the cost of working - SAHM vs WOHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh. Are you talking about working in the 1990’s? These days most people work for home.

No they don't - otherwise how would get your food or your gas or the clothing you are wearing or the electronic your are typing on? And the 1990's....just stop-the pandemic started in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is gender equality here? If I was the breadwinner husband and if my wife decided not to work anymore, I think I would lose some respect for her. Will most of those marriages end when one of the sides hit a mid life crisis?

I think a lot of husbands do lose respect in this situation and maybe don't realize it consciously.

Wow!! WOHMs are so concerned for the welfare of SAHMs and so many cautionary tales about DHs cheating on SAHMs. LOL! There is no data to suggest that more SAHMs get cheated on than WOHMs or more SAHMs get divorced.

WOHMs get divorced, cheated on, do more work at home, get paid less than men, don't get promotions and work for bosses from hell regularly. They cannot survive if other lowly paid WOHMs are not taking care of their kids and their homes. The same lowly paid WOHMs also take care of the kids and homes of wealthy SAHMs, but at least wealthy SAHMs do not curl up and sob in a corner when pandemic happens, schools are virtual, cleaning lady stops coming.

Absolutely wrong
"Economists at Boston University found that dual-income marriages are more secure, and couples are less likely to split than those in marriages with only one working spouse. Further, according to the book “Getting to 50/50: How Working Parents Can Have it All,” marriages in which there is a sole breadwinner get divorced at a rate 14% above average, the highest of any income split. And if income and housework is divided evenly, the risk of divorce is 48% lower than average. Why? The authors say it’s got a lot to do with the fact that dual-income marriages have more financial stability. Being a sole breadwinner carries a tremendous amount of stress, and having a partner to share the weight can lead to more harmony and compatibility."

"Researches have shown that stay-at-home parents are more likely to experience depression and anger than their working partners. According to an article in Education News, Stephanie Coontz, co-chair of the Council for Contemporary Families, reports “no matter the income level, mothers who stay home are inclined to more depression, sadness, and anger than their working counterparts.” Coontz also reveals that divorce rates tend to decrease for couples who are both active in the workforce."

DP. I googled the two quotes you posted, and I see no citations or links to studies for either of those statistics. It reminds me of when everyone was passing around the study saying daughters of working moms have better jobs/higher education/etc, but it turns out that the only criteria for a working mom was working for any amount of pay before your daughter is 14! Almost every woman in America does that unless they’re like Amish. Even if that case, the Amish ladies probably sold some pies before their daughter was 14.

A little bit of a rusty brain, isn't it? Marketwatch and abcnews.

No, I found the articles, but they have no citations or links to actual studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is gender equality here? If I was the breadwinner husband and if my wife decided not to work anymore, I think I would lose some respect for her. Will most of those marriages end when one of the sides hit a mid life crisis?

By our third date, my husband was telling me he only wanted to marry a woman who would continue to work after marriage and kids. I appreciate his forthrightness and as I never had any interest in SAH, we ended up getting married and being dual WOHP. My guess is that most people discuss this extensively with prospective spouses.

I think that’s a really unfair thing to ask of a woman. You’d never had a baby before - what if you’d changed your mind once you actually gave birth? And your husband will never know what it’s like to give birth. Also, that just seems slimy to me of your husband to ask that. To me it sounds like, “I don’t care how you feel when you actually have the baby. The most important thing to me is that you keep making money for us.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is gender equality here? If I was the breadwinner husband and if my wife decided not to work anymore, I think I would lose some respect for her. Will most of those marriages end when one of the sides hit a mid life crisis?

By our third date, my husband was telling me he only wanted to marry a woman who would continue to work after marriage and kids. I appreciate his forthrightness and as I never had any interest in SAH, we ended up getting married and being dual WOHP. My guess is that most people discuss this extensively with prospective spouses.

I think that’s a really unfair thing to ask of a woman. You’d never had a baby before - what if you’d changed your mind once you actually gave birth? And your husband will never know what it’s like to give birth. Also, that just seems slimy to me of your husband to ask that. To me it sounds like, “I don’t care how you feel when you actually have the baby. The most important thing to me is that you keep making money for us.”

+1 I was ambitious and shocked when I realized I wanted to stay home. I went back to work, had a second kid, went back to work again and through it all I consistently wanted to be at home. I was super thankful my DH supported that, and that I’d paid off my strident loans rather than wait for PSLF to kick in. I think we still could have made SAH work even with the loans, but it was nice that wasn’t a factor.

[Anonymous]

Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

.the cost is missing out on your kid's childhood, spending little time with them, having someone else instill their values into your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is gender equality here? If I was the breadwinner husband and if my wife decided not to work anymore, I think I would lose some respect for her. Will most of those marriages end when one of the sides hit a mid life crisis?

By our third date, my husband was telling me he only wanted to marry a woman who would continue to work after marriage and kids. I appreciate his forthrightness and as I never had any interest in SAH, we ended up getting married and being dual WOHP. My guess is that most people discuss this extensively with prospective spouses.

I didn't want to be a SAHM but I wouldn't marry that guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

.the cost is missing out on your kid's childhood, spending little time with them, having someone else instill their values into your kid.

That’s not a cost of not working. It’s also a fiction for all but a tiny minority of working moms.

[Anonymous]

I think all moms who want to quit jobs need to make use of annuity stream calculators and see how much in list lifetime savings (earnings, pensions etc) this results in. In my case it was around $5mm over the course of 30 years! Unfortunately, I only ran the calculator when my DH asked for a divorce after 18 years together
My advice to all younger women who work: don’t quit until your 50% of marital assets (combined net equity in houses after cap gain; 401k, etc) are accumulatively equal to your potential lost lifetime earnings. Don’t count joint brokerage accounts which can be easily cashed - my exH cleared all accounts under his control during divorce; he was taking around $100k/ month in cash! Only count hard assets

Otherwise quitting is like buying a merchandise that will only work in 50% cases (half marriages end in divorce statistically )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

.the cost is missing out on your kid's childhood, spending little time with them, having someone else instill their values into your kid.

What?! Do you have kids? 2 year olds to play outside with a ball, play in the dirt, poop, eat and sleep. It's not like you teach Kant's value theory to a 2 year old. How can you miss on their childhood when they should be in preschool anyway starting at 3? Developmentally, it makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

.the cost is missing out on your kid's childhood, spending little time with them, having someone else instill their values into your kid.

What?! Do you have kids? 2 year olds to play outside with a ball, play in the dirt, poop, eat and sleep. It's not like you teach Kant's value theory to a 2 year old. How can you miss on their childhood when they should be in preschool anyway starting at 3? Developmentally, it makes no sense.

You really have no clue about how influential early caregivers are! Literally the very foundation of a person is formed during those early years. Things like how you deal with adversity, temperament, language, comfortable being outdoors etc etc. You must have outsourced or else you wouldn’t have asked this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is gender equality here? If I was the breadwinner husband and if my wife decided not to work anymore, I think I would lose some respect for her. Will most of those marriages end when one of the sides hit a mid life crisis?

By our third date, my husband was telling me he only wanted to marry a woman who would continue to work after marriage and kids. I appreciate his forthrightness and as I never had any interest in SAH, we ended up getting married and being dual WOHP. My guess is that most people discuss this extensively with prospective spouses.

Is he an equal partner on the home/kid front?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming everyone on dcum is of the professional working class, the question should actually be flipped: what’s the cost of not working?

Not arguing that upper middle class educated women shouldn’t be SAH, but there is a huge financial loss when they do make that decision. There is also the risk they take in trusting that their spouse will always be there to support them financially. For example, you SAH for ten years and then Dh wants a divorce, no 401k of your own, no marketable skillset except for cleaning and wiping butts… Eeek

.the cost is missing out on your kid's childhood, spending little time with them, having someone else instill their values into your kid.

What?! Do you have kids? 2 year olds to play outside with a ball, play in the dirt, poop, eat and sleep. It's not like you teach Kant's value theory to a 2 year old. How can you miss on their childhood when they should be in preschool anyway starting at 3? Developmentally, it makes no sense.

You really have no clue about how influential early caregivers are! Literally the very foundation of a person is formed during those early years. Things like how you deal with adversity, temperament, language, comfortable being outdoors etc etc. You must have outsourced or else you wouldn’t have asked this.

Are you serious? "Deal with adversity" as an infant? All children are comfortable being outdoors. I grew up with a nanny in a city like NYC, my H grew up in the suburbs at daycare and we all loved to play in the dirt. For language and temperament development, daycare is actually the best. Having a SAHM is a risk for language delays, both because of the mom's lower economic status and also because of reduced socialization. In addition, being in daycare sharply reduces the risk for some serious diseases, such as leukemia.

"The risk of being a late talker at 24 months was significantly associated with being a boy, lower socioeconomic status, being a nonsingleton, older maternal age at birth, moderately low birth weight, lower quality parenting, receipt of day care for less than 10 hr/week, and attention problems. "

"Toddlers are surprisingly good at processing the speech of other young children, according to a new study. And toddlers who have more exposure to other children, such as those in daycare, may be particularly good at certain word learning skills."

Europeans
"Children who go to daycare may benefit from a wider variety of social and communicative situations relative to children who do not go to daycare, a recent study suggests. The former have a heightened ability to adjust their non-verbal communication to take into account the age of the person they are playing with."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all moms who want to quit jobs need to make use of annuity stream calculators and see how much in list lifetime savings (earnings, pensions etc) this results in. In my case it was around $5mm over the course of 30 years! Unfortunately, I only ran the calculator when my DH asked for a divorce after 18 years together
My advice to all younger women who work: don’t quit until your 50% of marital assets (combined net equity in houses after cap gain; 401k, etc) are accumulatively equal to your potential lost lifetime earnings. Don’t count joint brokerage accounts which can be easily cashed - my exH cleared all accounts under his control during divorce; he was taking around $100k/ month in cash! Only count hard assets

Otherwise quitting is like buying a merchandise that will only work in 50% cases (half marriages end in divorce statistically )

I'm sorry This happened to my MIL. The only women who are able to maintain the standard of living after divorce are those with significant assets prior to the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all moms who want to quit jobs need to make use of annuity stream calculators and see how much in list lifetime savings (earnings, pensions etc) this results in. In my case it was around $5mm over the course of 30 years! Unfortunately, I only ran the calculator when my DH asked for a divorce after 18 years together
My advice to all younger women who work: don’t quit until your 50% of marital assets (combined net equity in houses after cap gain; 401k, etc) are accumulatively equal to your potential lost lifetime earnings. Don’t count joint brokerage accounts which can be easily cashed - my exH cleared all accounts under his control during divorce; he was taking around $100k/ month in cash! Only count hard assets

Otherwise quitting is like buying a merchandise that will only work in 50% cases (half marriages end in divorce statistically )

That's not true for people who are middle class and above, educated, and who marry in their late 20's or older (most of DCUM). It's true that women need to protect their financial stability, but life is about more than total lifetime earnings.