Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A living wage for Mothers

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 10:19 a.m. EST by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So many of the problems we face stem from a fundamental break down in the family structure due to the necessity of dual incomes. Mothers have to work instead of taking care of children, leaving them often to turn into uneducated delinquents, and later in life, members of our prison complex.

I propose a living wage, paid by the government, to the non-working parent in families where one parent works and to single parents. It would do wonders to fix the k-12 education of our children, as well as reduce the size of our criminal population.

Appreciation of the most hard working citizens, working at arguably the most critical job in our society, is long overdue. It needs to be a demand

88 Comments

88 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bing99 (71) 13 years ago

I am a single mother of two beautiful children. I receive no child support. I have been self employed since my children were very young so that I could be home with them. I did not want them to be raised in a day care center. I did very well for 9 years but am a small business and now, due to the economy, I am struggling to provide for us. I feel so fortunate that I was able to earn a full time income from home for as long as I was. My children are talented, smart, and loved by all of their teachers. They will graduate with high honors! I feel like I've had 2 full time jobs. The first and most important is raising my children, and the 2nd pays the bills and puts food on the table.

I like the idea of a living wage for Mothers. There are programs in my area where a teacher will actually come into your home and work with you and your child to assess them. I took advantage of the program and am so happy that I did. She came weekly until each child was a year old, then once a month after. Advice, suggestions, and handouts are given at each visit. This will GUARANTEE that mothers are doing their job. I think that type of program should be mandatory should the idea actually be implemented. Just my two cents. Being a mother is so rewarding when you know that you have done your best.

[-] 1 points by OWSCensorsMe (2) 13 years ago

What percentage of your income are you willing to pay in increased taxes to fund a 'living wage' for at-home Moms? I ask this as the husband of an at-home Mom, so I would probably be a net beneficiary. I personally would not support such a program.

[-] 2 points by bing99 (71) 13 years ago

Someone else suggested using the tax money that currently goes to daycare assistance programs. If that doesn't do the trick, Mom's like me could also get part time jobs or learn a craft, etc to also increase their wage. I am not saying that this idea should be a 'demand', I just support the idea. Either way, it's the kids that come first. So we do what we have to do to earn a living.

[-] -2 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

You got a better chance of finding gold in your back yard than you do getting a living wage for fucking to produce government paid for kids.

[-] 2 points by bing99 (71) 13 years ago

Ever heard the expression "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? Perhaps your mother should have had a living wage. Then maybe you would have learned some manners.

[-] -2 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Ever hear the expression "get a job"?

[-] 0 points by bing99 (71) 13 years ago

You hiring?

[-] -2 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

I'd never hire anyone who wants a free ride.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

It is more fun to dump on a middle class person than fight the corporate welfare that is draining us dry. We need to fight the 1%'s welfare.

[-] -1 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Yeah, punish the doers and reward the losers.

[-] 2 points by bing99 (71) 13 years ago

Interesting. Someone wanting a "Free ride" wouldn't be looking for a job in the first place. I've grown tired of you. Go away little boy.

[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Rofl! Let us know how you make out in that "living wage" deal. See if they throw in a free house and car.

[-] 1 points by WorkingMom2 (26) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Actually , if you look into the socio economic and demographics of those landing in the prison system, you will find across the board, they are the products of welfare mothers and very often the non working parent. As a single working mother ( widowed) I raised a son alone. Sure I used family as well as day care services to help fill in the gaps.. Thats real life. Besides bringing in an income, work also fullfills me as a human being and gave me that much needed " adult" time when my son was little. He turned out just fine.. graduated HS, attended community college, found a trade and now works full time . And yes, makes enough to support himself at the age of 22. And everyso often he will say " Mom thank you for everything" Makes it all worthwhile

[-] 1 points by OLLAG (84) 13 years ago

Communism. I have heard this before in the USSR!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 13 years ago

I think that is lovely but I cannot get behind this. In fact, I am one hundred percent behind making sure that a stay at home parent cannot utilize their spouses work credits to qualify for social security.

The two parent, stay at home mother thang, is actually recent and applied mostly to middle class-to upper middle class women and that push began in the 1920s and again after WWII. This myth is promoted when people want women to leave the workforce and hand jobs over to the men. Historically, every one else has worked. There have always been people that did not get married and single parenting. We are starting from the get go with a myth. I think that this is very important to acknowledge.

So, will it change education? Probably not. If one wants to change the education outcome then you have to look at the money that is being shoveled to testing companies and the agenda (faux privatization) of elected officials. If one wants to change delinquency then one might want to look at cops in schools and zero tolerance policies. One might want to make a dedicated effort to get gangs off the street.

While I believe that your intentions are good, I do not think that this adequately addresses the problems and, therefore, is not a real solution. We cannot return to a time that never existed.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

I'm sorry but your neo-con agenda is anathema to me. Cops in schools? What, kids dont join the prison complex soon enough for you already? And this bullshit about single mothers being upper middle class? Our inner cities are what this solution proposes to fix, not the burbs.

Thanks but no thanks to your prison complex, managed by the wealthy populated by the poor, and paid for with tax dollars.

Disgusting.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 13 years ago

Um.......you are looking for a fight where none exists. I am against zero tolerance policies and cops in schools. I am also against for profit prisons. You need to run a search on a study called the School to Prison Pipeline. I think that it was kicked out by ACLU or NAACP and I cannot remember which.

And secondly, I stated that the married, stay at home parent thing is historically a middle class phenomena. If you read your history you will find that parents of lower classes both worked and that there have always been single parents. The whole nuclear family thing was pushed starting in the 1920s.

It is because of the problems that we know exist that I consider your proposal to be overly simplistic. Please reread what I have written.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 13 years ago

I'm all for it. then my wife can quit her job and still make a living wage. What happens if we get divorced? Then I can raise one child and she can raise the other, and we can both stay at home and make a living wage, and the government can pay for it. We could even cut down on costs by living together. Sounds like a great plan to me. I'm in.

[-] 1 points by screwtheman (122) 13 years ago

Its called welfare.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

I think it would help, but I believe in a limit to it so people don't take advantage of the system. Like limit it to paying for 2-3 kids.

[-] 0 points by steven2002 (363) 13 years ago

We should pay single mothers $200,000.00 a year. We can tax the rich to pay for it.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 13 years ago

Welfare, and how do you propose to pay for nationwide welfare?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

A nation as wealthy as ours can afford it. Do the Koch brothers really need millions?

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 13 years ago

How about oprah winfrey? does she have too much money? How about actors getting 20 mil for a movie? too much ? or athletes, do they get too much money? What business is it of yours or anyone to cap what person makes ? This nation is debt due to overspending. The USA takes billions every month, but if you spend trillions, there's a problem.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 13 years ago

There is. Its called section 8.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Corporate welfare takes far more from you every day than preventing homelessness does.

[-] 0 points by justaguy (91) 13 years ago

How much are we talking about? I can see people all over quitting their jobs to get their living wage while hanging out at home.

I was a single parent. I raised my daughter alone since the time she was 2. She is now 22, and has her own child. They both live with me now since she is in school and works.

I'll be honest, if she were to take government welfare (that is what it would be), I would strongly oppose her on it. It is in her and her child' best interest that she have an education and that she have a career that she can use.

Your proposal would also then have millions of women (and men) with no income or prospects for jobs after the kids are grown. We would need to take care of them until death.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

I love the idea. But how would we deal with white trash couples who don't work and keep producing babies for this money?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

It seems you cannot read. I never said we should only give the money to non-white mothers. Perhaps you should return to primary school education and become literate? You can come back to the forum afterwards.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

Are you hurt because you live in a trailer park somewhere on the outskirts of Alameda?

If the solution was so obvious for you and you estimated that we shouldn't provide white trash mothers with the same rights and benefits as other mothers, what does that say about you? I'm stunned! How this can seem like the obvious solution blows my mind. Are we living in 1911 or 2011? Common man, come on man.

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

Don't worry, he accused me of hating Latino's because I said Lucy a few posts ago. I'm pretty sure his only goal is to see how many people he can call racist in an hour.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

Ya, I know. I read that exchange between you and him. I'm just playing around. He's an easy target. He pretty much digs his own hole. It's late night here, I'm just a tad tired so I thought I'd take a few jabs at the forum idiots before going to bed. He's number two on my list.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

I didn't bother looking it up, you're right. Places with names like Alameda and people like you just don't interest me. Boredom is the poison I fear the most. I like to visit areas with intelligent people who are able to engage in articulate discourse.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

I'm sorry you had to go through such a hassle to move your trailer on that island. Do you have a public library on Alameda? A school? Is it a prison island like Alcatraz? Are you a fisherman? Is your wife's name Dolly, and does she fetch you a beer when you snap your fingers?

When you have time, can you correct the spelling in your posts? English is my second language and I sometimes get thrown off when it's not written properly. Thanks bro.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

Dang Mickey, I was hoping for a more creative comeback.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

I'm going to list the many great contributions by white trash trailer boys.

  • people names like: Misty, Sunshine, Billy Jo, Jolene, Mickey D, Cletus, Jedediah, Tammy, Dolly, Jennylynn, Darlene, Torrence
  • place names like: Alameba, Nantasket, Tijuana
  • pet names like: Sparky, Blacky, Buck, Lovely, Pity, Misty, Mickey
  • words like: dang, jeepers, jolly, negro, yee-hah
  • associations: KKK, Knights of the Clan, Merry Knights
  • backyard explosives
  • jet cars
  • overhauls
  • mullets
  • 35 year old grandmothers
  • father/grandfather hybrids
  • brother/sister couples
  • toilet throwing competitions

Sometimes it's better not to participate in culture ;-)

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Ok, so French Canada has some accomplishments, though I wouldn't exactly brag about those.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

I'm not Québecquois. I'm a descendant of the first French colony. Go to your island library to learn more. Do not be afraid to educate yourself. Free your mind from assumptions, and clean your mouth from racist rhetoric. But first, clean your trailer because a man's abode must be spiffy if he is to take upon himself the hard task of learning.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

Since when have the French abandoned the French language? Again, do you or do you not have a public library on your isolated island? Unhappy? Canada is considered one of the best places to live in the world, year after year. Again, do you or do you not have a public library on your isolated island?

[-] 0 points by Leynna (109) 13 years ago

Are you guys seriously still at it!?! You both need a smack! Take your wit and DO SOMETHING with it!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 13 years ago

Mothers don't have to work. They have the choice to either work and not have kids, or make the decisions necessary so they do not have to work to have kids.

[-] 0 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

No way, free daycare so the single mother making 14 or less an hour can afford to go to work sure. Daycare is outrageously expensive. But, oh you're a single mother...you poor thing, here's your welfare check.

No thankyou.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by powertothepeople (1264) 13 years ago

Actually, the money already being spent per child to subsidize "free" daycare could instead be given to mothers to subsidize staying home & raising their own kids.

But I bet the "work ethic" crowd wouldn't agree to that, even if it wound up being a net reduction in cost for government.

(I don't know if this thread is "satirical" or not, but if it is a troll post, at least it's an interesting troll post)

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

Maybe if moms weren't forced to go back to work just to keep the same standard of living families had when there was only a single income... Check out Warren on this, several years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 13 years ago

How does CA have free daycare? Are the daycare workers volunteers?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/op/cdprograms.asp

The Budget Act of 2009 appropriated over $2.5 billion for the California Department of Education's (CDE), Child Development Programs in a mix of 74 percent state funds and 26 percent federal funds. Over 1,460 contracts are dispersed through approximately 797 public and private agencies statewide to support and provide services to almost 500,000 children.

The programs on that page are good, but not nearly enough children are covered. I was glad to see they are providing care for the children of migrant workers, some of the most oppressed people in our state.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 13 years ago

I see a bunch of dollar amounts above. How is that FREE? It appears that the daycare costs, but the money is appropriated from state and federal taxes. Is that correct?

I hate to break this to you, but the state paying for it with federal and state taxes does not make it FREE. You do understand that, right?

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

It would be free to the recipients. We have many wealthy people in this country that could fund such a beneficial program.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 13 years ago

Hey, I'm all for it. I have already planned it out. See my other post on this thread.

I agree with you, make someone else pay for it.

[-] 0 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

The kids shouldn't be raised by daycare. The parent raises them, daycare babysits them. You're describing bad parents. I don't want my tax money going to Lucy because she opened her legs one too many times. I have to work, so does she. I did the school/daycare thing, and I can tell you...my parents raised me. Not my teachers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

When did I mention an ethnic group???? You're putting words in my mouth. How does thinking parents should be responsible for raising their own children make me a Nazi? Or a Latino hater for that matter? Wow man, just wow.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

So, because you were reminded of Ricky, I'm a Latino hating bigot? Would it help if I had said Jane Doe? You're killing me man.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

Yeah, next time I'll remember not to use some random white womans name in a post because it might possibly be offensive to Latinos. I apologize for my blatant racism.

^^^All sarcasm btw...just incase you didn't catch that^^^^

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

read below Mikey

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

You're quite welcome. tips hat and gives slight bow Off to bed I go.

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 13 years ago

Had to reply here Mikey...apparently we've hit the max of replies to replies.

But no, it's almost noon here in NC. But I work swing shifts in a factory, and tonight is my first day of night shift swing...hence going to bed at noon.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

If they pump out more kids do they get extra cash? Lol!

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

The child doesn't land in prison because the mother is working; he lands in prison because she's overdosed on the floor.

You don't get it - women in a dual income family work for a reason and that is to pay the mortgage. And we've addressed the problem of ridiculously priced housing, haven't we? There is no reason for women to work anymore, if males can find reasonable employment. This is the direction we are currently headed in.

You only think you order the world; we do not.

[-] -1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

Not in all cases, but in many cases, this kind of thinking will encourage irresponsible breeding in much the same way the welfare system does. My wife and I struggled early on with our first child - on a single income, but we did it - and we did it fine... and it wasn't until after we were financially stable enough did we even consider having any other children. Too many people breed without considering the consequences of their actions. To this day - with five children, my wife has never had to work (by choice) and I've never had to take a second job... subsidizing bad decisions is in itself a bad decision.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

My point exactly... We struggled with one child we thought we were financially prepared for. Now take those inner city black people who are not financially prepared to raise a child who end up having 2, 3, 4, etc children and what have you got? The encouragement of irresponsible breeding - a welfare system wrapped up with a new "nicer sounding" name - the "mother's living wage".

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

I personally don't have distaste for the name "Welfare". Looking after the welfare of our weakest citizens is what we should have been doing instead of lining the pockets of the rich!

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

I have no problem with providing for the general Welfare of American citizens. What I have a problem with - which is the point of my original post - is those who are irresponsible about their breeding and then leverage those bad decisions to abuse the system that is designed to assist them... waste, fraud, and abuse... If you enjoy wasting tax payer dollars to pay for those who abuse the system (by classifying them as "our weakest citizens", then you have got some issues. My point isn't about those who truly need help - it's to rail against those who can do better, but choose to not do better because it's easier to ride the gubmint gravy train.

[-] -2 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

So you would put all non working parents on welfare? Our govt spends more than it takes in already so how do you propose to pay for this? Why should I have to pay for someone who decides to stay at home? The problems you speak of come mostly from single parent families (most often the mother) where the other person is a deadbeat.(most often fathers) Maybe if they were more responsible they wouldn't have kids they can't afford.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

We are a wealthy country. We can afford it.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Yeah our country is so wealthy they borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent.

[-] 0 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 13 years ago

Thats because the rich don't pay enough in taxes.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

C'mon Mikey,you can't be that stupid can you? You could confiscate every bit of wealth the rich have in this country and you wouldn't be able to pay the countries debt.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 13 years ago

You could confiscate all the money from the rich and you couldn't run this country for one month.

[-] -2 points by stevo (314) 13 years ago

So the plan is to pay moms.... for staying home?

There is no limit to liberal stupidity coming from Zuccotti park

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 13 years ago

Maybe dads should stay home instead. You seem very sexist Mikey, patriarchal as well.

[Removed]