Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Mommies Opting Out of Work: A Myth That Won't Die

By Heather Boushey, AlterNet. Posted June 9, 2007.


Last year it was the "opt-out" myth, and this year the story is about opting back in. Both tales defy the hard evidence.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In recent years the media has obsessed over a storyline about highly educated mothers "opting out" of employment. These stories are not only wrong -- the reality is that there is no increase in recent years in women, even women with advanced degrees, choosing to be stay-at-home mothers over working mothers -- they also imply that most mothers have a choice to work or not. This couldn't be further from the truth. Wives typically bring home a third of their family's income and single mothers often have no option but to work. While the choices of professional upper-class women might be interesting to read about, they certainly are not representative of the economic reality facing the majority of families.

But there is another serious problem with the media's fixation with the opt-out myth: Most stories on opt-out mothers gloss over the difficulties that many women have getting back into the job market after taking time out. It does a grave disservice to women to tell them that it's easy to transition back into work when it isn't. When reality hits and they can't find someone to hire them for a suitable job -- one that might offer the flexibility or part-time hours or whatever they need to balance their job with their life -- they may feel that it's all their fault. But really, is it?

Recently, a couple of stories have appeared arguing that it's actually not that hard to get back into the work force, especially now that employers are supposedly making it easy for women to balance work and family. Lisa Belkin writes in the New York Times ($$) that there is a "growing acceptance" of nonlinear careers and that corporations are developing new, innovative strategies to lure opt-out Moms back into jobs. And Leslie Morgan Steiner, the author of Mommy Wars, told Newsweek that in her research, she "did not find a single college-educated, aged 35 to 55, home with kids for three to 10 years -- who had significant trouble returning to full-time work."

The nice thing about these pieces is that they begin where most opt-out stories end. But, like the opt-out myth itself, the "opt-in" storylines are far removed from what we know about women returning to work after taking time off to have children. They rely on anecdotes from interviews with a handful of high-income mothers who most often hold professional degrees and, as a result, they come to conclusions that contradict the available research evidence. The stories are engaging to read, but one mother in a hundred transitioning easily back to work does not mean there's a national trend.

Research using nationally representative surveys that looks at all mothers who want to return to work finds that upwards of a quarter can't find a suitable job (PDF) and only 40 percent returned to full-time, mainstream jobs (i.e., not self-employment or consulting).

These facts do not hinder Morgan Steiner from coming to a very different conclusion. She interviewed a few dozen women who were actively seeking full-time work, a method that even Steiner, in her recent article in MORE magazine, noted was "admittedly unscientific."

That kind of research can be useful because, unlike large surveys, the researcher can ask the respondent open-ended questions and delve into why something is happening or how people feel about the trend. What it cannot do, however, is tell us what the trends are because the researcher isn't looking at a large enough -- or representative enough -- population.

What is striking about Morgan Steiner's article is how quickly she abandons reality by pointing to a mother whose experience contradicts the research-based findings. Steiner writes about a woman who solved her flexibility problem by opening her own business. Then, she notes that 95 percent (95 percent!) of all small businesses fail within the first five years -- but women shouldn't worry about these odds, she asserts, because starting a business can provide "easy entry" back into employment.

She does the same thing when discussing salaries. The Center for Work-Life Policy found a 37 percent salary decrease for women who had been out of the labor force for more than three years. But, here again, all the examples Steiner used are women who "doubled" their salaries -- or who didn't really need the income in the first place.

Everyone knows someone whose experience beats the odds. It seems that Steiner interviewed only women who were lucky enough to have found a decent job with good pay after opting out for motherhood. She hasn't documented a trend -- she's told some great stories of women who made it work, but as the research shows, it's not the typical tale.

Ms. Belkin's article looks at changes within corporations that are helping women to opt back in. She focuses on policies designed to lure highly trained professional women back into their jobs after they take some time off to care for very young children. There are a few examples of good policies -- shorter workweeks, eliminating billable hours -- but, as Belkin notes in her conclusion, a few examples of policy changes does not mean that the world of work is now in favor of those who want to combine work and parenthood in a sane way.

While Belkin recognizes that these anecdotes may offer only a glimmer of hope, neither author points to research on what we know about the prevalence of workplace flexibility. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about a quarter of workers report having any on-the-job flexibility, and there are not indications that this has been growing. In fact, between 2001 and 2004, the BLS reported a slight decline in the share of workers reporting flexible schedules, from 28.6 to 27.5 percent. Women continue to be less likely than men to have this "perk," mostly because women are less likely to hold the higher status or managerial positions where flexibility is more common.

It's great that we're seeing stories on women returning to work after having children. But let's hope that these stories, unlike the stories about the nonexistent increase in opting out, will start to be based on facts and solid research, not only interviews with a few women who got lucky.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, working women, opt-out, balance

Heather Boushey is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 9, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... lets not forget one thing. These myths are concerned only with middle class women.

Most women can't "opt out".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Well Posted by: Suz
women can't return to the workforce...
Posted by: frosty86 on Jun 9, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...without their male partners sharing equally in childcare and housework. Let's not forget the role men play (or more typically, DON'T play) in this. Research shows that even when both partners work full-time, women spend much more time on housework and childcare than their male partners. I believe the research also suggests that, on average, same-sex couple have a more egalitarian relationship in terms of sharing childcare and housework responsibilities, than the average heterosexual couple. Inequality in the so-called "private" sphere has an effect on the public sphere.

And most employers have pathetic parental leave policies. Safe daycare is very expensive these days. In such a world, why do we want to force women into bearing unwanted children?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RESPONSIBILITY AND SEX Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: SPONSIBILITY AND SEX Posted by: flakkerzmom
» I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY? Posted by: poppop_schell
» Thanks Posted by: kepstein7777
choices
Posted by: patmorris on Jun 9, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line about moms working is often about maintaining a desired standard of living. Most of us have more choices than we realize. I know many families that have chosen to reduce their standard of living because the mom opts out of work to care for the children. They do with less material goods and gain time and energy for family. (ie..the simple living movement) These are working class and lower middle class families not upper class professionals. There are circumstances where opting out is not possible ie... single parents who need to work to provide for the families needs.
I think we should encourage our young people to be careful about debt and consumerism so that more moms can have an easier time seeing the option of being home with their childen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: choices Posted by: jennyfox
» RE: choices Posted by: EJW
» RE: choices Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: choices Posted by: jennyfox
» RE: choices Posted by: poppop_schell
» Right on, JennyFox! Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: choices Posted by: tamsin
» dads can opt out too Posted by: off-the-radar 2
real moms
Posted by: SekhmetsatRa on Jun 9, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this isn't about "middle class"... it is about "upper class" women. and, honestly, who CARES which moms work, and which don't? real moms are too busy to engage in "mommy wars".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why blame the employer?
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 9, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that it is harder for non-professional women to reenter the workplace, but I disagree that it is the duty of an employer to accommodate these women.

First off, the article pointed out that woman reentering the workplace saw a reduction in salary. Why would we pay someone who has been out of the workplace for several years the same as someone who has stayed current in their industry?

Secondly, the article asks: “When reality hits and they can't find someone to hire them for a suitable job -- one that might offer the flexibility or part-time hours or whatever they need to balance their job with their life -- they may feel that it's all their fault. But really, is it?”

The answer is YES. A business exists to make money, not to accommodate their employees. Some companies have found it beneficial to hire mothers on a part-time basis (usually to save on the costs of benefits), but other companies find it cheaper to only hire full time employees. You will note that part-time hourly employees are normally cheaper, but part-time salaried employees are more expensive. Having a child is a choice that carries with it costs. If you don’t want to pay the price, don’t have children.

And finally the article argues that: “Women continue to be less likely than men to have this "perk," mostly because women are less likely to hold the higher status or managerial positions where flexibility is more common.”

But this argument is deceptive. Fewer women have managerial positions because they choose to leave the workplace to rear children. Studies have found that men are more likely then women to be promoted to management, but that the men who are promoted have an average of 8 more years of work experience. Woman who don’t leave the workforce to rear children are just as likely as men to become managers.

Another factor is the prevalence of women in government jobs. Women far outrank men in numbers when you look at government employers. But government employers have far fewer management positions than non-government employers. Government jobs make up a small percentage of the overall workforce, so this is only a contributing factor, but a factor nonetheless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes and no Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Yes and no Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Yes and no Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Yes and no Posted by: LPB
» RE: Why is that? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Why blame the employer? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Cooking the Numbers
Posted by: nherkowitz on Jun 9, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'women are opting-out of the job market' baloney looks to me to be another lie to justify the manipulated numbers on jobs and unemployment.

It amazes me that the unemployment rate goes down, not because there are more jobs, but because people just seemed to disappear from the job market. Now that wages have been going down (or eliminated) for years for many people, I would expect to see more people in the job market. The whole deal smells of Bush/Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cooking the Numbers Posted by: CharlieChicken
Death to Gloria Steinam
Posted by: Maggieb on Jun 9, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early sixties before Gloria's new theme in designing women's minds. My mother had the luxory of delivered dry cleaning, milkman, fresh fruit, floor polisher, at home doctor visits and airline trips that included fine china and a gormet meal. All done on my father's middle income salary.

We've come a long way baby....what a joke. Two incomes raised the tax base and we all know the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» As if! Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: As if! Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: As if! Posted by: Suz
mkrmom
Posted by: mkrichardson on Jun 9, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been reading these "opt" in "opt out" articles and comments on articles for months now. Single parents - you have no choice - end of discussion. However, what is curiously missing from this discussion or any of these articles is: Why are you having children? What do you see your responsibility towards them other than things or an artifically set standard of living? Where is the discussion about talking to children who are away from their mom or dad for 8-10 hours a day, and away from being able to muck around with their own stuff, in their own home without be herded into lines, scheduled potty time, scheduled this, queue up for that? My kids are all in upper teens and mid twenties now. My husband and I worked different shifts while they were little so we had the pleasure and responsibility of raising and caring for them. Yes, we needed two incomes to make it. We live in a home that's on the 25 year remodeling plan. We drive cars that are over 15 years old. We shop at secondhand stores and watch sales. We are do-it-yourselfers. Now that some of the kids are through college, we are enjoying the luxury of making time for our own interests. Oh yeah, I forgot, the OTHER studies that said that the different shift work kind of a lifestyle was hard on the PARENTS! Of course it was hard, but, that wasn't the point. Sheesh, with all this thought about making sure every adult feels fulfilled, necessary, vital, challenged, stimulated, and has the proper clothing, accessories, cars and homes to go with it all - who in the world has the time to wonder if the backyard dandelions are true flowers? If you dig a hole in your backyard and fill it up with water the mud is great but will it be a real pool? Taking scraps of wood and 1000 nails when you're 5 and "building" something. Scrubbing floors with mom and doing your own laundry. Being able to come home after school and invite a friend to join you ANYTIME you want because you know mom or dad is always home. This kind of stuff is not glamorous and you won't have a nice fat paycheck at the end and be able to take a cruise - but what you have is children who have been raised to maybe put aside some desires and aspirations for the good of someone else - knowing that the emotional payoff, in the long run, is the most important. I would REALLY love to see someone incorporate all of these Back-to-Work versus Stay-At-Home articles with just a simple - hey, your kids are just tiny babies and little children. You owe them your care and time. Take some time, after you have them to give them a warm and cozy environment and LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY, NOT THINGS, ARE TOPS ON YOUR LIST. I would guess that there is something that tweaks in the brain of a youngster who, after protesting going off to daycare everyday and having to be cajoled and told how important mommy or daddy's job is to other people and all cool stuff they can buy and do because they have extra money, that notion slowly but insidiously creeps into their heads and lets them get used to the idea that they are not tops on their parent's list. Rather they land somewhere below the "fulfillment" the paycheck, the house, the car, the stuff, the fitness club, the "me time", and what kind of vacation we get to have. Sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mkrmom Posted by: lwbaby
Why the hostility?
Posted by: Calicat on Jun 9, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever there's a story about mothers and work on Alternet, the comments are unbelievably hostile. Fact is, it ISN'T only upper class women who get pushed out of their jobs when they have kids, or who decide to leave work--often because the costs of childcare eat up most of their paycheck. And it ISN'T only upper class women who have a lot of trouble getting hired again. It ISN'T even only upper class women who want to have jobs.
You would never mock a man who wanted to keep working after becoming a father -- and you'd be outraged if he stayed home for a few years with his child and found himself unable to work at his previous level. That a man would not want to be economically dependent on his wife, and would not want to spend his life taking care of kids and house seems normal. But when it's a woman, we hear how selfish and materialistic she is.
Maybe the people who post these hostile comments are conservative trolls. If not, there's an awful lot of sexism on the left masquerading as class consciousness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mr. Mom Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Mr. Mom Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Mr. Mom Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Mr. Mom Posted by: Suz
» Thank you. Posted by: frosty86
» Conservative TROLLS ? Y'think ??? Posted by: BenCaxton12
Materialsm, DIVORCE, and big government: WHY MOST MOTHERS "HAVE TO WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME." WORK
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 9, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not that its "bad" for mothers to work alongside their husbands in earning "our bread" and raising children. It worked effectively for many centuries when we were an agricultural society and before America became dominated by:

1. MATERIALISM AND 'KEEPING UP WITH THE JONES"

2. BRAKEDOWN OF LOVING, UNSELFISH MARRIAGES LEADING TO HIGH DIVORCE RATES

3. BIG GOVERNMENT WITH HIGH TAX RATES AND INDUCED DETERIOTION OF THE DOLLAR THROUGH INFLATION

4. MULTINATIONALS WHO PLACE PROFITS ABOVE THE NEEDS OF WORKING PEOPLE.

5. THE RADICAL FEMINIST/SELF SATISAFCTION MOVEMENT

I beleive except for the highly educated femisnist elite, most mothers would much prefer to spend their life
in their instinctive desire to nurture their children and make the world a better place with each new generation.

What say ye?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IMPACT OF TELECOMMUTING AND HOME BUSINESSES
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 9, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having spent 30 years as a Business Professor, I have seen some drastic and wonderful changes related to the issue of stay at home vs professional working women. One can have the best of both worlds IF one gets up to technical speed and uses the creative brains that God gave us BOTH male and female.

Since a marriage is a partnership in raising children, why not also make it a partnership in a home based business?

With telecommuting, one can always have one parent at home if you work it right with your employer(s). There is a growing labor shortage of skilled workers. One can't go wrong in the medical field and one can often schedule hours to your liking.

IMO, the family is collapsing in American partly because of the lack of quality attention to both children and spouses. A Great Mormon prophet once said, "No success in life can compensate for FAILURE in the home.

My wife and I both committed to having Mom stay at home. Yes, we gave up many of the goodies that my faculty colleagues had when both spouses were working. Many, however, have ended in divorce and/or serious problems with their children.

Good luck to all that find it economically necessry for two working parents. I promise IF you that if you will make sure that your first priority is to each other and the children, God will GREATLY bless you. He wants you to be happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why working moms are good for all of us
Posted by: altermom on Jun 9, 2007 8:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen, the bottom line is that it's in our collective interest to encourage mothers to work. Otherwise, we face a world in which our world is run almost exclusively by men: recall the fifties, when law makers, lawyers, judges, teachers, doctors, business leaders, journalists, and decision makers were almost exclusively men. I don't want to live in that world, and I don't want my daughter to grow up in it. (This is not to downplay the important contributions of childless women, but if childlessness is a requirement of entry into professional life, we radically restrict women's participation.)

Yes, fathers need to rethink their roles and shift from being "helpers" to being "co-parents," who share equally in the time commitments and daily hassles (and rewards) of raising children.

But we also need to restructure our world and thinking in order to make this happen: first, through a major reform of the healthcare system (since many parents are forced into working long hours simply to maintain health insurance that comes with full-time work), and second, by considering that when mothers work, it isn't a selfish decision--it's one that benefits us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What About Men?
Posted by: Libertine on Jun 9, 2007 10:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear all this talk about employed mothers and stay at home mothers. Women today basically can choose either, though admittedly, it's hard to re-enter a decent career (as opposed to a plain old unexciting "job" that many people have), after a long sabbatical.

But, for the most part, for men, it's still as it's always been. It's work, work, work, like it or not. We don't hear anything about Dads choosing to "opt out" of paid employment, no matter how dead-end and personally meaningless their jobs are. Except for the token stay at home Dads we see written up in the newspaper every Father's Day, men really have no choice -- men are expected to suck it up and work, regardless of what they'd really like to do.

Real equality will come when men have the same choices as women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What About Men? Posted by: fork
Part of this is due to a lack of planning
Posted by: Callibrarian on Jun 9, 2007 10:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From personal observations I've noted part of the problem comes from us acting like everything will magically work itself out when we have children. It may not be cute, whimsical or romantic to sit down and calculate BEFORE we get pregnant (that is, for the half of pregnant women who actually plan the event) but it would help in the long run. Plenty of women never stop and think, "Gee, since I'm in a highly competitive industry, maybe I should take maternity leave instead of expecting them to give me another job in 5 years." There's the teacher friend who wasn't yet permanent who knew that with low school enrollment she might lose her job. Did she start saving up money for the event? No, she decided to have a third child and is upset that someone else won't quit so she can keep her job. Someone at work is on leave right now, and she had better come back. We're short staffed. If she quits there is no way in hell she's getting a good recommendation later on, and why should she? How many women who are having trouble returning to work didn't get good referals because they left others in a lurch? How many don't have current job skills? It's easy to say we should give people a chance, but when I go to the doctor or have paper work filled, I want the person with the most experience working for me, not the person using her experience with me as a refresher course.

The truth of the matter is, most women have to work, either for economics or to preserve their sanity. We can't keep saying give-up-material-possessions-and-you-can-stay-at-home, because it's never about COUPLES giving up material possessions, it's about WOMEN giving up possessions AND careers. Instead of telling mothers, "Going to work when you have a baby is going to suck, so start sucking it up," we tell them it's okay to stay at home when they still owe twenty thousand in student loans. But they'll never cut the baby's budget. The husband will still need suits and shoes and have business lunches. It's the wife who will economize, who will wear clothes until they fall off her body and not get a haircut because she can't afford it. Instead of coaching mothers how to rejoin the work force, we need to start encouraging them never to leave in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right For the Wrong Reasons Posted by: mkrichardson
» RE: ight For the Wrong Reasons Posted by: NoKidding
» RE: ight For the Wrong Reasons Posted by: mkrichardson
» Blaming the moms! Posted by: kmart35
Good times
Posted by: messedup on Jun 10, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a woman manager and she is just plain ruthless. We need more people like this in the workplace. The more divorced, manipulative, and one-track minded the better. Within a few years most of the employees in my workgroup will either quit, retire, or transfer on because of deteriorating work conditions. Then again, I'm not married so maybe this is just normal behavioral womanlike operating conditions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good times Posted by: mememe
» You've got me wrong.. Posted by: messedup
Take Action on this issue
Posted by: dp2065 on Jun 11, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dismantle the Mom Myth: http://www.now.org/issues/media/070403mommyth.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opt-in vs Opt-out
Posted by: tamsin on Jun 12, 2007 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Parents who are considering taking time off work need to be realistic about what their options are going to be if/when they want to get a job. They should understand that they may have to start at the bottom if they don't do anything work-related for a while. I don't really see why someone with no recent work history or training should expect to get paid as much as someone who does. I think taking time off to have kids is fine & fulfilling for many, but to a potential employer it doesn't say much about one's ability to perform well in the workplace.

Many parents contemplating this decision don't seriously consider the hassle of finding a job after being away for a while. They just assume it's all going to work out. In these cases it might be reasonable to say that they're likely making a mistake. But for parents who are smart enough to plan and think before deciding to have children & take time off, who's to say they don't know what's best for their family and themselves? Many "stay at home" parents go to school or attend some type of training that provides decent job placement, but this isn't possible or affordable for everyone. Perhaps this option to get educated while being a full-time parent should be made available to those who are very limited financially (like parents who struggle with chronically ill children's medical expenses, and can't work a regular inflexible job due to the demands of caring for a sick child).

The only thing wrong about choosing whether to opt in or out of work when there is a choice (I'm not talking about single parents who have to work) is making any decision with the romantic notion that there's no need for long-term planning because any problems they may encounter will just sort themselves out. Parents should be encouraged to research all their options & risks so they can make a decision that best meets their personal & family needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Opt-in vs Opt-out Posted by: kmart35
» RE: Opt-in vs Opt-out Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Opt-in vs Opt-out Posted by: kmart35
» RE: Opt-in vs Opt-out Posted by: EagleMB
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement