To Work or Not?

When we analyzed the cost, it made no sense whatsoever for my wife to work. Child care was expensive, and the remaining income would be wasted on taxes (AMT? No thanks). She has been a stay at home mom ever since. I am not complaining, that's just how it is. More people should do the math. Couples should seriously consider the single-income option. There must be an incredible number of couples who could ditch that second job with little (if any) loss.

I agree with most of the comments. Look if you want to have a career, that's fine with you. It's very simple. Don't have any kids until you are able to take care of them and spend time with them. If you do have kids then I think it's both parents' responsibility to nurture them and raise them. It's a team effort. Helping the wife around the house won't hurt you either. In this day and age is so easy to let the TV and Playstation provide support to the children.

One of the best work-family balance is found in India, where the system of joint families is still prevalent, though not as much as it used to be, thanks to the western influence on city-slickers. Here, both parents can be working, and the kids will be looked after by doting grandparents who do instill family, cultural and spiritual values in the children. It's usually a win-win situation for all parties involved. Kanan Divecha, Mumbai, India

The study's findings reveal exactly what I have witnessed watching kids grow, but it totally misses the reason why. Kids are smarter and more intuitive than we give them credit for. They know when a mother has to work to provide for them and when they choose the career over the family; i.e. kids know when they are second or third place in a parent's life and thus the drop in cognitive scores.

perhaps they're just bad parents...

This article left me with many questions about the original study. My own children and family have been "human subjects" in over a dozen studies. In fact, I filled out a pre-study questionnaire earlier this week, so have recent recall of some of the assumptions that may bias that study even before it begins. (Actually, after my comments, a revised questionnaire was used that was somewhat better.)

So, to some of my questions: What was the economic definition of "privileged?" Did the study examine if the children would still be "privileged" or "higher-status" without the mother's earnings? What other family composition factors were considered? Was the study balanced for economic status of the parents in their own childhoods? First or second generation of privilege? Type of child care provided for the children?

What about the question: Should the fathers of privileged children return to work? Was that considered? Or would that be a ridiculous question to ask?

Of course, since our children would no longer be privileged if I quit working, the conclusions don't apply to us. The study is clear that the privileged children fared better even if their moms worked.

BMcCann seems to have reached a more logical conclusion than Christopher Ruhm, the creator of this study, did. There is a big difference between a woman who works out of necessity and a woman who has a career because she is ambitious and achievement-oriented. The woman who works from necessity will usually, as mentioned, work an hourly job that has a set number of hours, so she returns home at a regular, relatively early hour, thus allowing her to spend more time with her children. The woman who works because she wants to, assuming her job is at least mid-level in the corporate structure, either works more than 7 hours in a day and might do extensive traveling in her job, thus keeping her out of the home for a good part of each week. If interaction with the mother is a factor in a child's intellectual development, then the reason for the difference between the two socioeconomic groups in this study becomes clear.

There's a factor that appears to be missing in this study. My assumtion would be that the "lower status" moms have hourly jobs, which usually limits the number of hours she's expected to be at work. I would also guess that "Higher status" moms are mostly on a salary, and the expectations regarding work hours are probably different. This could have a huge impact on the hours that mom is able to spend with her kids.

Here's another factor that I don't in the research. I would guess that the "lower status" moms mostly had work that is paid on an hourly basis, which usually limits the number of hours that she's able to work. "Higher status" moms are probably more likely to be on a salary and therefore are expcted to work many more hours to get their job done. That's been my experience and I don't see it mentioned here at all.

Hi, I found this article really interesting, especially in its last part. As a trying-to-work-mom in a very maternal society such as italy (even worse then the US in term of work-family-balance policies), I do have a constant struggle trying to make people around me understand that it's important that male-spouses also take up their role as educational stakeholders for the children. Man can also come up with ideas for their children upbringing...

Hi, I found this article really interesting, especially in its last part. As a trying-to-work-mom in a very maternal society such as italy (even worse then the US in term of work-family-balance policies), I do have a constant struggle trying to make people around me understand that it's important that male-spouses also take up their role as educational stakeholders for the children. Man can also come up with ideas for their children upbringing...