurturing and teaching them would be fulfilling in it's own way.
In that aspect, I agree with what I think Isab is saying. Having children is an investment in itself, one that requires sacrifice. If you aren't willing to sacrifice for your kids, why are you having them? That isn't to say that every family has to have a SAH parent. Just that there are as many, if not more, benefits to the children in having a stay at home parent as there are when both parents work.
Lastly, yes children need stimulation outside of just their families, but that in no way needs to come from daycare. Almost every city has some kind of ECFE program where kids can meet other kids, can be watched for a short time by other adults, and that costs $20-40 per year for a weekly get together, not more than one parents income. There are also several mom groups, usually aimed at those with kids too small for school. My point is, there are plenty of opportunities for children to be "socialized" before going to school, without losing the invaluable benefits of having one parent stay home.
Jazzhands at April 14, 2013 9:08 AM
My husband stayed home with our son for the first year, because my project got funded, and I was raring to go back to work. Then, we hired a nanny who worked for us for 15 years. I wouldn't change a thing--and I sure would not have plunked my kids in government-run day care. I don't think full-time day care is a great idea for babies and toddlers in the first place, and secondly, I hate government-run anything. I'd approve tax credits or even payments to offset the cost of care, but I think there must be better ways to make child care work than getting the government and SEIU workers involved.
KateC at April 14, 2013 12:17 PM
To Isab:
There's more to it. It's not just a matter of WANTING to work - or grow - outside the home.
From an Oct. 1987 letter to Ms. Magazine (in response to the complaint that feminism doesn't support housewives enough):
"Six months ago I too was a self-described 'happy homemaker'; I baked bread, grew roses, played with my toddler. Then I woke one morning and found my husband ( and our car, our stereo, our checkbook, etc.) gone. I was COMPLETELY surprised; I had assumed he was as happy as I was!
"I had to immediately find a job (which pays a third what his does); arrange for day care: try to scrape together enough money for food, mortgage, and utilities.
"Housewife is NOT a valid career option because you have no control over your own life. If you lose your husband you can't go down to the employment agency and apply for another one!"
And here's a 2000 John Rosemond column. (It made Dr. Laura furious because it doesn't jibe with her mantra "I am my kid's mom.") Note the last two paragraphs in particular.
By JOHN ROSEMOND
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=799&dat=20000816&id=ZpY1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=u04DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3432,5628169
Q: Of the 40 mothers represented in my 4-year-old son's pre-K program, I am one of only 3 who work outside the home. I do so not for economic reasons, but simply because I enjoy it. My son knows his after-school situation (the school runs a small after school program) is unique, and he makes it clear, almost daily, that he wants me to stop working so he can come directly home at the end of the regular school day. I've explained over and over again why I work, and I give him more than enough of my time in the evenings and on weekends, but nothing short of my quitting my job will satisfy him. Is there something else I can do, something I'm missing, that will help him adjust positively to his situation?
A: Yes, you can stop talking about it with him. Letting children express their feelings freely has its place, but letting a child express the same feeling over and over again, especially when nothing is going to change, is not in the child's best interest. For one thing, allowing a child to "beat a dead horse" in this manner creates a soap opera within which the child begins to perceive himself as a victim.
Your son is not a victim. There is nothing "wrong" with the decision you have made in that it does not compromise your son's development in any way, shape, or form. The more you explain yourself, the more it appears that you are pleading with him to understand and forgive. The fact is, you do not need forgiveness, and he will not understand the whys and wherefores of your decision until he is much older.
So save your breath. It's time you stopped being mealy-mouthed and started acting like an authority figure who has confidence in her own decisions.
At the next opportunity, sit down with him and say, "We have talked about my job enough. You've obviously said all you have to say, and I've said all I have to say. I know how you feel, and you know how I feel. So, I've decided we're not going to talk about it any more. From now on, when you want to talk to me about my work, I'm simply going to tell you to find something to do. If I see that you need some help to stop thinking about it, I'm going to have you do some work for me like clean your room or police the yard. Got it?"
Then, the next time he brings up the subject of your job, simply look at him and say, "I'm not going to talk about it. Have you got something to do, or do I need to find something for you to do?" And say it with a stern, "I mean business" tone in your voice. And if he needs some help disengaging, provide it! Prove to him, in no uncertain terms, that you will no longer tolerate attempts on his part to beat the expired equine.
The next step in your rehabilitation will be to stop giving so much of yourself to him during the evenings and on weekends. Like a typical well-intentioned working parent, you're putting your son at the center of your attention entirely too much.
He needs to see that outside of your job, you are not a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out with a sign reading "What can I do for you?" hung about your neck. Rather you are an interesting person with a variety of interests and responsibilities, of which he is one. An important one, yes, but not the only one.
(end)
For the record, HIS mantra is "Want your kids to be really happy and independent? Put your marriage first - or, if single, put your adult life first."
lenona at April 14, 2013 1:10 PM
There are so many amazing artists, innovators and other people who just plain love and continue their careers who still manage to raise wonderful kids. And they, too, make sacrifices for their kids, even if there's never a parent at home full-time.
For some, like Jazzhands, staying at home is a great choice for the family, and that's fantastic. But I hate the lingering assumption that mothers who want to pursue careers and earn money are inherently more selfish and raising worse kids than those that choose not to. There so many issues in this that vary by family. Money is a perfectly valid issue. Could securing their kids' future be one reason the letter writer and her husband want to maximize their income potential? And can't someone successfully parent WHILE nurturing personal happiness through work he or she loves? How is this any less valid than nurturing marital happiness, as far as providing a healthy foundation for kids? Doesn't it impart to kids the importance of striving to achieve one's potential, of having passions in life, which may or may not be limited to parenting alone?
Maybe motherhood is one mom's one great calling. That's truly lovely. But might another mom not have another calling that she adores, excels at, HAS to pursue in addition to her joy in motherhood? Is there just one type of mother children can be healthily nurtured by and that they should have as a role model, a woman with motherhood as an all-encompassing pursuit, a noble sacrifice of other interests and goals, an all or nothing vocation? If so, why bother sending girls who play with dolls to college at all?
I know I'm being silly. But seriously, there are as many solutions to the career / caregiving dilemma as there are parents. Don't assume your solution or the way you were raised would be best for someone else and their family today.
DS at April 14, 2013 4:21 PM
leonora, being forced into being a single parent through the death or departure of a spouse is an entirely different situation, than choosing to put your career ahead of your family because you want to maximize your lifetime earnings.
it has been my experience that most people who make their priorities the same as the letter writers then attempt to free ride on other parents and sometimes government when meeting the requirements of their high stress corporate job.
It takes many insidious forms from assuming that your neighbor can give your 14 year old a ride to that magnet school both your kids attend, to requesting emergency free babysitting service from a neighbor when your kid is too sick to be taken to day care.
There has been a huge charade going on in this country for years, that a two parent working family can have it all.
I just don't know many people who have managed it without paying a pretty high price in family life, and marital happiness.
Isab at April 14, 2013 4:45 PM
"I'd approve tax credits or even payments to offset the cost of care"
Not me. I'm tired of paying for other people's choices.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 14, 2013 9:07 PM
I don't know any career, besides possibly a professional athlete, where one starts at the top. Amy and Amy have it exactly right. If you don't invest in yourself, who will? The difference between success and failure is often just the willingness to delay gratification.
We didn't have much when my kids were young with a SAHM, and I wouldn't change a thing. We could never have afforded to live in places like California or NYC, but we couldn't have afforded a BMW either. Nobody has it all.
I'd approve the government stop raping the young to give breaks to the old, and I'm one of the old or at least getting there. That is unfair.
MarkD at April 15, 2013 6:04 AM
lenona, being forced into being a single parent through the death or departure of a spouse is an entirely different situation, than choosing to put your career ahead of your family because you want to maximize your lifetime earnings.
_________________________________
Did you really not realize that the housewife AND her kid would been a lot more secure had she had more training and experience than she did? Had she had less training, maybe she wouldn't have been able to get any job above minimum wage.
As I already implied, you don't want to put your SPOUSE second. However, it's for the kids' own security when you keep the role of a full-fledged adult.
The point is, you have to be PLAN AHEAD for emergencies, not just hope they'll never happen! Even kids are expected to think ahead in everyday situations - it's just Boy Scout common sense. Not to mention the problems that happen when your loving spouse is laid off and is unlikely to find another job for one reason or another, or becomes sick or disabled. After all, it means another helpless mouth to feed - unlike with death or divorce.
_________________________________
it has been my experience that most people who make their priorities the same as the letter writers then attempt to free ride on other parents and sometimes government when meeting the requirements of their high stress corporate job.
It takes many insidious forms from assuming that your neighbor can give your 14 year old a ride to that magnet school both your kids attend, to requesting emergency free babysitting service from a neighbor when your kid is too sick to be taken to day care.
__________________________________
And if you're the neighbor, all it takes is a polite refusal to nip that in the bud. What's the problem? Parents who can't be bothered to be plan ahead for THOSE "emergencies" aren't grown up yet!
Besides, what's to stop people from saying, if they want: "Fine. I charge X amount for such services."
lenona at April 16, 2013 6:41 AM
Leave a comment