From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jul 23 14:23:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA15412 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA15399; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA15376; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:23:34 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:23:34 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199707232123.PAA15376@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ac199@hwcn.org Cc: Nate Williams , "Jonathan M. Bresler" , freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations In-Reply-To: References: <199707232052.OAA15194@rocky.mt.sri.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > I disagree. I live in Montana, where we have one of the lowest > > > > income/family in the nation. And, due to it's 'ruralness' we haven't > > > > kept up with the 'standard' with two working parents, so most two-parent > > > > families leave one of them at home *in spite* of their low-income. This > > > > is mostly due to what's acceptable from being a parent, and what's not > > > > in rural America. > > > > > > There is a certain minimum that is acceptable. I still think that > > > for many they would be below that minimum if only one parent was > > > working. > > > > What is that minimum? 8K/year? I know a family of 5 (mom, pop, and 3 > > kids all under 12 who live on that now.) > > I think that rather than trying to put this "minimum" in physical > terms, it might be best to use psychological ones. Is it when money > starts ordering your life? Then *most* American's don't have the minimum, since money is the whole point of this, isn't it? When two people feel they 'have' to work, then money is ordering your life. My arguement is that you can justify needing a second job if you make less than $150K/family a year just as easily as you can for a $15K/family. > I suppose what you're trying to argue is that it's possible to put a > monetary value on the value of one parent staying home. I guess I > can live with that. Sort of. I'm saying that there are monetary advantages to having one parent stay at home, and that most folks don't even consider them due to short-sightedness and/or peer pressure. Staying home with the kids isn't near as acceptable as it used to be. Too often at-home parent's hear: *sarcasm on* "Oh, you don't work, you stay home with the kids." *sarcasm off* Nate