single income family/ SAHM major disadvantage

[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 the H needs to work more to support the family and has decided parenting is the mom’s job.

He’s home less than 2 parents working, takes jobs with less flexibility and lots of travel… justifying it because money is his main job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume your kids are out of the home now so what do you do with your time? Travel a few times a year and random hobbies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always laugh at all the sahms who think having high salary good jobs consumes so much of life that you have no time for your kids or ability to attend to the home life.

This is either a delusion you tell yourself to justify not working, or if you're basing this on your husband working crazy hours, then your husband is either terrible at his job or he hates his family since he's choosing to spend all his time at work. All the men and women i know in the best, highest paying careers have pretty flexible lives. It's the people in low and middle class jobs that have the crappy life and no flexibility. But most men and women with high paying successful careers who want to carve out time for their families absolutely can. If your husband "needed" you to stay home to succeed at his job, sounds like he's not very good at his job.

Interestingly, the exception to the above is... doctors, who often are required to work very long hours, depending on specialty. And for that reason, make absolutely lousy uninvolved husbands and fathers. My friends married to doctors are all miserable, or alternatively, have little to do with their husbands in order to stay happy. Yuck. Good luck to the OP's daughter.

It's this. These women would rather marry someone who is around 2h a week than have an actual partner.

DH earns a seven figure income. Just because my husband earns a lot doesn’t mean he isn’t around. We know many very high income people. Sure, they may not be at school pick up at 3:30 but we eat dinner together every night. DH helps drive kids to sports and is very involved on weekends. He helped with bath time, bedtime, enjoys watching our kids play sports.

I’m not sure why you would think that a person who earns a high income would only spend 2 hours per week with their families. I’m on vacation now with very high earning people and they are the senior ones moving times of calls. The higher the earner, the more flexibility they often have. I’m a sahm now. My boss used to take the day off to golf all the time. He would go on vacation whenever he felt like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume your kids are out of the home now so what do you do with your time? Travel a few times a year and random hobbies?

I’m sure she can make PowerPoint presentations, sit in traffic, and attend pointless meetings if she gets bored, PP. Use your imagination.

[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.

this sounds like you are Muslim- the only women I know who have husbands like that are muslim. and that is not the case for most americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always laugh at all the sahms who think having high salary good jobs consumes so much of life that you have no time for your kids or ability to attend to the home life.

This is either a delusion you tell yourself to justify not working, or if you're basing this on your husband working crazy hours, then your husband is either terrible at his job or he hates his family since he's choosing to spend all his time at work. All the men and women i know in the best, highest paying careers have pretty flexible lives. It's the people in low and middle class jobs that have the crappy life and no flexibility. But most men and women with high paying successful careers who want to carve out time for their families absolutely can. If your husband "needed" you to stay home to succeed at his job, sounds like he's not very good at his job.

Interestingly, the exception to the above is... doctors, who often are required to work very long hours, depending on specialty. And for that reason, make absolutely lousy uninvolved husbands and fathers. My friends married to doctors are all miserable, or alternatively, have little to do with their husbands in order to stay happy. Yuck. Good luck to the OP's daughter.

It's this. These women would rather marry someone who is around 2h a week than have an actual partner.

DH earns a seven figure income. Just because my husband earns a lot doesn’t mean he isn’t around. We know many very high income people. Sure, they may not be at school pick up at 3:30 but we eat dinner together every night. DH helps drive kids to sports and is very involved on weekends. He helped with bath time, bedtime, enjoys watching our kids play sports.

I’m not sure why you would think that a person who earns a high income would only spend 2 hours per week with their families. I’m on vacation now with very high earning people and they are the senior ones moving times of calls. The higher the earner, the more flexibility they often have. I’m a sahm now. My boss used to take the day off to golf all the time. He would go on vacation whenever he felt like it.

There's some random poster here who doesn't understand anything and wants to poo poo on others success. Part of me wants to respond but it's so obvious they're a troll.

[Anonymous]

We started as a dual-income couple 29 years ago, but as soon as our baby started getting sick at day care and we did the which-one-of-us-will-stay-home dance a few times, we realized it was unsustainable. DH is a lawyer and we knew his schedule would only get more demanding. We also knew he had much more room to earn. With a second baby in the plans, I quit and went freelance.

That decision allowed DH to flourish and maximize our family income. Did I miss having a steady income and office colleagues? Sure. But I'll never forget being at a friend's house with my toddlers, hanging out with her three kids and nanny, while my friend called from an overseas work trip to check in. She was tired, hormonal, finding it difficult to pump breast milk and store it on a plane, and she burst into tears. At that moment, I knew nothing could get me back into the full-time rat race while my kids were growing up. And I'm someone who was sure she would always work.

If your daughter already knows what she wants, kudos to her.

[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.

The stats don’t back this up whatsoever. The percentage of successful companies started by women is quite small…the percentage of any businesses that have any kind of exit is very small…multiply those two percentages together and you get a minuscule number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The stats don’t back this up whatsoever. The percentage of successful companies started by women is quite small…the percentage of any businesses that have any kind of exit is very small…multiply those two percentages together and you get a minuscule number.

Interesting. Guess I’ve got a badass network since I know 4-5 off the top of my head who made anywhere from mid 8 figures to 9 figures doing exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Also SAHM have huge 401ks sometimes. Remember the stock market used to be cheap. There is a saying the money you put in stock market 21-35 will be bigger than money you put in 35-65. Mainly because of compounding.

My wife is a SAHM since January 2001 when the Dow was 9,900, today it is around 49,000. When she started working it was 1,800. This means SAHMs all will have six figure 401ks by retirement on their own.

Their husbands well compounding is a crazy thing. You are lucky to have at most twice their balance.

Todays SAHMs who are younger may have joined work force in 2003 and quit in 2019 got a ton of stock dirt cheap during post 9/11 and the great recession in 2008/2009 era it was as low as 6,500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also SAHM have huge 401ks sometimes. Remember the stock market used to be cheap. There is a saying the money you put in stock market 21-35 will be bigger than money you put in 35-65. Mainly because of compounding.

My wife is a SAHM since January 2001 when the Dow was 9,900, today it is around 49,000. When she started working it was 1,800. This means SAHMs all will have six figure 401ks by retirement on their own.

Their husbands well compounding is a crazy thing. You are lucky to have at most twice their balance.

Todays SAHMs who are younger may have joined work force in 2003 and quit in 2019 got a ton of stock dirt cheap during post 9/11 and the great recession in 2008/2009 era it was as low as 6,500.

lol no your crappy 401 balance of a woman who hasn't worked in 25 years is not part of the financial picture. If it is that much of your household wealth, you probably shouldn't have gone down to one income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume your kids are out of the home now so what do you do with your time? Travel a few times a year and random hobbies?

well until spouse retired, I managed their schedule (Executive with a busy travel schedule...and I was the taxi to/from work on days they had to go into office), managed the house, etc.
We travel 3-4 months out of the year. So I still manage everything for both homes we own/use, so for me I still have a lot to do. But basically I get to pick and choose and enjoy life, as one should in their retirement. Don't need to constantly be "busy" with something specific....reading a book, walking for 1 hour daily, then another 30 mins of weight training/stretching, cooking meals with spouse, shopping for all that cooking, and just enjoying whatever you want to do on a whim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume your kids are out of the home now so what do you do with your time? Travel a few times a year and random hobbies?

I’m sure she can make PowerPoint presentations, sit in traffic, and attend pointless meetings if she gets bored, PP. Use your imagination.

+1000

Don't understand the "what do you do". We retired early, we have plenty of money, so can basically do whatever we want (outside of the ultra wealthy ridiculous things). We do what we want, when we want, we travel...since spouse retired we have spent about 40% of the time traveling. we read books, we exercise, we volunteer, basically whatever we feel like doing. Don't have to have a "job" to be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also SAHM have huge 401ks sometimes. Remember the stock market used to be cheap. There is a saying the money you put in stock market 21-35 will be bigger than money you put in 35-65. Mainly because of compounding.

My wife is a SAHM since January 2001 when the Dow was 9,900, today it is around 49,000. When she started working it was 1,800. This means SAHMs all will have six figure 401ks by retirement on their own.

Their husbands well compounding is a crazy thing. You are lucky to have at most twice their balance.

Todays SAHMs who are younger may have joined work force in 2003 and quit in 2019 got a ton of stock dirt cheap during post 9/11 and the great recession in 2008/2009 era it was as low as 6,500.

lol no your crappy 401 balance of a woman who hasn't worked in 25 years is not part of the financial picture. If it is that much of your household wealth, you probably shouldn't have gone down to one income.

Heard of compounding, moron?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We started as a dual-income couple 29 years ago, but as soon as our baby started getting sick at day care and we did the which-one-of-us-will-stay-home dance a few times, we realized it was unsustainable. DH is a lawyer and we knew his schedule would only get more demanding. We also knew he had much more room to earn. With a second baby in the plans, I quit and went freelance.

That decision allowed DH to flourish and maximize our family income. Did I miss having a steady income and office colleagues? Sure. But I'll never forget being at a friend's house with my toddlers, hanging out with her three kids and nanny, while my friend called from an overseas work trip to check in. She was tired, hormonal, finding it difficult to pump breast milk and store it on a plane, and she burst into tears. At that moment, I knew nothing could get me back into the full-time rat race while my kids were growing up. And I'm someone who was sure she would always work.

If your daughter already knows what she wants, kudos to her.

+1

I had daycare all lined up for our first, was going to take 4 months off (company had full paid maternity leave for 13 weeks and then you could negotiate more time off). But once the kid arrived, I realized I wanted to be home with the baby (and baby refused to take a bottle, even If I was gone and they were extremely hungry) So I decided to stay home, put in for a full year off and got approved. At the one year mark, I knew being at home was right for me and our family.
And yes, I left a good job, and could have easily afforded a nanny (it would have only been 30% of my take-home pay). But you do what is right for you and your family. I don't regret being there while our kids grew up, and consider myself lucky to be able to have made that choice.