the cost of working - SAHM vs WOHM

[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?

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.

This. I never thought I'd want to stay home with my kids. But when they were small, it's all I wanted. People told me that it would be hard to go to work at first but that it would get better. It didn't -- I hated it every day! I hated that I was working so that we could pay someone else to do the things I wanted to be doing. It made no sense to me. I quit and have no regrets about it. My only regret is in not listening to myself when I was miserable returning to the office and trying to convince myself it was "just" hormones (it's definitely partly hormones but that doensn't make it wrong -- sometimes when your hormones scream at you, you should listen to them!) and that I'd get over it and that this was normal and right.

Basically all the PPs in this thread giving 101 reasons why women should never SAHM -- that was my inner monologue. And then I finally listened to my own mind instead of all the influences telling me that only regressive trad wives become SAHMs, and realized that it's what I wanted.

If you really want to stay home with your kids for some amount of time, and you and your spouse figure out together how to make it work financially, do it. And ignore these people yelling at you that you're betraying feminism for that your DH will leave you tomorrow. They don't know you, and they don't know your marriage. Do what works for you. There are lots of ways to live.

They are trying to justify their choices by putting down others. My mom worked. I did not realize it was an option till my husband said it when we had child care issues. I regret staying at a job I was miserable at to please others. I love the time with my kids. They only get one childhood. I am glad my mom worked as she was not a good parent and I was better off with Nannies, day care and own my own. But I want more for mine.

+1 it's the only thing that makes sense to me given how adamant some posters are that people who choose to SAHM for anything length of time are making a mistake. I have been a SAHM and I've been a WOHM, there are benefits and negatives to each, I assume most women get that and make the choices that work best for them given their circumstances. I also assume that there are SAHMs who wish they were working (but maybe work in fields where they can't really afford it, or have a disability or other reason why they can't work), and that there are WOHMs who wish they could stay home but can't because of finances or because they are in a career where taking time off isn't really feasible. I just have empathy for women in those situations. I don't yell at them. Who does that serve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we were engaged, I told stbDH that I would never ever ever be a SAHP. ever. Life has a way of happening that messes up ones plans. We ended up with two children that needed more intensive parenting for much longer than NT children. In order to have a life where we both spent more time with them, one of us needed to be at home. I have been a SAHP since. I was definitely a more natural WOHP and it took a very long time to acclimate to the cadence of being a SAHP. We now have two relatively independent adult children who have finally blossomed and are contributing members of society (well one is there and one is nearly there)- something that was much harder to achieve for both.

You know, you don't need to justify your decision to stay home by saying your kids were special needs. Any woman's choice is valid if it's what works for her. When women continually put that qualifier on their time out of the workforce, it smacks me as so misogynistic.

Agreed. When I was a SAHM, it took some time to stop doing this. It has to do with our culture, which has very strict ideas about what is productive (making $$$, being stressed and unhappy) and what is not productive (spending time with a child, doing light cleaning or running errands, getting enough sleep and feeling good). I loooooved being a SAHM because I loved spending time with my kid, but it was also really great for my physical and mental health and made me realize what a number the years of sitting in offices, working long hours, and dealing with constant deadlines and workplace conflict had done on me. I went back to work because I do feel better when I have an income (and I do worry about my retirement, my savings, and setting a good example for my DD that women are not relegated to domestic work). But I went back with a much better understanding of what I deserve as a person. Yes, being a SAHM was "easier" than my old job. It was also more rewarding and healthier. Those are valuable things too.

We don't have to pretend that being a SAHM is miserable drudgery in order to justify it as a valuable (if unpaid) job. Work does not have to be miserable, and also maybe shouldn't be?

[Anonymous]

Being a SAHM was the best decision for me because of a number of reasons-
- my relationship with DH and state of marriage. I am married to the love of my life and have a super strong marriage
- DH makes a lot of money, we have a lot of insurance, we do not have a pre-nup, I am fully in control of the finances, we jointly own everything
- my kids are cute, healthy, smart. They thrive on all the attention DH and I give to them. They make us very proud.
- I loved EBF, and we did not believe in sleep-training or CIO.
- DH and I like to do things together and spend time with each other. Having one SAH parent makes it easier for us as a family to travel.
- We outsource chores we don't like to do or that saves us time. We do not want to outsource parenting
- I hate getting up in the mornings. I am fine if my days are unscheduled because I am able to function well in an unstructured day too

BUT, all the arguments that has been made as to why one should be a WOHM is absolutely 100% valid too. I am all for women working and encourage everyone who can do it to go for it. It protects women from being in bad marriages and poverty. It also fulfills those who don't know what to do if their time is not scheduled or who feel anxious, depressed etc if not working. Also, if women want to use their education to be in the work-force, that is also a great thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we were engaged, I told stbDH that I would never ever ever be a SAHP. ever. Life has a way of happening that messes up ones plans. We ended up with two children that needed more intensive parenting for much longer than NT children. In order to have a life where we both spent more time with them, one of us needed to be at home. I have been a SAHP since. I was definitely a more natural WOHP and it took a very long time to acclimate to the cadence of being a SAHP. We now have two relatively independent adult children who have finally blossomed and are contributing members of society (well one is there and one is nearly there)- something that was much harder to achieve for both.

You know, you don't need to justify your decision to stay home by saying your kids were special needs. Any woman's choice is valid if it's what works for her. When women continually put that qualifier on their time out of the workforce, it smacks me as so misogynistic.

I am not justifying. It was the reason I stayed at home -it changed the dynamic. If we had had NT children or even one SN child and not two, I would never had quit- we could have handled it. It took something large to force it.

[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?

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.

This. I never thought I'd want to stay home with my kids. But when they were small, it's all I wanted. People told me that it would be hard to go to work at first but that it would get better. It didn't -- I hated it every day! I hated that I was working so that we could pay someone else to do the things I wanted to be doing. It made no sense to me. I quit and have no regrets about it. My only regret is in not listening to myself when I was miserable returning to the office and trying to convince myself it was "just" hormones (it's definitely partly hormones but that doensn't make it wrong -- sometimes when your hormones scream at you, you should listen to them!) and that I'd get over it and that this was normal and right.

Basically all the PPs in this thread giving 101 reasons why women should never SAHM -- that was my inner monologue. And then I finally listened to my own mind instead of all the influences telling me that only regressive trad wives become SAHMs, and realized that it's what I wanted.

If you really want to stay home with your kids for some amount of time, and you and your spouse figure out together how to make it work financially, do it. And ignore these people yelling at you that you're betraying feminism for that your DH will leave you tomorrow. They don't know you, and they don't know your marriage. Do what works for you. There are lots of ways to live.

Just don't make the emotional decision without running the numbers and fully understanding what you're giving up first.

DP, but some women just do not get this, and that's fine. But I don't care about all the money. There is honestly no amount of money that would make me want to miss out on being the primary person with my children in their young years. I know other women don't feel this way, and that's fine! But you have to understand that there are women who DO feel this way.

[Anonymous]

It seems SAHMs are happy with their choice and WOHMs are happy with their choice. I don't see what the problem is?

[Anonymous]

Reminder: this is a topic on the Money and Finances board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reminder: this is a topic on the Money and Finances board.

We need a Gender Roles in Traditional Marriages board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.”

The point is, we both agreed that neither of us had a choice to SAH. We bought a house with a mortgage that required two salaries. I'm not really the kind of person who has changed her mind much as an adult. It's not slimy; he saw his dad live under tremendous stress because his was the sole income. Who wants that kind of stress? The important thing is that we were both clear from the beginning about what we wanted, and communicated that to the other early on the relationship.

NP. My dh and I made that decision also while dating. So many reasons
-more household income
-DH doesn't have to lean in, work nonstop, and can be home for dinner at 5:30 every night
-makes husband and wife 50/50 partners

But we did get a mortgage that we could support on one income in case the worst happened (like a special needs baby) and one of us needed to stay home.

You can have all of that with one parent working.

It's much harder on one income.

No, it’s not. We do it just fine. You wanted an expensive house that takes two incomes.

NP here - some of us don't want "just fine". I enjoy my 4200 SF new house immensely. I don't want to spend whatever time I have on his earth penny pinching, foregoing vacations, living in subpar conditions, and scrubbing toilets. The two income advantage has long lasting ramifications. My DC1 is in med school and we're able to cover his tuition completely because of me working. He's going to have a tremendous advantage in life by not graduating with significant debt, like most of the doctors. We'll be able to retire with a nice standard of living and pay for our future grandchildren's tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When we were engaged, I told stbDH that I would never ever ever be a SAHP. ever. Life has a way of happening that messes up ones plans. We ended up with two children that needed more intensive parenting for much longer than NT children. In order to have a life where we both spent more time with them, one of us needed to be at home. I have been a SAHP since. I was definitely a more natural WOHP and it took a very long time to acclimate to the cadence of being a SAHP. We now have two relatively independent adult children who have finally blossomed and are contributing members of society (well one is there and one is nearly there)- something that was much harder to achieve for both.

You know, you don't need to justify your decision to stay home by saying your kids were special needs. Any woman's choice is valid if it's what works for her. When women continually put that qualifier on their time out of the workforce, it smacks me as so misogynistic.

I think you’re perpetuating something you don’t mean to perpetuate.

[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.”

DP here. I think it's problematic to suggest that only a woman might unexpectedly decide to stay home after having a baby...it suggests that biology is entirely destiny, and doesn't even account for adoptive parents. Between the two of us, my DH would be the one who is more likely to want to SAH...and I think we both knew that going into marriage and kids.

I think that it's unrealistic to extract promises about SAH status prior to having kids, but it isn't wrong to have an opinion on your preferences.

[Anonymous]

A real feminist chooses her own path,
WITHOUT the criticism of her so-called
“feminist” colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.”

The point is, we both agreed that neither of us had a choice to SAH. We bought a house with a mortgage that required two salaries. I'm not really the kind of person who has changed her mind much as an adult. It's not slimy; he saw his dad live under tremendous stress because his was the sole income. Who wants that kind of stress? The important thing is that we were both clear from the beginning about what we wanted, and communicated that to the other early on the relationship.

NP. My dh and I made that decision also while dating. So many reasons
-more household income
-DH doesn't have to lean in, work nonstop, and can be home for dinner at 5:30 every night
-makes husband and wife 50/50 partners

But we did get a mortgage that we could support on one income in case the worst happened (like a special needs baby) and one of us needed to stay home.

You can have all of that with one parent working.

It's much harder on one income.

No, it’s not. We do it just fine. You wanted an expensive house that takes two incomes.

DP here. You don't think that there are places and jobs where single income is insufficient to put a roof over a family's head?! Have you read a newspaper in the last 10 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.”

The point is, we both agreed that neither of us had a choice to SAH. We bought a house with a mortgage that required two salaries. I'm not really the kind of person who has changed her mind much as an adult. It's not slimy; he saw his dad live under tremendous stress because his was the sole income. Who wants that kind of stress? The important thing is that we were both clear from the beginning about what we wanted, and communicated that to the other early on the relationship.

NP. My dh and I made that decision also while dating. So many reasons
-more household income
-DH doesn't have to lean in, work nonstop, and can be home for dinner at 5:30 every night
-makes husband and wife 50/50 partners

But we did get a mortgage that we could support on one income in case the worst happened (like a special needs baby) and one of us needed to stay home.

You can have all of that with one parent working.

It's much harder on one income.

No, it’s not. We do it just fine. You wanted an expensive house that takes two incomes.

DP here. You don't think that there are places and jobs where single income is insufficient to put a roof over a family's head?! Have you read a newspaper in the last 10 years?

NP here - there are people posting from outside the DMV area. You can easily identify them as they post something like this SFH is worth 300K when an OP links a house in McLean. There are places in the US where you can survive from a single family income, like the one below. You can fit 3 kids in 3 bedrooms, mortgage is less than 1000, your H works at the local airport making $50K/year. This is America, not McLean.

https://www.redfin.com/TX/Wichita-Falls/4300-Boren-Ave-76308/home/141894396

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daycare is the cost of working split between both parents. It’s not a cost that’s only charged to women. Ugh!!

It is a cost that only needs to occur if both parents work. Don't make it about sexism. It's math.

DP and sure, but this thread presumes it comes out of the woman’s salary. If you want to do the math, do the math for both partners to work vs. not, and the costs for both of them. Include things like retirement savings, increased social security, etc., on the benefits side.

There are less tangible benefits to working for many people. I don’t know if I could put a specific dollar amount on the meaning I derive from using my graduate degree to (hopefully) make the world a better place, but I sure would miss it if I didn’t work.

What you find are the less tangible benefits are benefits to you but not others. Regardless of if you work or not, its always good to have education.

Some of us had enough credits for social security before we became SAHM's. I did. We still save for my retirement and I have money from when I did work.

It doesn't matter whose money day care comes from but if you look at the total cost of day care vs. the lower earning spouse, then you look at the cost/benefits. If I was barely making enough to cover day care for one child, what is the point in working?

Were you calculating the net present value of all lost wages and social security credits and income when saying that you barely made enough to cover day care for one child? Even with two good incomes, daycare was a strain on our budgets. However, childcare is only expensive the first few years and compared to a lifetime of earning potential, it's good to take the long view.

Earlier PP (who referenced less tangible benefits) and right, exactly. PP was barely making enough to cover daycare costs at that specific point in time. So was I, when we had our first kid. Now, 10 years later, I've more than doubled my salary, have a healthy retirement account, and have great prospects for career advancement. Had I quit 10 years ago because my salary didn't cover daycare, I wouldn't have any of those things. You've got to take the long-term perspective. You may still arrive at the same decision, but choosing to leave the workforce has implications beyond the years a child needs FT childcare.

As for those less tangible benefits - they're different for different people. Some people might REALLY want to stay home with their kids, and so that less tangible benefit outweighs others. I wasn't saying that my specific ones were what mattered for everyone, but that people need to take those into account beyond the simple mathematics of salary vs. childcare.