Do any SAHMs regret it because of financial reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

People always say this, but there are people who are proud of their lifetime accomplishments. Imagine a teacher or doctor - I'm sure they are proud of helping people throughout their career. They probably don't care too much about the money, though.

I assure you that people are highly motivated by money, particularly doctors. In any case I agree: I don’t wish to work more, but I enjoy working and did not enjoy being a SAHM, at all. It was the most depressing and demoralizing experience of my life, which made me feel like a failure as a woman/mother. I am so much happier with a career.

And also, we cook from scratch and read to our kids too. Wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have regretted not being a SAHM now that I see how well things turned out. You really can’t look back, substitute a few pieces and think it would have worked out better. One decision affects another.

+1. Plus I didn’t want strangers raising my kids.

Do you understand what you're proposing? That anyone with kids needs to stay home or have a partner who stays home? How exactly would this work?

Thank you. It’s such a haughty, un-nuanced view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider what your children will learn by watching a smart capable women’s who is entirely dependent upon a man for food and shelter, like one of his children.

She focuses on child care and home management. ( I mean when the kids are older, not babies. )

Don’t you think that will influence their perceptions of the genders?
You are the only one with warped perceptions, hope you don't pass it on to your kids but you likely have

NP. Jumping in on this one because the scenario above was my parents, but worse. My father used money to control my mom - literally gave her cash in an envelope every month and that was it. To this day, my mom doesn't know how much they have in their estate or what will happen to her when he dies or if he leaves her. She budgets based on cash in the envelope. For whatever warped reason, he was very supportive of his daughters' education and paid for all of it and I'm grateful. However, my parents' weird dynamic, which was partly my mom's fault, greatly affected my and my sister's life choices - we both work and do well. My brother married a woman with a good career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No regrets that I spent time with my kids and they have done well in life. And I am a frugal person, living in a nice house in an average neighborhood and my kids went to public schools and state flagships - so I do not need a whole lot of money. I have a happy marriage and my DH makes a decent amount of money upwards of $400K.

I have enough for our needs and some wants too.

BUT if I won the lottery, I would fly everywhere in business and first class. I hate travelling in cattle class, especially flying for 20 hours in cattle class. I am too old for this crap!!!

Your post seemed sane until you mentioned that your husband makes over 400 goddam thousand dollars a year and you can’t figure out how to fly business or first class.

DCUM posters, a serious question: what in the actual hell do you guys do with all your money?

Np
At 3x that income we would not consider first or business class either. I also dream of having enough to buy those tickets. Maybe we should cut back on housekeeping but that wouldn't make a dent in paying so much for flights. We travel far and often but those seats would equal a vehicle for our family of four. We've over splurged on hotels though.

+1

At 400K we would rarely pay for a business class. It is simply not in the budget at that income level, unless you live in a VLCOL area and your house is only $150K

Unless you are completely mismanaging your money (which I suspect many of you are), or you are flying overseas with the entire family on a monthly basis, there is absolutely zero reason why you cannot afford business class tickets for your family vacation at an income of 400K, and it should not even make you bat an eye.

I would love to see some of your budgets because many of you clearly need a lot of help.

So if you are making $400K, then you are taking home $260K (after fed and state taxes and FICA). Add in $20K for each spouse for 401K and another $6.5K each for IRA---that's $53K reduction. If you have 2 Kids, then take away $25K/year for college savings (at a minimum)--this might pay for in-state for 4 years for each kid.

So now I have only paid taxes, saved for retirement and college (the bare minimum) and I have $182K remaining for everything else.



My monthly mortgage on a million dollar home will be $6K+ for mortgage, insurance, prop taxes ($72K). Health insurance plus medical co-pays/fees per month will easily be $1K, and the kids are not even old enough for braces.

Add in vehicle insurance, costs for cars, etc...

Then I've got food, clothing, etc.

Oh and perhaps we need to fly to see family once per year in the USA.

So sure, I technically could afford to pay business class for a trip to Europe for my family of 4, but that would be $4K/person vs $1.2K/person. So $16K vs 4.8K. I will be flying economy and using the difference to help pay for the rest of the vacation.

What I am getting out of your post is that you have approximately $100,000 after paying taxes, retirement savings, college savings, mortgage, and health insurance. So let’s say you have about 8K per month to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and entertainment. That is an absolute f***ton of money.

So yes, you can “technically” and OBVIOUSLY afford to spring for business class tickets on your yearly European vacation if that is something that matters to you (and I am not sure how many rich posters on here were whining about “cattle class” or if you were one of them). That you choose not to is just that, a CHOICE.

(TLDR: your post only confirms you would be an idiot to pretend you can’t afford business class on 400K income. Stop crying poor, it’s ridiculous.)

If you have 8k a month for all of those things, would you spend 15-20k on business class seats?

If you earned 100k a year would you spend 5% of your income on plane tickets for one vacation? My guess is no.

I don’t think PP is saying she’s too poor to afford business class. What she’s saying is if you spend 15-20k on business class seats it’s going to have to come from somewhere else.

Exactly! Not saying “I’m poor”. But pointing out it’s not the smartest decision fiscally. Most fiscally smart people would not spend on business class seats at that income—-I’d rather have that money for an extra vacation than spend 12-14k for 8 hours on a plane.

Sigh. There is a fundamental miscommunication here. The question is not “would this be a smart financial decision?” Nor is the question “would I personally spend this money on business class tickets?” The question was “could I afford to spend that much money on business class tickets if I decided that I really wanted to fly business class?” And the answer indisputably is “yes, you can afford it”.

I can’t figure out what in the world the rest of you are arguing about. No one is telling you that you are required to fly first class, just as no one is telling you that you should buy a 1 million dollar+ house or a six figure electric vehicle, or that you should have a nanny or a housekeeper or a lawn service or private schools, or invest all your money so you can take a tour in Jeff Bezos’s rocket someday. Merely that these things are options at that income level (actually I am not sure about the rocket) and you can use your discretion to determine where to put your discretionary income. Pretending that you simply can’t afford it when the reality is that you just don’t want to spend your money that way is silly.

Oh, I see. You have retreated to the pedantic defense of "these things are technically possible at your income, so you can afford it." But, that's not what you previously said. To remind you:

Your post seemed sane until you mentioned that your husband makes over 400 goddam thousand dollars a year and you can’t figure out how to fly business or first class.

and

Unless you are completely mismanaging your money (which I suspect many of you are), or you are flying overseas with the entire family on a monthly basis, there is absolutely zero reason why you cannot afford business class tickets for your family vacation at an income of 400K, and it should not even make you bat an eye.

I would love to see some of your budgets because many of you clearly need a lot of help.

So your initial position was that, with routine budgeting, a family making $400k should be able to fly business or first class, no problem. When numerous people chimed in that you're mistaken, you keep doubling down and subtly moving the goal posts until we are left with your most recent post.

It's pointless to continue this argument, but I am fascinated by your motivation. I'm guessing it is some combination of:

- envy that others make $400k+ and you don't;
- an inability to admit that you may have made an error (typical in teenagers, but in adults a possible sign of a personality disorder)
- you have convinced yourself that you have superior money management skills to everyone else out there, and refuse to give up the delusion; or
- you don't really believe the nonsense you are posting, but are having fun (i.e., a troll).

If I missed something, please feel free to fill in the blanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

I worked full time outside the home and made every meal from scratch , and read to my child everyday.

I am not sure what image you have in your head of how kids with two working parents are raised. It appears to support your life choices though, so I guess that is good.

+1

My family is so different from the ones largely being discussed on this thread. We both work full time in government jobs. We have less money than most families described here, but we spend a lot of time together as a family including on weekdays. Obviously, our child gets read to every day (by us and at her child care center). And yeah, we eat out maybe two meals per week? Every other meal is home cooked. Do I think our family is better? Of course not, much of what is described on this thread sounds great. But I feel incredibly fortunate.

Not one person here was attacking your family or claiming you or your child care don't have time to read or home cook. They have their own individual needs and made a choice. Completely different situations from yours! It's not an attack on families from different backgrounds to say "I made this choice because it worked for me".
Why do people take this personally? It's not an attack, like saying "your children will view you negatively" or "you are a bad example" like a prior poster did.
If stuff like others considering staying home offends you, why even read the thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would go part time. Best of both worlds. Your life becomes more sane yet you stay relevant.

Hard to give more specific advice without knowing your finances.

Absolutely not. I don’t know why people think part time is the solution. Because then OP ends up doing 90% of the household/childcare things and still has to give 80% at work even if she is technically 50% or less time. This was my experience anyway. Unless you have a job where you really stop working when you leave, it won’t work (like Starbucks worker, medical professional, or whatever blue collar job or job working with people where you don’t have paperwork). Then the other spouse will get resentful you have more time and still expect them to contribute at home. But really you are just doing EVERYTHING then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

People always say this, but there are people who are proud of their lifetime accomplishments. Imagine a teacher or doctor - I'm sure they are proud of helping people throughout their career. They probably don't care too much about the money, though.

It is like the people who only do one of the options feel the need to convince themselves that it was either/or.

Of course if I had to choose between being a good parent or working outside the home, I would pick parenting. But do SAHM's not realize what a value judgement they are making on others when they portray the choices that way?

I think someone who did a great job with their kids AND contributed majorly to the larger society must be pretty threatening to them, so they return to this false choice.

Sounds like you're the only one making "value judgments".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

I worked full time outside the home and made every meal from scratch , and read to my child everyday.

I am not sure what image you have in your head of how kids with two working parents are raised. It appears to support your life choices though, so I guess that is good.

+1

My family is so different from the ones largely being discussed on this thread. We both work full time in government jobs. We have less money than most families described here, but we spend a lot of time together as a family including on weekdays. Obviously, our child gets read to every day (by us and at her child care center). And yeah, we eat out maybe two meals per week? Every other meal is home cooked. Do I think our family is better? Of course not, much of what is described on this thread sounds great. But I feel incredibly fortunate.

Not one person here was attacking your family or claiming you or your child care don't have time to read or home cook. They have their own individual needs and made a choice. Completely different situations from yours! It's not an attack on families from different backgrounds to say "I made this choice because it worked for me".
Why do people take this personally? It's not an attack, like saying "your children will view you negatively" or "you are a bad example" like a prior poster did.
If stuff like others considering staying home offends you, why even read the thread?

The first poster of this subthread literally says

-our family life is so much more sane (presumably compared to two working parent families?)

-our kids eat healthy home cooked meals (suggesting working parents don’t feed their kids healthy home cooked meals)

-are read to every day (suggesting kids of working parents are not)

-and we have a very strong bond (suggesting those who work do not have a strong bond with their kids)

So yeah, it seems like an attack on working parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

People always say this, but there are people who are proud of their lifetime accomplishments. Imagine a teacher or doctor - I'm sure they are proud of helping people throughout their career. They probably don't care too much about the money, though.

I agree. Work isn't just about money and work doesn't preclude you having meaningful relationships with your children--and in some ways enhancing your relationship with your kids--especially as they get older. If you don't work a job outside the home, you're not going to regret the achievements you didn't have because you can't really picture them. If you do work outside the home, you're not going to say you regret not working more because you chose the balance you had. I think that "deathbed study" of regrets was really from one particular time period, and the catchphrase that everyone repeats about no one regretting not working more, is connected to men who used work to avoid their families, had their identities totally wrapped up in work and then lost that when they retired and never built much else after that. It's a warning to not become too narrow. I think it could equally serve as a warning to a SAHP whose identity was totally wrapped up around their children and then struggle to find much else they deeply value when the kids leave their nest. This is especially true if the kids don't have children themselves or move far away and their family role narrows considerably.

I have noticed in both my parents as they age (they are both nearing 80) how much their work histories give meaning to their lives---when my kids were younger, they used to recall the family experiences they had when we were children. But now that the grandchildren are older, they tend to reminisce about their own childhoods and their adult working lives and their experiences with our grandkids. My mom was a SAHP for most of our childhoods, but she seems more connected to her work life as a teacher before and afterward and her current volunteer work in terms of her current identity than staying home with us. We live far away from them and come back to our family home for just holidays so you might think there would be a lot of reminiscing about our childhoods etc. but they seem very much more tied to what they are doing now. So it's not about 'working more' but rather 'doing meaningful work' and evolving over your lifespan regardless of whether you are a parent who also works outside the home or one who does not for the years when your children are young.

Yes I agree. Work that has an impact on the world can be hugely satisfying, and I don't know people who regret spending that time on work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

I worked full time outside the home and made every meal from scratch , and read to my child everyday.

I am not sure what image you have in your head of how kids with two working parents are raised. It appears to support your life choices though, so I guess that is good.

+1

My family is so different from the ones largely being discussed on this thread. We both work full time in government jobs. We have less money than most families described here, but we spend a lot of time together as a family including on weekdays. Obviously, our child gets read to every day (by us and at her child care center). And yeah, we eat out maybe two meals per week? Every other meal is home cooked. Do I think our family is better? Of course not, much of what is described on this thread sounds great. But I feel incredibly fortunate.

Not one person here was attacking your family or claiming you or your child care don't have time to read or home cook. They have their own individual needs and made a choice. Completely different situations from yours! It's not an attack on families from different backgrounds to say "I made this choice because it worked for me".
Why do people take this personally? It's not an attack, like saying "your children will view you negatively" or "you are a bad example" like a prior poster did.
If stuff like others considering staying home offends you, why even read the thread?

I'm surprised you view me literally describing my family situation and how happy I am with it as me being defensive.. It sounds more like you don't want to hear it. The first PP absolutely did sound like she was saying that if you work full time you can't make home-cooked meals or read to your children. If the PP wanted to say it was their particular situation that made it impossible to do those things then they could easily have made that more clear. The other PP and I were correcting that. As I think I made clear in my post, I have no beef with SAHMs (in contrast to the multiple posters who clearly think working parents do their children a disservice). But it is fascinating reading this thread and seeing the either/or of being a SAHM and spending time with your kids and not being a SAHM and not spending time with your kids. And the amount of money these families have. It's just so different from my life.

[Anonymous]

Depends on the people. I stay home and my DH works. He has no interest in staying home with kids and I have no interest in going to work. He doesn’t consider it a burden to be financially responsible for our family—he’s proud to provide for us. I don’t consider it a burden to focus on the kids and the home—I’m delighted to be able to do it. Some people prefer egalitarian marriages where both parents work and share equally in childcare. I don’t.

[Anonymous]

Btw I am not sure what "situation" would make it impossible for you to cook and read to your children and work full time. Maybe if you live in a really remote area? Otherwise you can obviously find a job with reasonable hours that allows you to do those things. If you find that being a SAHP works better for your family, that is totally valid. I fully support not working full time if that doesn't work for you. But can you work full time and cook for and read to your children? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stayed home on a lower salary for DH than yours OP. Zero regrets. Out family life is so much more sane, our kids eat healthy home cooked meals, are read to every day, and we have a very strong bond. I don’t worry about going back to work because there will always be some type of a job for an intelligent, educated person who has the desire to work, albeit at a lower salary I am sure. So far I have not needed to go back.

No one wishes they had worked more or made more on their death bed. No one.

I worked full time outside the home and made every meal from scratch , and read to my child everyday.

I am not sure what image you have in your head of how kids with two working parents are raised. It appears to support your life choices though, so I guess that is good.

+1

My family is so different from the ones largely being discussed on this thread. We both work full time in government jobs. We have less money than most families described here, but we spend a lot of time together as a family including on weekdays. Obviously, our child gets read to every day (by us and at her child care center). And yeah, we eat out maybe two meals per week? Every other meal is home cooked. Do I think our family is better? Of course not, much of what is described on this thread sounds great. But I feel incredibly fortunate.

Not one person here was attacking your family or claiming you or your child care don't have time to read or home cook. They have their own individual needs and made a choice. Completely different situations from yours! It's not an attack on families from different backgrounds to say "I made this choice because it worked for me".
Why do people take this personally? It's not an attack, like saying "your children will view you negatively" or "you are a bad example" like a prior poster did.
If stuff like others considering staying home offends you, why even read the thread?

The first poster of this subthread literally says

-our family life is so much more sane (presumably compared to two working parent families?)

-our kids eat healthy home cooked meals (suggesting working parents don’t feed their kids healthy home cooked meals)

-are read to every day (suggesting kids of working parents are not)

-and we have a very strong bond (suggesting those who work do not have a strong bond with their kids)

So yeah, it seems like an attack on working parents.

You don't know what her work life was like and not one of those comments suggests you don't do those things. You made that up in your head. If I say, "I don't want to spend hours on a commute" it doesn't mean I judge others who do, but that I personally don't like it. It's like the private/public and breastfeeding/bottle feeding choices. People say they like something that they perceive a benefit to, it's not to say others are wrong. There is a minority that do explicitly imply those opinions but they should be ignored. For example, "I want to be close to my kids" is a personal statement and does not mean you are not. If I said working moms are not close to their kids I would be ridiculously wrong! (My working mom was very close to us)

You can say "I want to influence society, model working and self sufficiency, show them I am respected at work..." that is all great for you! I don't take that as any kind of dig either until people like posters here say sahms are modeling bad gender roles when I know people who have had jacked up power imbalances were not sahms. If you have to live on portioned out allowances or have your dh be the final word on big decisions, I'd be the first to say go find your own way, start work and get out of that marriage.

Surely you know enough people to know other lifestyles work well for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Btw I am not sure what "situation" would make it impossible for you to cook and read to your children and work full time. Maybe if you live in a really remote area? Otherwise you can obviously find a job with reasonable hours that allows you to do those things. If you find that being a SAHP works better for your family, that is totally valid. I fully support not working full time if that doesn't work for you. But can you work full time and cook for and read to your children? Yes.

Not impossible but I choose not to cook quite a bit and I sahm *gasp*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw I am not sure what "situation" would make it impossible for you to cook and read to your children and work full time. Maybe if you live in a really remote area? Otherwise you can obviously find a job with reasonable hours that allows you to do those things. If you find that being a SAHP works better for your family, that is totally valid. I fully support not working full time if that doesn't work for you. But can you work full time and cook for and read to your children? Yes.

Not impossible but I choose not to cook quite a bit and I sahm *gasp*

Okay?