Fair enough.

I'll explain my position about those on welfare. I'm speaking of the ones that go from generation to generation of being on it, not because they have to, because they just don't care. In other words, the dregs of society. I realize many are good people down on their luck, they're not the ones I'm referring to.

 

And the ones who are on it just to be on or because they don't care, are worthless. But I don't think that's a very large percentage of the people on it.

And the ones who are on it just to be on or because they don't care, are worthless. But I don't think that's a very large percentage of the people on it.

I'm not sure of the percentage, but it may be larger than you or I care for.

And the ones who are on it just to be on or because they don't care, are worthless. But I don't think that's a very large percentage of the people on it.

 

I worked for Kroger in a small town for 5 years while going to college. This was during the days of paper food stamps. I knew what customers were on welfare, and which were not. With nothing but my experience to go on, I would say a vast majority of those on welfare are bad parents, not all but most. Some work in low wage jobs and need some help to get by. That is fine with me. There were far too many, though, that were 2nd or 3rd generation welfare recipients that just didn't care. They would buy hamburger as dog food because the stamps covered it. They would send 3 or 4 kids through the line with a $1 stamp each and allow each one to buy a few pieces of the Brach's by the pound candy, collect the change and give it to Mom, then she has enough silver to buy generic cigs. This just teaches the kids how to work the system. I realize I only have my experiences at Kroger to go on, but based on this, and other observations I made, I would say most long term welfare recipients are indeed bad parents.

I worked for Kroger in a small town for 5 years while going to college. This was during the days of paper food stamps. I knew what customers were on welfare, and which were not. With nothing but my experience to go on, I would say a vast majority of those on welfare are bad parents, not all but most. Some work in low wage jobs and need some help to get by. That is fine with me. There were far too many, though, that were 2nd or 3rd generation welfare recipients that just didn't care. They would buy hamburger as dog food because the stamps covered it. They would send 3 or 4 kids through the line with a $1 stamp each and allow each one to buy a few pieces of the Brach's by the pound candy, collect the change and give it to Mom, then she has enough silver to buy generic cigs. This just teaches the kids how to work the system. I realize I only have my experiences at Kroger to go on, but based on this, and other observations I made, I would say most long term welfare recipients are indeed bad parents.

 

I do not think that is a big enough sample to make a judgment about all people on welfare.

$145k, where to I sign up to be a stay at home parent?

 

What a ridiculous plan. First of all the government can't afford it. Secondly, there would be no reason to educate yourself, or even finish high school, just get yourself knocked up. After all it pays much more than most are likely to earn with their degree. And finally our economy would come to a standstill because nobody would want to actually go to work, when you can earn more staying at home.

I do not think that is a big enough sample to make a judgment about all people on welfare.

 

That's why I pointed out that it was just my experience, but this was a very good cross section of society. We had as customers everything from judges and doctors to homeless people. I stand by what I said.

Um, don't we already have government paid stay-at-home parents? Yeah, I think it's called welfare. Look at what a wonderful job those "parents" do to keep their kids on the right path so they don't end up in jail. Must be because they aren't getting $142,844 per year.

 

Link

Maybe if we increased the pay of stay-at-home parents, we would attract better parents. Of course, it would not be fair for anybody to evaluate the quality of their work, so all stay-at-home parents would be paid based upon education level and years on the job. Because they would be on call 24/7, experience would accumulate at triple the rate of those employed by the private sector. Where do we sign up?:lol:

My husband and I worked for years so that I could be a stay at home mother. I didnt work outside the house for 5 years when my kids were little. I considered it a priveledge that most working mothers envied. To put a monetary value on it is ridiculous. The payment comes from the gift of TIME with my children and the memories we created for them and me.....going to the zoo, the museum, picnics in the park, rainy days inside playing games, reading etc...Hopefully, the big payoff will be (still keeping my fingers crossed on this one) when they become responsible well adjusted adults.

 

I know I will ruffle some feathers saying this, but I never considered the work of a stay at home mom hard, perhaps because I loved doing what I did every day. Sometimes the days were long, especially if one or all three were sick, and there definately were days when I couldnt wait for dad to get home, but overall there is no greater gift in the world.

 

To expect the government to pay her for that, shows how she perceives motherhood. Therefore, she probably would not be worth the money anyway.

Well said Beechwoodfan, tee totally agree!!

How did she come up with the $142,000 figure?

How did she come up with the $142,000 figure?

It's based on a survey by Salary.com. Its based on 10 typical job functions - from computer work, to laundry to driving to CEO - the survey calculated pay based on hours worked by more than 40,000 stay-at-home moms. A significant chunk of the $142,000 valuation is based on overtime, which adds up to an average of 52 hours a week for moms.

What a wacko. Like it's a news flash that raising kids is expensive.

 

Here's a thought: If you don't feel up to shouldering the financial burdern of having children, then don't have children!

It's based on a survey by Salary.com. Its based on 10 typical job functions - from computer work, to laundry to driving to CEO - the survey calculated pay based on hours worked by more than 40,000 stay-at-home moms. A significant chunk of the $142,000 valuation is based on overtime, which adds up to an average of 52 hours a week for moms.

 

Thanks.

What a wacko. Like it's a news flash that raising kids is expensive.

 

Here's a thought: If you don't feel up to shouldering the financial burdern of having children, then don't have children!

 

Now what in the heck are you doing bringing logic into the debate?

Now what in the heck are you doing bringing logic into the debate?

 

I bring logic into every debate. What's your excuse?