Is giving up making your own money a bad idea for ANY woman? (philosophical ponderings)

[Anonymous]

I left my career twelve years ago and have never looked back. In truth, I disliked my last job - though not my profession - so leaving that job stay home and raise a family was an easy decision. In my case, I am fortunate to have a strong marriage - of more than 20 years - to a wonderful husband and father. And we are also fortunate that DH has had a successful career. I know, as a professional, that it could work again if future circumstances dictate that. I hope to volunteer more as the children leave the house, in any case. The decision to leave one's profession is a risk, certainly, but if would never advise someone against it just because there is some risk - if that is what they want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I married in my early 20s, had 2 kids and stayed home for 5 years, then went back to school, received masters degree and was hired off campus by a very prestigious consulting firm.

So perhaps it makes more sense to have the kids and stay home earlier in life because if something happens to your marriage, you are still young and hot, and other men and employers still want you a lot

Yeah, I'm sure "young and hot" are the absolute best attributes a mom can have, and they are super-critical to being a good parent.

This topic is not about being the best mom. I was saying that I would feel much more secure being divorced as a 28 y.o. unemployed (but college educated) woman that a 48 y.o. one. Also, my husband (3 years older than me) already received his PhD by the time our 1st child was born, so we were not immature by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a woman should always keep her foot in the door but because of the price of child care and the stress of being a working mom, some women feel the need to stay at home for their own sanity. Perhaps the bigger issue is how can we make motherhood and working compatible.

Well said.

+1, very good point. The labor force participation rate amongst mothers in the US is shockingly low compared to other developed countries. That's a problem when the courts aren't providing much for the stay at home partner (usually the woman) after a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a woman should always keep her foot in the door but because of the price of child care and the stress of being a working mom, some women feel the need to stay at home for their own sanity. Perhaps the bigger issue is how can we make motherhood and working compatible.

Well said.

+1, very good point. The labor force participation rate amongst mothers in the US is shockingly low compared to other developed countries. That's a problem when the courts aren't providing much for the stay at home partner (usually the woman) after a divorce.

Division of marital assets and support depends a great deal on the length of the marriage. It is still generally the case in marriages of twenty or more years duration, wherein the working spouse is very successful, that the non-working partner will be awarded at least half the assets, as well as generous child and spousal support based on the accustomed standard of living. For some ex-spouses, that settlement will be more than enough to see them through a comfortable retirement (i.e., they are in no worse a position than if they had worked and saved for retirement themselves).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all men are abusive and drug addicts. I was raised where women work and my mom for your logic was horrified that I stayed home. It was unheard of in our family. I have a masters degree but if I go back now - 5 years out, my income will be small and I'd basically have to start all over so its not worth it to me. Plus, our children have some very mild special needs that still require therapy and support. It works for our family and my husband is very supportive. We've talked about me going back but I also have some health issues. I am ok with knowing my husband will take care of me as it is his second marriage and despite how he was treated by his ex, he was always supportive of her and the kids. If I look at his patterns of behaviors, he'll still be there for me and our kids. but in your case, if he had a pattern, no way I would have stopped working.

I don't have daughters but if I did, I would insist they get their education and work at least 5 years and then make the choice for themselves. I see the benefits for our family of me being home, but having both my parents working was no big deal either so I think its more important for the mom to be happy and ok with her decision as long as they can afford it.

I think you missed OP's point. He didn't have those issues when she first married him. It happened over time.

I think the point is that even if you have a great marriage right now, you never know how things could change. an inlaw of mine is facing divorce. She didn't see it coming. No one did. they had a great marriage. He even admits it was great. He just happened to meet another woman. You just never know.

My advice to a woman who decides to stay home to care for children is to get a pre or post-nup. It doesn't matter if you have an education and "work at least 5 years." Once you are out of the workforce for 5 years, it can be difficult to get back in, especially at the salary you made before. OP's point is long term being able to support yourself.

The other issue is death. Most employer-provided life insurance plans aren't enough for a family to live on indefinitely without the wife having to go back to work at some point. I don't think people pay enough attention to that sort of thing.

He probably did but it was not active or well hidden.

My mom got seperated from my dad a few years ago so yes it is possible. But, regardless of if i go back now or later I take a huge pay cut and have to start all over. So, I choose to do what is best for us and me.

There is a huge assumption with death. I will be ok if my husband dies, though I hope we never have to find out. We have a modest house, private and employer life insurance to makes sur I can pay off the house, prepaid college funds paid off for the kids, military benefits as long as I do not remarry and hopefully social security benefits. Also, if I needed it, my family would help. My husband did think it through. We did not get life insurance on me as he can pay for child at this point as they are getting older. So, worst case I just need a basic job to supplement us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I married in my early 20s, had 2 kids and stayed home for 5 years, then went back to school, received masters degree and was hired off campus by a very prestigious consulting firm.

So perhaps it makes more sense to have the kids and stay home earlier in life because if something happens to your marriage, you are still young and hot, and other men and employers still want you a lot

Yeah, I'm sure "young and hot" are the absolute best attributes a mom can have, and they are super-critical to being a good parent.

They are good attributes for finding a mate and a job. That was the point (NP here - not so young but still hot AND also a good mom)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a woman should always keep her foot in the door but because of the price of child care and the stress of being a working mom, some women feel the need to stay at home for their own sanity. Perhaps the bigger issue is how can we make motherhood and working compatible.

Well said.

+1, very good point. The labor force participation rate amongst mothers in the US is shockingly low compared to other developed countries. That's a problem when the courts aren't providing much for the stay at home partner (usually the woman) after a divorce.

Division of marital assets and support depends a great deal on the length of the marriage. It is still generally the case in marriages of twenty or more years duration, wherein the working spouse is very successful, that the non-working partner will be awarded at least half the assets, as well as generous child and spousal support based on the accustomed standard of living. For some ex-spouses, that settlement will be more than enough to see them through a comfortable retirement (i.e., they are in no worse a position than if they had worked and saved for retirement themselves).

Didn't work out this way for me.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

I've been a SAHM for well over a decade. But I also worked and supported myself for over a decade before I became a SAHM. Having supported myself once I know that if I had to support myself I could do it again. I'm fortunate to be in a solid, long term marriage so no real fears of divorce in my case.

So I guess the answer to your question is - it depends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a woman should always keep her foot in the door but because of the price of child care and the stress of being a working mom, some women feel the need to stay at home for their own sanity. Perhaps the bigger issue is how can we make motherhood and working compatible.

Well said.

+1, very good point. The labor force participation rate amongst mothers in the US is shockingly low compared to other developed countries. That's a problem when the courts aren't providing much for the stay at home partner (usually the woman) after a divorce.

Division of marital assets and support depends a great deal on the length of the marriage. It is still generally the case in marriages of twenty or more years duration, wherein the working spouse is very successful, that the non-working partner will be awarded at least half the assets, as well as generous child and spousal support based on the accustomed standard of living. For some ex-spouses, that settlement will be more than enough to see them through a comfortable retirement (i.e., they are in no worse a position than if they had worked and saved for retirement themselves).

Didn't work out this way for me.

Then either your marriage was not one of sufficiently long duration (i.e., 20 or more years), OR, there was not enough financially at issue in terms of marital assets and current income (i.e., your ex-spouse was not a longtime, big earner). If the marriage was not a long one, or the working spouse did not earn enough to support two households, then the non-working spouse will certainly be financially hurt by a divorce. If, however, the marriage was a sufficiently long one, and the working spouse is a high earner, then the non-working spouse will likely be well compensated in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a woman should always keep her foot in the door but because of the price of child care and the stress of being a working mom, some women feel the need to stay at home for their own sanity. Perhaps the bigger issue is how can we make motherhood and working compatible.

Well said.

+1, very good point. The labor force participation rate amongst mothers in the US is shockingly low compared to other developed countries. That's a problem when the courts aren't providing much for the stay at home partner (usually the woman) after a divorce.

Division of marital assets and support depends a great deal on the length of the marriage. It is still generally the case in marriages of twenty or more years duration, wherein the working spouse is very successful, that the non-working partner will be awarded at least half the assets, as well as generous child and spousal support based on the accustomed standard of living. For some ex-spouses, that settlement will be more than enough to see them through a comfortable retirement (i.e., they are in no worse a position than if they had worked and saved for retirement themselves).

Didn't work out this way for me.

Then either your marriage was not one of sufficiently long duration (i.e., 20 or more years), OR, there was not enough financially at issue in terms of marital assets and current income (i.e., your ex-spouse was not a longtime, big earner). If the marriage was not a long one, or the working spouse did not earn enough to support two households, then the non-working spouse will certainly be financially hurt by a divorce. If, however, the marriage was a sufficiently long one, and the working spouse is a high earner, then the non-working spouse will likely be well compensated in a divorce.

I believe most divorces occur within 5-10 years of getting married, not 20+.

And doesn't it vary by state? I remember hearing that if you get divorced in TX the court absolutely will not allow lifetime alimony no matter how long you were married.

[Anonymous]

I think every woman should keep a toe in the water--freelance, do project work once in a while--to stay relevant in the workforce. And maintain their own checkbook so they have a credit history. I think this not just because of the possibility of divorce, but also in the case that a spouse becomes ill or dies. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but things happen.

[Anonymous]

It's not worth the time to consider because you can't extrapolate out from individual couples. In other words, it's all micro, no macro. I'm sorry your husband had mental problems and you got divorced but that has nothing to do with me. Every marriage is different and no one knows what goes on inside a marriage except the two people in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not worth the time to consider because you can't extrapolate out from individual couples. In other words, it's all micro, no macro. I'm sorry your husband had mental problems and you got divorced but that has nothing to do with me. Every marriage is different and no one knows what goes on inside a marriage except the two people in it.

How wonderful to have 1000% certainty that nothing bad will ever befall you.

[Anonymous]

My mom's case made me wonder about this. I think if she had gotten back into the work force sooner instead of staying home all the way through MS for two kids, her life would have been very very different, for the better. Right out off college, I was making more than she was as a 50-something. If she had income and mobility, she probably would not have stayed in a failing marriage and gotten dragged into bankruptcy because of my father's problems. She's recently admitting some of these things and it's scared me enough to keep working even though I'm so envious of sahms sometimes.