Post by awwjeeez on May 8, 2021 4:43:01 GMT -5
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “any”. I’d agree with “many”, but not “any”
Let me give you an example. Let’s say I lost my $30 an hour job in the Plant over a year ago, company went under, no ones hiring for my craft anymore. So I’m home with the kids, but that means no having to pay for childcare, no having to pay to eat out or order food 5 days a week or more because we’re both too tired to cook, not having to pay for contractors to do repairs to our home, lawn crews to mow the yard, etc., because I now have time and energy to do all that, etc. The amount of money the person I’m describing would make at McDonalds wouldn’t cover the daycare costs for the kids, much less bring any money home to contribute after that plus gas and insurance on the car to drive to/from McDs. In that case, going back to work is the wrong move because it would be a net loss. Instead of bringing home a net gain each week, I’d be losing money by paying more out than I’d be bringing in. I’d be PAYING for the privelege of working which makes no sense at all. A LOT of folks have learned to do more with less over the past year or more. Even after the Feds shut off the free money tap, a LOT of folks aren’t returning to the workforce, and I don’t blame them. They’d be suckers if they did.
If both partners in a marriage work full-time, and have kids, childcare isn’t an optional expense. Also, in my hypothetical situation it’s a marriage with one spouse working and one staying home rather than reenter the workforce. Remember, I never said it made sense for everyone, only that it made sense for some.