single income family/ SAHM major disadvantage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big difference shows up when there is a significant downturn and layoffs--e.g., in 2008-9 I worked in finance and saw a lot of my peers get laid off. The ones with spouses that worked, even if it was at a lower-paying job, had a certain amount of stability that came from having a spouse with a job and benefits.

Another big benefit is the people with working spouses generally have more ability to take risks and go into entrepreneurship, etc. Single-earner families have to be much more risk averse.

This. There’s a reason a decent amount of UMC / “working wealthy” women start very successful businesses in their 30s and 40s that they sell for a good chunk 10-15 years later. We know a number of families where the DH made a lot of steady $ that let the DW take a big “generational wealth” bet for the family via entrepreneurship after having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Not in law so help me understand. My female friends with kids who are partners both have high income husband and are available to their kids, why can’t male partners do this and need a SAHM?

Because men who value and support women who work also value being a parent and contributor at home.

Men who want a SAHM prefer traditional gender roles and that means house/child stuff = womens work.

[Anonymous]

I’m a SAHM to three kids, pregnant with the fourth, and married to an orthopedic surgeon. I actually left work a few years ago, and am planning to go back, but it’s been difficult. I love my kids but miss working and having that drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in well paying jobs, I’ve noticed that the men with SAHMs notice the men with the same jobs but who have wives who work have less pressure and more income and are envious especially if the spouse has good enough hours they do a lot of the SAHM duties.

Yeah but what woman wants to work FT (or even nearly FT) and “do a lot of the SAHM duties”? Who would sign up for that?

As a SAHM to a high earner husband I do NOT think mine is the ideal. I think the ideal is TWO flexible family friends jobs with TWO fully engaged parents. But I didn’t know this when I got married at 24 to someone attending law school. My mom worked AND did everything at home and I saw how miserable she was. My dad worked but did nothing else.

Me. I do 75-80% of the "SAHM duties" and work 45 hours + a week. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment Seriously that's how our family runs best. "If you want things done, give them to a busy person."

And if you are fine with that, good for you. I wouldn't be. I'm not working 45+ hours/week, and doing 80%+ of the home duties (and all of the emergency kiddo stuff). I'd rather not have the job. Thankfully my spouse was supportive and made more than enough for it all to happen (or I could have hired a nanny/help at home and continue to work---whatever I wanted). But I wasn't going to "do it all" and run myself ragged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is possible to have a single family income and SAHM but that requires a lot of lowered expectations.
No private school, almost no eating out, almost no vacations, hand me down clothing, etc...
The above is possible during the early years because who wants to take toddlers out to dinner or on vacation?

The sweet spot is to take advantage of full-time school to secure a part-time job. That would allow additional income to buttress the additional expenses of children's extracurriculars and the increasingly expensive family life.

SAHM-hood is great but gets awfully boring when the kids are late teens getting ready for college.
Having a mom who works is inspirational for kids too and gives them a model for "can-do".
I have been both and, well, each family is different with different needs.

You are correct. Every family is different with different needs. I have not yet found being SAHM/SAHW boring. When I am SAH-grandma, I will not find that boring too. How unevolved are you that you do not know what to do with your free time? If you can find fulfillment only in doing routine 9-5 work...well, that's on you. You are certainly serving someone's interest.

As a SAHM (DH makes decent amount) -
- we were able to afford a brand new SFH,
- we ate out very frequently,
- we had international vacations every year,
- my kids had all the gear and clothes that they needed,
- my kids went to magnet programs in public schools,
- they got full merit scholarships in state college, paying peanuts to major in dual majors,
- we always had a twice-weekly cleaner, lawn company, part time chef
- we entertained a lot and had help to do that.
- we had tutors and coaches for my kids, they had expensive ECs, and we travelled for the ECs, we could afford all the camps etc
- we have been able to save for all our needs - college, retirement, travel, kids weddings, kids cars, down payments for kids first condo etc.

Your kids need you even more in MS-HS years. And once my kids went to college, we continued to provide support and input to them. When you are a SAH grandmother, your kids may need you even more.

BTW - my DH is a very dedicated dad and as a SAHM, I made sure that all his free time was spent in spending time with the family, his hobbies, family travel, socializing, and family obligation. I could buy back time for him because I took care of everything else.

I have been in both situations - SAHM and WOHM. And no amount of outsourcing as a WOHM could make up for not having endless time with my children. However, I absolutely find it valuable to outsource all chores (except child rearing) that you can so that you have more time to be valuable to your kids well-being and growth, even as a SAHM - if you can afford it.

Being a SAHM (rich enough to outsource some routine work and tap into resources to create opportunities for your family and yourself) gives you and your family precious time.

Time is the only non-renewable resource in your life.

This 1000%

Having a SAHP means when everyone is together, they can be a family, and don't have to focus on "getting the basic chores and life done". When your spouse is HHI, sure you could be adding to the family $$$ but often it's at a level that is not noticed because it's not needed. We saved for retirement/college, went on very nice vacations (2-3 a year as a family, 2-3 as just the 2 of us), had cleaners/lawncare/etc and basically hired out everything except "taking care of the kids". Sure my spouse worked long hours, but they were going to do that as an executive (and moving up towards that as head of sales, etc) anyhow...you don't get to those positions or keep those positions with working 9-5 and leaving at 3pm 3 days a week for a kid's activity. Me being at home just allowed for more flexibility and much less stress (sick kid---no worries).

But me adding $200K that is taxed at almost 50% (when you include EVERYTHING) didn't seem worth it, because at some point, you don't "need more money". What you need is a peaceful life that reduces stress

Only if you want to provide a peaceful life to everyone else. You're reducing your husband's and kids' stress.

And my own. I don't need a paying job for my "self esteem" (but I get that some people do). I also had a healthy marriage with a fully supportive spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the big difference shows up when there is a significant downturn and layoffs--e.g., in 2008-9 I worked in finance and saw a lot of my peers get laid off. The ones with spouses that worked, even if it was at a lower-paying job, had a certain amount of stability that came from having a spouse with a job and benefits.

Well if you choose to have a SAHP, you have to build your lifestyle to be able to support it. That means a 12 month EF and saving well for BOTH to have a great retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gen z son, recent college grad who landed a great job, but lives at home while he invests al his income he would otherwise spend on housing/commute/ utilities (we live 2 miles from his job). He is adamant that he only marries someone who put their education to work and earns an income. I think this generation (z) is acutely aware that it’s unrealistic in today’s economy to not have all hands on deck when raising a family.

I understand this attitude and largely agree with it, but I also think a lot of ambitious young people do not (and literally cannot) understand how significantly an infant/toddler will upend one’s working life and how differential these impacts are for women vs. men. Most modern workplace are still extremely hostile to breastfeeding and recovering new mothers.

I have a friend who was in a dual income household until they had their second kid - she was working in a rundown hospital, shuttling kids to and from daycares, lugging and rinsing out pumping equipment to use in a dark office room with a door that didn’t adequately lock, etc. After many open discussions she and her husband mutually agreed to her staying home for the next few years and then reevaluating later. She is much happier now. I wouldn’t want to be with a partner who rigidly demanded that I stay at an untenable job - I think it just has to be an ongoing open conversation and both parties have to be transparent and respectful of each other’s contributions.

How pathetic. Instead of stepping up to do more around the home and with childcare, he told her to quit her job and do everything? F***ing yikes.

That is not the story. They were both stepping up around the house; her job was rigid and unforgiving about her needing to pump breast milk, needing more flexible hours, etc.

I’m not saying it’s fair that women are the ones who often end up being semi-forced out (though in this case they both agreed to this arrangement); I’m just saying, it’s easy to think you’ll be able to keep going full throttle at a career post-kids until you actually are living it, and it’s important for both parties to be flexible and communicative

My kids are in their 20s now, and my husband and I, along with many (not all) of our friends, went "full throttle" for 21 years while we had kids at home. Yes you have to be flexible and communicative but it's easier than ever for both spouses to do meaningful and lucrative full time work.

I took a break to focus on the kids. Now I have meaningful full time work again. It’s not that big a deal.

I don’t know who decided that there is only one correct way to work and raise a family, but I assure you, there are options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big difference shows up when there is a significant downturn and layoffs--e.g., in 2008-9 I worked in finance and saw a lot of my peers get laid off. The ones with spouses that worked, even if it was at a lower-paying job, had a certain amount of stability that came from having a spouse with a job and benefits.

Another big benefit is the people with working spouses generally have more ability to take risks and go into entrepreneurship, etc. Single-earner families have to be much more risk averse.

This. There’s a reason a decent amount of UMC / “working wealthy” women start very successful businesses in their 30s and 40s that they sell for a good chunk 10-15 years later. We know a number of families where the DH made a lot of steady $ that let the DW take a big “generational wealth” bet for the family via entrepreneurship after having kids.

A lot of men who go into entrepreneurship or take huge risks also had working spouses who supported the family during the early years of their companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gen z son, recent college grad who landed a great job, but lives at home while he invests al his income he would otherwise spend on housing/commute/ utilities (we live 2 miles from his job). He is adamant that he only marries someone who put their education to work and earns an income. I think this generation (z) is acutely aware that it’s unrealistic in today’s economy to not have all hands on deck when raising a family.

I understand this attitude and largely agree with it, but I also think a lot of ambitious young people do not (and literally cannot) understand how significantly an infant/toddler will upend one’s working life and how differential these impacts are for women vs. men. Most modern workplace are still extremely hostile to breastfeeding and recovering new mothers.

I have a friend who was in a dual income household until they had their second kid - she was working in a rundown hospital, shuttling kids to and from daycares, lugging and rinsing out pumping equipment to use in a dark office room with a door that didn’t adequately lock, etc. After many open discussions she and her husband mutually agreed to her staying home for the next few years and then reevaluating later. She is much happier now. I wouldn’t want to be with a partner who rigidly demanded that I stay at an untenable job - I think it just has to be an ongoing open conversation and both parties have to be transparent and respectful of each other’s contributions.

How pathetic. Instead of stepping up to do more around the home and with childcare, he told her to quit her job and do everything? F***ing yikes.

That is not the story. They were both stepping up around the house; her job was rigid and unforgiving about her needing to pump breast milk, needing more flexible hours, etc.

I’m not saying it’s fair that women are the ones who often end up being semi-forced out (though in this case they both agreed to this arrangement); I’m just saying, it’s easy to think you’ll be able to keep going full throttle at a career post-kids until you actually are living it, and it’s important for both parties to be flexible and communicative

My kids are in their 20s now, and my husband and I, along with many (not all) of our friends, went "full throttle" for 21 years while we had kids at home. Yes you have to be flexible and communicative but it's easier than ever for both spouses to do meaningful and lucrative full time work.

I took a break to focus on the kids. Now I have meaningful full time work again. It’s not that big a deal.

I don’t know who decided that there is only one correct way to work and raise a family, but I assure you, there are options.

+1 this was my main point initially - didn’t expect all the pushback on this! Basically I would just be wary of anyone with an extremely rigid mindset about what people’s individual contributions MUST look like at all times, especially before you have a real understanding of the inevitably unequal burdens of the early infant years with breastfeeding etc.

[Anonymous]

My brother started a company and made bank...and my SIL has always been a SAHM with all the domestic staff. So, even that can be done.

My DH would never took money from me that I earned for running the household etc. He never touched my jewelry that I was given by my parents or ILs to pay the bills.

My money was my money and his money was our money. My DH took steps that made me trust him. No pre-nups, my name along with him on all assets, pension, insurance beneficiary etc. When I quit my job, I had amassed enough in my 401K that people have when they retire. And then he made sure that we had enough insurance to never have me go back to work ever again in my life. My kids education and weddings was covered, and I had enough that I could travel the world in style and could live in a nice old age home till the end of my life.

When you become a SAHM, there is a fear of becoming financially strapped in case of any adverse situation. But for most women, it is the fear of poverty due to divorce, death and disability of spouse etc. So, before becoming a SAHM, make sure that your financial future is secure. If it means that you manage that risk by paying insurance... even if your HHI is not that high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gen z son, recent college grad who landed a great job, but lives at home while he invests al his income he would otherwise spend on housing/commute/ utilities (we live 2 miles from his job). He is adamant that he only marries someone who put their education to work and earns an income. I think this generation (z) is acutely aware that it’s unrealistic in today’s economy to not have all hands on deck when raising a family.

I understand this attitude and largely agree with it, but I also think a lot of ambitious young people do not (and literally cannot) understand how significantly an infant/toddler will upend one’s working life and how differential these impacts are for women vs. men. Most modern workplace are still extremely hostile to breastfeeding and recovering new mothers.

I have a friend who was in a dual income household until they had their second kid - she was working in a rundown hospital, shuttling kids to and from daycares, lugging and rinsing out pumping equipment to use in a dark office room with a door that didn’t adequately lock, etc. After many open discussions she and her husband mutually agreed to her staying home for the next few years and then reevaluating later. She is much happier now. I wouldn’t want to be with a partner who rigidly demanded that I stay at an untenable job - I think it just has to be an ongoing open conversation and both parties have to be transparent and respectful of each other’s contributions.

How pathetic. Instead of stepping up to do more around the home and with childcare, he told her to quit her job and do everything? F***ing yikes.

That is not the story. They were both stepping up around the house; her job was rigid and unforgiving about her needing to pump breast milk, needing more flexible hours, etc.

I’m not saying it’s fair that women are the ones who often end up being semi-forced out (though in this case they both agreed to this arrangement); I’m just saying, it’s easy to think you’ll be able to keep going full throttle at a career post-kids until you actually are living it, and it’s important for both parties to be flexible and communicative

My kids are in their 20s now, and my husband and I, along with many (not all) of our friends, went "full throttle" for 21 years while we had kids at home. Yes you have to be flexible and communicative but it's easier than ever for both spouses to do meaningful and lucrative full time work.

I took a break to focus on the kids. Now I have meaningful full time work again. It’s not that big a deal.

I don’t know who decided that there is only one correct way to work and raise a family, but I assure you, there are options.

+1

Do what works best for you and your family. in early 30s, decided to stay at home with first kid. Now mid 50s, spouse is finally retired and I have no plans to return to work. No need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My brother started a company and made bank...and my SIL has always been a SAHM with all the domestic staff. So, even that can be done.

My DH would never took money from me that I earned for running the household etc. He never touched my jewelry that I was given by my parents or ILs to pay the bills.

My money was my money and his money was our money. My DH took steps that made me trust him. No pre-nups, my name along with him on all assets, pension, insurance beneficiary etc. When I quit my job, I had amassed enough in my 401K that people have when they retire. And then he made sure that we had enough insurance to never have me go back to work ever again in my life. My kids education and weddings was covered, and I had enough that I could travel the world in style and could live in a nice old age home till the end of my life.

When you become a SAHM, there is a fear of becoming financially strapped in case of any adverse situation. But for most women, it is the fear of poverty due to divorce, death and disability of spouse etc. So, before becoming a SAHM, make sure that your financial future is secure. If it means that you manage that risk by paying insurance... even if your HHI is not that high.

+1

Never become a SAHP if your marriage is not thriving and if you have any inkling that your spouse might be a jerk and not provide for you and the kids if divorce were to happen. Then also ensure you are saving for retirement(IRAs), and that you help with the finances, so you know what is going on. Purchase good life insurance for both you and your spouse, until it's not needed.
But if "his money" is not the entire family's then don't do it

[Anonymous]

Do what works for you and your family, but it's probably wise for both parents to keep their skills current and keep a foot in the working world (can be through volunteering, very part time work, taking a night class) so they can return easily if they aren't working but find themselves in a situation where they need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the big difference shows up when there is a significant downturn and layoffs--e.g., in 2008-9 I worked in finance and saw a lot of my peers get laid off. The ones with spouses that worked, even if it was at a lower-paying job, had a certain amount of stability that came from having a spouse with a job and benefits.

Another big benefit is the people with working spouses generally have more ability to take risks and go into entrepreneurship, etc. Single-earner families have to be much more risk averse.

This. There’s a reason a decent amount of UMC / “working wealthy” women start very successful businesses in their 30s and 40s that they sell for a good chunk 10-15 years later. We know a number of families where the DH made a lot of steady $ that let the DW take a big “generational wealth” bet for the family via entrepreneurship after having kids.

What kind d of businesses? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two camps.

If you’re in the SAHM middle class camp, it is probably more comfortable to stay around others in the same camp. Everyone will be frugal, feel privileged to stay at home, support their working spouse (usually the husband), and look a little tired and frazzled from being home with kids.

In 2-earner families, the vibe is different. The moms usually look more professional but may be a little out of touch with the PTA or latest school stuff, they tend to have more organized activities instead of play dates.

I was a SAHM before my divorce and am working now so I see both camps and have been in both.

The stereotypes are always laughable here. Middle class should stay together, be cheap, fell such a privilege over their choice but look frazzled and tired. 2 earner families the moms look more professional and are more organized. Ok. Got it. Instead of separating by color the new thing is to separate by income?