I used to think of my status as a Stay-At-Home-Parent as being pretty rare for my generation. But lately I have started paying attention. I know a lot more Stay-At-Home-Parents then I thought and hear about more and more of us across the country.
I noticed that this rise came along with the decline in the unemployment rate. Any article on the unemployment rate these days also makes a point to stress that those numbers don't include those discouraged workers who stopped looking for work. In most cases that happens with people who have been unemployed for a very long time.
So I did what I do and started with research. That included calling the BLS for statistics on who is counted as not participating in the work force. It consists of three categories: Retired, Disabled, and Other. This makes it impossible to prove my theory with data.
My theory is that there is a rising number of the "discouraged" workers who have decided to be a Stay-At-Home-Parent. Child care is so expensive that it is a cost saving measure for some families. A SAHP can also have more time for volunteer work and that is added experience for a resume if they choose to job hunt again. At a certain point the rejections and silence effects your health and the decision to stop looking at least until there are more jobs can improve your health by reducing stress. Stress causes a lot of health issues
Baby Boomers are retiring. While my Dad is solidly in the "retired" category I use that word loosely with my Mom. She is very smart and started her own non-Profit consulting business upon retirement. Two weeks before September 11th. My Mom had been offered a nice retirement package and took it. It seems to me like most companies do that. Before layoffs they offer a retirement package to those who are eligible. Older and heavily experienced workers are expensive. If they get laid off it's going to be harder for them to get another job. The reverse is true for fresh from college workers who don't have the experience to be a bargain. The workers that are in that sweet spot are like Josh, he has a lot of experience but is still easy on the budget.
The BLS doesn't break down the "other" category but that's where Stay-At-Home-Parents fall. It also is one area that has indeed increased recently. I did get a few links from someone at the BLS but the only one with applicable data doesn't include a link to the PDF file I was given.
On our tax returns my job is listed as "unemployed". Whenever I get a form to fill out I write "Stay-At-Home-Mom" under "occupation". I think these statistics would be helpful. Economic policies and business strategies can be better structured if we get a clearer picture of the "not looking" category. When I read about women who "opt out" of the labor force there is a lot of analysis about WHY. It usually boils down to anti-family corporate policies. But women aren't the only ones "opting out".
On average women make 77 cents for every male dollar. Men were hit hardest in the recession. In recent years there has been a rise in Stay-At-Home-Dads. Women are well educated and cheaper so companies have found they can get about the same quality of work for less money. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are more Dads choosing to "opt out" of the work force in today's economy. There are a few different reasons for staying home but I do think the lack of jobs for the long term unemployed has influenced that decision for some.
There are very few rich people who control WAY too much of this country's money. We can have a thriving economy again with plenty of decent paying jobs if they did their part. If they decided they can live off of $2 million a year instead of $8 million or more. If they decided to stop hiding money to avoid paying taxes. Taxes that provide jobs. If they used that money to create good paying jobs. They could bring jobs back to America. They could stop protesting higher taxes for high earning households and acknowledge they need to contribute their fair share. They first need to admit that their selfishness is the real problem and our economy won't be improving until they change and start sharing the wealth.
They need to live for 6 months on the average salary of their non-executive employees. Can THEY survive on $90,000 a year for the entire household budget? They haven't had to try. They won't do what has to be done until they have lived as their Employees live. You don't really experience it in a week or a month. It's a 6 month challenge. I DARE them to do it.
There would be a significant decrease in people needing Government Assistance if only these greedy individuals would open their eyes and share. Back to Preschool for you Executives. You need to learn how to share. Don't complain about people needing Government Assistance if you aren't paying your employees enough to live on or creating good jobs. It might help if corporations had to pay a fine to the Government. One dollar for every dollar their Employees receive in Government Assistance. You have to put any Employers down when applying for Government Assistance already. Thanks to advanced technology this probably would be easier to set up then you'd think. If anything, it provides additional income for the Government and encourages Employers to simply pay enough to live off of...........sort of. It's doing what hasn't been done yet, holding them accountable.
But some people are home for medical reasons like me. Others are home because of the high cost of child care and/or because they want to be present for their kids. Kids need quality bonding time for healthy development. Every family has to make the choice that's best for them. But sometimes it's not a choice. Sometimes fate gets in the way and the choice is made for you. Sometimes that ends up being what you needed and wanted all along. I wonder if my theory is right. We'll see what happens if the 1% are ever held accountable for destroying the economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment