Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

+1 Longterm paid maternity leave (up to a year in most studies) is associated with a 13% reduction in infant mortality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Of course you can. Paid family leave benefits the employee, e.g. the mom. It's not for the benefit of the child as the child isn't an employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Of course you can. Paid family leave benefits the employee, e.g. the mom. It's not for the benefit of the child as the child isn't an employee.

And yet it does benefit the child. Lots of variables here, but clearly being with mom has benefits for the baby:

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/03/30/Study-Longer-maternity-leave-linked-to-better-infant-health/4971459363627/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Of course you can. Paid family leave benefits the employee, e.g. the mom. It's not for the benefit of the child as the child isn't an employee.

Making life less stressful for the Mom AND the Dad, benefits the baby. High stress = bad for baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

Can you tell me what those benefits are? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely asking for your opinion as to what you think the benefits are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Why not? The point is to give women choices, and to create the kind of world in which everyone — not just the elite — can realize their full potential. I think for many women, what they want is flexibility and options to find what works best for themselves and for their families. The current situation is very rigid and only values a certain linear productivity.

This, plus let’s highlight the “loving caregiver” part. It’s not like they hand out terrific nannies or spots in great daycares when you have a baby. One of the main goals of mandatory paid leave is to give options to lower income families who may not have access to a “living caregiver” in that first year.

If you can afford and have access to fantastic childcare, then you really do have a choice between working and staying home, and can know that your child will get great care from a living caregiver either way.

But if you are lower income, this choice is not presented to you. Instead, you may only be given one choice: returning to work after a minimal maternity leave and putting your child in a daycare you don’t feel great about. Or leaving your child with a family member you don’t feel great about. Mandatory paid leave would allow that parent to actually choose with sacrificing her family’s financial stability.

(And mandatory paid leave should actually be coupled with subsidized childcare like they have in other countries because then women could actually choose.)

[Anonymous]

^ loving caregiver, not living (I think that’s implied!)

[Anonymous]

Depends on the mother. Some non-mom caregivers are much better than the child's mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

Yes, you are rich. Good job. Many families with two working parents (most families) cannot afford a nanny and a maid, and don’t necessarily have the kind of job that allows them to manage a lot of family tasks while working. The point is that for those families (again, most families) it is extremely helpful to have one parent with no job or a less demanding job in order to do the work of making the home run.

I swear, the rich people on this board act like they’ve never met or heard of someone who can’t afford full time help. It is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

What is your HHI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

Yes, you are rich. Good job. Many families with two working parents (most families) cannot afford a nanny and a maid, and don’t necessarily have the kind of job that allows them to manage a lot of family tasks while working. The point is that for those families (again, most families) it is extremely helpful to have one parent with no job or a less demanding job in order to do the work of making the home run.

I swear, the rich people on this board act like they’ve never met or heard of someone who can’t afford full time help. It is ridiculous.

NP agree. We are also rich and can afford a lot of help (and also have grandparent help). But I know *many* working couples with good but not ultra-high HHIs who are choosing to stop at 1 kid because they know life would be stressful with 2 kids and no FT nanny.

Plus, despite all our help, I’ve still cut back at work because I want to spend time with my kids and actually do things with and for them, rather than outsourcing. All of the dual intense-career (like 60+ hours/week) parents I know are slightly disconnected from their kids. Covid has actually made things better for them in terms of increasing the bond though, with everyone at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

Yes, you are rich. Good job. Many families with two working parents (most families) cannot afford a nanny and a maid, and don’t necessarily have the kind of job that allows them to manage a lot of family tasks while working. The point is that for those families (again, most families) it is extremely helpful to have one parent with no job or a less demanding job in order to do the work of making the home run.

I swear, the rich people on this board act like they’ve never met or heard of someone who can’t afford full time help. It is ridiculous.

So you'll dismiss my post because I'm rich but your post applies to all people... Ok, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

What is your HHI?

$400K. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

So, you think the benefit is having someone run the household because you have a person who is good at/enjoys doing that, correct? Some people hate it. The idea of meal planning, grocery shopping, etc. sounds painful to them. And yes, you can very easily outsource pretty much all of that. And planning vacations? I guess if you're taking an extensive vacation every month that would be exhausting, but planning a few a year is clearly something anyone with a job could do. It doesn't take multiple full-time days.

My husband and I both have what I guess you would call serious careers, but we have a full-time nanny even though our kids are now in full-time school (and are actually at school) as well as a maid. The only laundry in the house I do is our clothes. The nanny and maid do the kids clothes, the towels, and all the beds. We have a gardener so we don't deal with that. My husband and I both plan our vacations because we care about what we do and both have an opinion on it, but that is a fun activity. The nanny does the grocery shopping and some meal prep. The rest we do because we enjoy cooking.

Our life is definitely not chaotic. We only have two kids, so perhaps that's why, but I always find the notion that any family with two working parents has frazzle-haired moms and stressed-out dads to be a little ridiculous. Our group of friends of say 20 or so other families are very similar to us. Yes, we're wealthy, and yes hiring help makes life easier, but I'm responding specifically to you comment about any family with dual-working parents must have chaos, resentment, and dysfunctions. That judgement is false, and also rude.

What is your HHI?

$400K. Why?

It’s not just income that makes folks on here rich. It’s inherited wealth. Neither my husband or I have any and you can definitely see those who do have a different lifestyle.