When Mom's salary breaks even with daycare....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the title of this thread changes from "Mom's salary" to "one parent's salary," I'll consider reading a single post. What a bunch of BS.

And we have a nutty PP, who says she was making 55K and her household was making 95K, so SHE was the high earner by a huge margin, but she left her job to stay at home because working would have "netted her no income."

No one should take financial advice from someone who has kids and then decides to live on 40K a year instead of 95K a year. Or 40K a year instead of 55K a year.

Although at this point I think PP is just making shit up anyhow--one of these people who just wants to make working moms feel bad.

You are not reading, probably because you are so outraged that you can't think straight. just calm down and listen. That poster was making 55k, her H 95K, she quit to SAH and then returned to the workforce when her kids entered school. Thousands of people do it all the time and don't end up in financial ruin or destitute. Many are even quite happy.

If you are a working mom and feel bad that she chose to SAH instead of take pennies home, that is on you. She is a working mom now, just like you. My income was always too high to SAH and her choice does not make me feel bad, not sure what your hang up are, but they will eat you alive if you don't check yourself.

I decided to SAH and I found her post smug to the point of narcissism. I work now (I've done both). Pointing out that she's being smug doesn't mean that the reader is outraged. It's not an easy decision one way or the other, and self-centered smugness doesn't help the discussion.

[Anonymous]

I think some are missing two key points on 19:43's post.

"When the real reason to SAH should be about how you want to raise your children."

Keys being "should," and "you" - how you want to raise your children.

I agree it is tragic that people's choices regarding their families are so often constrained by money. I also think there are two components to how I choose to raise my children. 1) what is best for my children, and if all outcomes are the same, 2) how I want to raise them. Hence the choice to be a SAHP. Maybe it will be better for them given their individual personaliteis. Maybe it woudln't make a difference, but I know at this stage in my life I prefer to be home with them. Simple as that. And I competley respect all moms whether they work outside the home or not, whether they do so by necessity or choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some are missing two key points on 19:43's post.

"When the real reason to SAH should be about how you want to raise your children."

Keys being "should," and "you" - how you want to raise your children.

I agree it is tragic that people's choices regarding their families are so often constrained by money. I also think there are two components to how I choose to raise my children. 1) what is best for my children, and if all outcomes are the same, 2) how I want to raise them. Hence the choice to be a SAHP. Maybe it will be better for them given their individual personaliteis. Maybe it woudln't make a difference, but I know at this stage in my life I prefer to be home with them. Simple as that. And I competley respect all moms whether they work outside the home or not, whether they do so by necessity or choice.

There is another component. I chose to SAH when they were little because I did not want the chaos in MY life and neither did DH. The thought of nursing and pumping, commuting, sleepless nights and then going into work, the evening rush of scrambling to make a healthy dinner, having to grocery shop and run errands on weekends when all I wanted was family time, flopping into bed exhausted, inability to find time to exercise, and the general grind was NOT something DH and I wanted to do with little kids. We found avoiding that when our kids were little to be priceless.

My choice to SAH was nothing philosophical in terms of child rearing. We wanted the easiest transition into parenthood and for us, me being at home was the way to keep order and quite honestly keep our marriage a happy one. I'm now working FT and it is really a grind, but my kids can fix their own snacks, wipe their own asses, pick out and put their own clothes on, and play unsupervised. This makes all the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the title of this thread changes from "Mom's salary" to "one parent's salary," I'll consider reading a single post. What a bunch of BS.

And we have a nutty PP, who says she was making 55K and her household was making 95K, so SHE was the high earner by a huge margin, but she left her job to stay at home because working would have "netted her no income."

No one should take financial advice from someone who has kids and then decides to live on 40K a year instead of 95K a year. Or 40K a year instead of 55K a year.

Although at this point I think PP is just making shit up anyhow--one of these people who just wants to make working moms feel bad.

You are not reading, probably because you are so outraged that you can't think straight. just calm down and listen. That poster was making 55k, her H 95K, she quit to SAH and then returned to the workforce when her kids entered school. Thousands of people do it all the time and don't end up in financial ruin or destitute. Many are even quite happy.

If you are a working mom and feel bad that she chose to SAH instead of take pennies home, that is on you. She is a working mom now, just like you. My income was always too high to SAH and her choice does not make me feel bad, not sure what your hang up are, but they will eat you alive if you don't check yourself.

I'm not outraged and she's not making me feel bad--but posts like that clearly make other people feel bad and it bugs me when people present things with such a rose-colored perspective. Others on this thread have responded thoughtfully -- some decisions have these benefits but these risks, other decisions have these benefits and these risks. Posts that say "I stayed home and am the best mommy everrrrr" just don't add to the discussion, they are just bragging or judgy (or both).

As a working mom, I simply don't read that she thinks she's a great mom. She's was happy with her decision to take a break and focus primarily on her kids. YOU are reading that she thinks she's the best mom ever and that's your hang up. Also, you were so quick to jump all over her and get agressive (a sure sign of anger and outrage) that you were talking nonsense about her HHI.

I'm only responding as a working mom because some of my fellow working moms are so incredibly torn about their decision (or non optional need to work) that they just relish jumping doen the throats of women who can or manage to arrange life so that they can SAH. Own your insecurity and work on that. Trashing other will not make you feel better. I promise. I get it. I too sometimes have my heart pulling me one way and my brain the other and having those two at odds with each other is stressful, but you just have to realize other people do other things and sometimes they are happy. Their contentment is not a judgement on you.

Of course she thinks she's a great mom! In her own words, because she stayed home she was able to "bond with her kids" and "experience every milestone" and be with her children during the "formative years." As opposed to working moms, who don't bond with their children and miss lots of milestones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've done both. Worked with my first, but quit 115k job to stay home with the second and now the third. I may go back once two are in school. All my kids are doing fine, no matter if they were home or in daycare.

I will say our home functions better with me at home and I was exhausted and cranky all the time trying to juggle everything while working 50 hrs/week and commuting. Now I'm contributing, but not fully funding, retirement and we are contributing to future college expenses. It's a trade off we were willing to make...other moms trade time with their kids for more financial freedom in the later years. There's no right or wrong answer and I don't think there is any ideal way to do it. Having little ones is hard...no matter what you do. There's no point in putting down someone else's life choice.

Stop being so reasonable. This is DCUM!

[Anonymous]

I think a PP touched on an important issue about the decision also being a matter about the impact it has on your life and sanity. Some moms find SAH allows them to get stuff done during the week so they have free time on weekends.

For me, I have a hard time getting anything done when constantly being interrupted by an infant. Instead having a flexible job with work from home 3-4 days per week helps me keep my sanity. If I need to go to a doctor or hair appointment, I can just take off a couple hours early and don't have to worry about finding childcare. Lunch breaks on my work from home days are often spent at the gym or picking up some groceries. And with two incomes, we can afford to outsource things like house cleaning.

Basically, I think it needs to be a wholistic decision. The finances of paying for childcare are short term. What is best for your familu in the long term and what will make you happy OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a PP touched on an important issue about the decision also being a matter about the impact it has on your life and sanity. Some moms find SAH allows them to get stuff done during the week so they have free time on weekends.

For me, I have a hard time getting anything done when constantly being interrupted by an infant. Instead having a flexible job with work from home 3-4 days per week helps me keep my sanity. If I need to go to a doctor or hair appointment, I can just take off a couple hours early and don't have to worry about finding childcare. Lunch breaks on my work from home days are often spent at the gym or picking up some groceries. And with two incomes, we can afford to outsource things like house cleaning.

Basically, I think it needs to be a wholistic decision. The finances of paying for childcare are short term. What is best for your familu in the long term and what will make you happy OP?

Childcare has not been short term for us. We've been going at it 10years. 2 more to go for both and another 5 more to go for the little one. 15yrs is a looooong haul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a PP touched on an important issue about the decision also being a matter about the impact it has on your life and sanity. Some moms find SAH allows them to get stuff done during the week so they have free time on weekends.

For me, I have a hard time getting anything done when constantly being interrupted by an infant. Instead having a flexible job with work from home 3-4 days per week helps me keep my sanity. If I need to go to a doctor or hair appointment, I can just take off a couple hours early and don't have to worry about finding childcare. Lunch breaks on my work from home days are often spent at the gym or picking up some groceries. And with two incomes, we can afford to outsource things like house cleaning.

Basically, I think it needs to be a wholistic decision. The finances of paying for childcare are short term. What is best for your familu in the long term and what will make you happy OP?

Childcare has not been short term for us. We've been going at it 10years. 2 more to go for both and another 5 more to go for the little one. 15yrs is a looooong haul.

Choosing to continue working (or not) can impact your retirement savings, financial stability and earning potential for the remainder of your life. If you have a high earning spouse with a stable job or have the type of job that allows the flexibility to leave and re-enter the workforce, then the scale may tip in favor of SAH. And many of the SAH moms I know are paying for part time preschool anyway once their children reach 2 or 3 years old. So SAH doesn't exempt you from having at least some childcare costs. How many children you have/how you space them also impacts your childcare costs. For some people, the long term benefit of working that continues into the retirement years is worth paying for childcare earlier on. The point is, the decision should be made with the long term in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To think long-term.

This.

I survived a financially draining divorce and custody battle because I had a job.

My cousin survived widowhood at age 37 because she had a job.

[Anonymous]

To those who are saying child-care is so short-term: what do you do when they're 13-year-old 7th graders and school lets out at 2:30 and there is no aftercare in middle school? Do you leave them alone from 2:30 until you get home at 6:00, or cobble together after-school clubs or hire a babysitter or what? Aren't those the hours in which they either do something enriching (which usually involves a parent driving them around) or get into trouble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who are saying child-care is so short-term: what do you do when they're 13-year-old 7th graders and school lets out at 2:30 and there is no aftercare in middle school? Do you leave them alone from 2:30 until you get home at 6:00, or cobble together after-school clubs or hire a babysitter or what? Aren't those the hours in which they either do something enriching (which usually involves a parent driving them around) or get into trouble?

A lot of jobs around here now allow work from home/flexible hours. We haven't hit the middle schools years yet, but DH and I both have flexible jobs that allow us to set our own hours, stagger our schedules, and have at least one of us working from home every day. There are others in our neighborhood with similarly flexible jobs or who SAH. I imagine when the time comes, we could set up a carpool to share the treking around to after school activities or hire an after school nanny. This is part of our long term equation not to leave the workforce because we may have a hard time finding other jobs that allow us the freedom we currently have. It makes sense to have two low 6 figure flexible jobs than to have one high earner shouldering the financial burden and the other doing all the home/kid stuff. But other families may need to have someone at home long term even after daycare ends for the reasons you cited. It's such an individualized situation. That's why OP should consider the long term and what her career is/will be like vs what her families needs will be in the future. It's short sighted to just look at current income and childcare costs even if the answer is that SAH ultimately makes the most sense for her family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who are saying child-care is so short-term: what do you do when they're 13-year-old 7th graders and school lets out at 2:30 and there is no aftercare in middle school? Do you leave them alone from 2:30 until you get home at 6:00, or cobble together after-school clubs or hire a babysitter or what? Aren't those the hours in which they either do something enriching (which usually involves a parent driving them around) or get into trouble?

Like another poster, I too have a flexible schedule and am home most days at 445. I plan to have our 12yrs old get our 8yr old off the bus and watch him until I get home. Not worried about an hour and a half of alone time. I'll probably set up some cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The really sad story here is money is the overwhelming driving force behind deciding to SAH. Some say they are too poor to SAH, some saying they are too rich. When the real reason to SAH should be about how you want to raise your children.

You're right. I'm not temperamentally suited to SAH, so I didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some are missing two key points on 19:43's post.

"When the real reason to SAH should be about how you want to raise your children."

Keys being "should," and "you" - how you want to raise your children.

I agree it is tragic that people's choices regarding their families are so often constrained by money. I also think there are two components to how I choose to raise my children. 1) what is best for my children, and if all outcomes are the same, 2) how I want to raise them. Hence the choice to be a SAHP. Maybe it will be better for them given their individual personaliteis. Maybe it woudln't make a difference, but I know at this stage in my life I prefer to be home with them. Simple as that. And I competley respect all moms whether they work outside the home or not, whether they do so by necessity or choice.

There is another component. I chose to SAH when they were little because I did not want the chaos in MY life and neither did DH. The thought of nursing and pumping, commuting, sleepless nights and then going into work, the evening rush of scrambling to make a healthy dinner, having to grocery shop and run errands on weekends when all I wanted was family time, flopping into bed exhausted, inability to find time to exercise, and the general grind was NOT something DH and I wanted to do with little kids. We found avoiding that when our kids were little to be priceless.

My choice to SAH was nothing philosophical in terms of child rearing. We wanted the easiest transition into parenthood and for us, me being at home was the way to keep order and quite honestly keep our marriage a happy one. I'm now working FT and it is really a grind, but my kids can fix their own snacks, wipe their own asses, pick out and put their own clothes on, and play unsupervised. This makes all the difference.

It was easier for me to WOH FT so I could afford childcare. Without that, I wouldn't have been able to exercise or run errands alone. If I'd have had family support, might have been easier to SAH. Different strokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those who are saying child-care is so short-term: what do you do when they're 13-year-old 7th graders and school lets out at 2:30 and there is no aftercare in middle school? Do you leave them alone from 2:30 until you get home at 6:00, or cobble together after-school clubs or hire a babysitter or what? Aren't those the hours in which they either do something enriching (which usually involves a parent driving them around) or get into trouble?

Well, 13 yo is definitely capable of being alone for 3 hours.
Besides, I don't believe close supervision of teenagers is best way to keep them out of trouble. If they want trouble - they find it anyway.
If you raise them well - they will not get into trouble even without a parent/sitter looking over their shoulder all the time.
As for enrichment activities - well, MS have some clubs (and afterhours bus services), also 13 yo is quite capable of biking/using public transit if needed.