Well, today I am on a rant -- not a state particularly unusual for me -- but this time it is for the benefit of all you stay-at-home moms out there. It seems that no matter how many bras my generation of women burned or refused to wear in the name of equality, nothing much has changed. Though women make up over half of the workforce in America, they STILL do not earn as much as men. Granted, some do, notably those who belong to unions. Female professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers, and attorneys make a great deal more money than the average woman. This we all know. We also know that in the majority of marriages, the working wife/mother does the majority of the housework, shopping and child-rearing in addition to her paying job.
However, where the inequality REALLY shows up is when a woman reaches retirement age. A married woman who has never worked receives one-half of her husband's social security amount. So together, a couple would receive 50% more than the husband's social security when both have reached full retirement age. If she has worked and has earned more or an equal amount as her husband, then she might receive her own benefits, rather than her husband's. The government is saying that a woman who has stayed at home raising her children isn't worth as much as her husband. (I know, I know....she didn't pay into the system.) Raising children is not valued by our predominantly male government officials.
The only thing worse, and which I and many other women of my age are experiencing is this: we were divorced and now are only permitted to receive one-half of our ex-husband's social security, if the marriage lasted ten years or more. The figure social security arrives at is one which takes the ex's social security amount, divides it in half, then subtracts the woman's social security amount from that number. The most a divorced woman can get, unless she has been lucky enough to earn substantial wages over her lifetime, is only half of what her ex is receiving - the same amount as the wife who never worked. The difference is that the latter still benefits from her husband's full social security income. If you have been a stay at home mom, as women in my generation and the ones before me were expected to be, you are, in effect, penalized because of it. It means you either live in dire poverty, or you must work until you drop dead.
I also have some acquaintances who have never been married and have always worked. These women have not held high-paying jobs, and find themselves in a similar situation where they cannot afford to retire and will have to work for the rest of their lives. Conversely, a single man will normally retire with plenty of money coming in. I suppose there isn't any solution for this, given the mess our social security system finds itself in. After Medicare benefits are subtracted from the social security check, there isn't much left with which to survive.
The point of this is to tell younger women to work as much as possible. Personally, I believe mothers should stay home with their children at least until the children are in school, but I realize that may be impossible in today's world. Even if day care costs as much as your wages, you are building up social security wages. In the event the system is still in place when you retire, perhaps you will see some equality.
5 comments:
Hi, I found your post on WAHM. I added you to my blogroll. Please check mine out and see if you want to do the same. I do like your blog and will be checking back in!
Just have to say, you really surprised me at the end. I honestly couldn't tell if you were kidding. I decided you weren't but I am confused.
I'm a stay at home mother of 4 who has chosen to remain home to homeschool my kids clear thru their school years. We live on one income that is borderline federal poverty level but we choose to live a simple life and we have everything we need and some extra. We have fun and are pretty happy. For better or worse, I wouldn't think of giving up this treasured and very valuable time with my kids in trade for the slim possibility of bigger checks in the mail in some far off distant (and possibly non-existant) future. If I died at, say, age 64 it would have all been for naught. And you said yourself that women who have worked their lives away did not see the benefit from it anyway. What's the point? The only thing I can count on is these kids in my life on this day at this moment. I will not dump them in order to feed the system. Period.
Another thought. Perhaps what you're saying we should all do is exactly the government's grand plan...that it's all about "encouraging" us mothers to work our asses off all we can. They've done that my making it impossible for the majority of mothers to stay home with their kids, even as tiny babies. It's all cold and calculated. They know that changing the system to help women and taking away the fear of too little income would backfire on them...that it might actually give atleast some of the women some slack in the reins...encouraging them to REMOVE themselves from the work force or atleast cut back, in turn taking money away from the economy and hence the government. They don't want that. They know what they're doing. They know who typically lives longer too. They don't care. So unfortunately I don't see it happening.
As a mother and grandmother (you) who has been around to see what REALLY matters most in this life, I guess I was just shocked to see what your recommendation is. Hopefully what you inadvertently did was point out to any woman concerned about it was that it isn't going to matter much one way or the other in the end.
Money is a priority but it can't be at the top of the list.
Actually, I believe mothers should be at home with their children. I realize our government and corporate America have put women in the position of having to work. Our society bought into materialism and now is paying the price for that. You are right, the government doesn't care as long as the tax money comes in.
I just find it ironic that my ex is married to a woman who didn't give him any children, but who will benefit from his social security and hers together. I, who bore children, will only benefit from half of his. In Pennsylvania, if a man wants a divorce he can get it in two years, even if the wife contests. (Not my case, but true nevertheless).
By the way, I congratulate you on homeschooling. I wish I could have done the same with mine.
Thank you for the compliment! :o)
Just trying to figure out your last paragraph because it seemed you were contradicting yourself. First you said work as much as possible, then you said stay home with your kids, then you said put the kids in daycare even if you barely break even doing so.
I've known mothers who've held a job that doesn't pay, though not for that reason. They did it knowing eventually they wouldn't have those daycare bills and that when that time came, their wages would also be higher because they'd been at that same job those few extra years. I always felt they were trading their heart and soul for a sack of magic beans....beans that can never give back all that they missed out on.
Maybe you just have to look at the whole thing another way. I figure if I could get even half of the soc sec benefits of a jerk I was no longer in a relationship with, who no longer had any attachment or responsibility to me, that's doing pretty good. Don't be jealous of his present wife's situation. Isn't she just basically sharing his full chunk, essentially getting half of it,just as you are...if you think about it? That means you are actually getting the better end of the deal. For the same "pay", you don't have to put up with him, but she does! LOL!
I know that sounds contradictory, but what I believe and what is reality are two different things.
If an unmarried woman wants to retire on more than a pittance (way below federal poverty level), then she either has to get a high-paying job or get married. If she stays single, more likely than not, she will not have the high-paying job. It's just the way things are.
No, I am not jealous of the new wife. Quite the contrary. I wouldn't want to be married to him again. And I am glad for the extra $150 a month I will get because of the length of time we were married.
Sorry if I have given you the wrong impression. It is just that this situation exists and I don't think it is fair that married women who have never worked end up getting more social security than someone who has worked for many years. Married or not.
Post a Comment