Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm PP. We have no inherited wealth.

[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?

I asked bc we have a high HHI (650) but it still feels chaotic. I was wonerding if our HHI just wasn’t high enough and millionaires had some secret. I find it hard to outsource the mental load.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are nearly grown, but I simply could not hand my newborn over to strangers at a daycare, who were managing my baby in addition to five or six others lined in their infant car carriers in the baby room waiting for individual attention. Just couldn't do it. That is the decision that worked best for me at the time.

Follow your gut. Looking back, I feel I did the right thing for me and my child(ren). Zero regrets. Work will always be there to go back to, but you only get one chance to raise your children. My kids are well-adjusted, calm, thoughtful young people who do me proud.

This. also depends on kid, some babies are chilled out waiting their turn while others get stressed out. When mine was about 18mo we started morning preschool and it was heart breaking to me to observe my child crying when they didn't get their needs met and waiting turn. My oldest has always been needy/clingy and daycare would not have been best environment. Would she have survived? Absolutely but it was not the best for my child.

[Anonymous]

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

This. If you love being a mom and spending time with kids, researching development and enrichment, having a little one in your face all the time, etc. Then yes, your child will benefit. If you experience anxiety, burn out easily, crave adult time, yell, put kids on tablets to get them off your back - from 0 to 3 your child would benefit from a well qualified nanny.

Some of child care is a bit of drudgery. Depending on your personality and attitude, it may make you unhappy...

I think ideally everyone should have an option of extended maternity/paternity leave, and decide what's best for them.

[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.

What does this mean?
I also always thought that the argument for a longer maternity leave was because it was best for the child to be with mom for a year before transitioning to group childcare.
What do you mean that it has to do with giving women choices? Choices to do what? Can you give an example?

[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.

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.

NP - they’re disregarding it (or I am) bc you’re a jerk. A child benefits from a person taking on running the household. You outsource that job, which is a luxury even at $400k HHI (we are slightly above this and I would call it a luxury to hire multiple staff plus private school I’m guessing?). Our friends who are above average salary around here (both feds) can’t afford this but yea, children benefit from someone running the household and if you can’t outsource, it tends to be chaotic until the kids reach a certain age. The same would hold even if one parent SAH but chose not to take on these tasks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does this mean?
I also always thought that the argument for a longer maternity leave was because it was best for the child to be with mom for a year before transitioning to group childcare.
What do you mean that it has to do with giving women choices? Choices to do what? Can you give an example?

DP. Long maternity leave is for the purpose of keeping women in the workplace. It has very little to do with supposed benefits to kids. Many companies in the US now offer extended leave after seeing that long leaves helped with retention of valued employees. The issue with lack of leave is that it forces women out of the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP - they’re disregarding it (or I am) bc you’re a jerk. A child benefits from a person taking on running the household. You outsource that job, which is a luxury even at $400k HHI (we are slightly above this and I would call it a luxury to hire multiple staff plus private school I’m guessing?). Our friends who are above average salary around here (both feds) can’t afford this but yea, children benefit from someone running the household and if you can’t outsource, it tends to be chaotic until the kids reach a certain age. The same would hold even if one parent SAH but chose not to take on these tasks.

You may want to ask yourself why you're so angry. Why am I a jerk? You said a child benefits from a PERSON taking on running the household. PP said a child benefits from a PARENT taking on running the household. My point was that my kids couldn't care less who is doing the grocery shopping, so I think attributing some benefit to a child having their parent being the one washing their sheets is ludicrous. Why you think that makes me a jerk boggles my mind, but whatever. You do you. Sorry your life is chaotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP - they’re disregarding it (or I am) bc you’re a jerk. A child benefits from a person taking on running the household. You outsource that job, which is a luxury even at $400k HHI (we are slightly above this and I would call it a luxury to hire multiple staff plus private school I’m guessing?). Our friends who are above average salary around here (both feds) can’t afford this but yea, children benefit from someone running the household and if you can’t outsource, it tends to be chaotic until the kids reach a certain age. The same would hold even if one parent SAH but chose not to take on these tasks.

To some extent I don’t get how these numbers add up. PP says no inherited wealth — but two private school tuitions, FT nanny and maid on $400k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP - they’re disregarding it (or I am) bc you’re a jerk. A child benefits from a person taking on running the household. You outsource that job, which is a luxury even at $400k HHI (we are slightly above this and I would call it a luxury to hire multiple staff plus private school I’m guessing?). Our friends who are above average salary around here (both feds) can’t afford this but yea, children benefit from someone running the household and if you can’t outsource, it tends to be chaotic until the kids reach a certain age. The same would hold even if one parent SAH but chose not to take on these tasks.

You may want to ask yourself why you're so angry. Why am I a jerk? You said a child benefits from a PERSON taking on running the household. PP said a child benefits from a PARENT taking on running the household. My point was that my kids couldn't care less who is doing the grocery shopping, so I think attributing some benefit to a child having their parent being the one washing their sheets is ludicrous. Why you think that makes me a jerk boggles my mind, but whatever. You do you. Sorry your life is chaotic.

NP. All that aside, you're not rich at all, you're just spending as though you were and that's going to catch up with you. We make a lot more than you and save more of our income. Why do you even need the nanny if your kids are at private school all day? The nanny is there to make your kids' beds? But then why do you also need a maid to do it? Honestly it sounds like you've got no idea what goes on or who does what, you're just throwing money into a big mommy guilt sink hole.

[Anonymous]

Of course it does, unless said parent is incompetent, disinterested or abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

NP - they’re disregarding it (or I am) bc you’re a jerk. A child benefits from a person taking on running the household. You outsource that job, which is a luxury even at $400k HHI (we are slightly above this and I would call it a luxury to hire multiple staff plus private school I’m guessing?). Our friends who are above average salary around here (both feds) can’t afford this but yea, children benefit from someone running the household and if you can’t outsource, it tends to be chaotic until the kids reach a certain age. The same would hold even if one parent SAH but chose not to take on these tasks.

You may want to ask yourself why you're so angry. Why am I a jerk? You said a child benefits from a PERSON taking on running the household. PP said a child benefits from a PARENT taking on running the household. My point was that my kids couldn't care less who is doing the grocery shopping, so I think attributing some benefit to a child having their parent being the one washing their sheets is ludicrous. Why you think that makes me a jerk boggles my mind, but whatever. You do you. Sorry your life is chaotic.

NP. All that aside, you're not rich at all, you're just spending as though you were and that's going to catch up with you. We make a lot more than you and save more of our income. Why do you even need the nanny if your kids are at private school all day? The nanny is there to make your kids' beds? But then why do you also need a maid to do it? Honestly it sounds like you've got no idea what goes on or who does what, you're just throwing money into a big mommy guilt sink hole.

Honestly in this scenario the full time nanny has it made. Make a few beds, pick kids up by 4, make dinner, tell the maid she missed a spot? I think I could get a lot of my WFH work done at the pp's house while she simultaneously pays me to nanny her absent children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here - are there any thoughts or good threads someone is familiar with on the best time to transition to daycare / preschool if a baby has had a SAHM, nanny without other kids, or grandparent as a caregiver? Ours is 16 mo and I can’t decide whether to start planning the transition or wait until he’s closer to 3. Money not the primary consideration.

As someone who has worked in daycare, I'd say that 16 months is the worst possible age to transition. Babies make the transition smoothly, mainly because what htey get in good daycares is really similar. From about 2.5 and up kids are really motivated by the other kids, and make the transition well.

Between about 12 months and 2 kids who have been there do fine, but it's a really hard transition, because it's hard to teach being in a group to mobile kids who are at an age when they aren't interested in their peers and don't have the reasoning to understand what's going on. There's no benefit to them, other than a safe nurturing place.

Director of an early childhood program, and I'd agree with the caveat that some 18 month olds are just so SOCIAL that they love group care! But for many, they go from being at home alone with one adult to being in a group of 8 or 10 children with 2 or 3 different adults and it's hard. If you can wait one more year, I'd do it. You could also split the difference and find a wonderful licensed family childcare home with 6 or 8 children but the children are different ages, which can often be easier because the provider can give your toddler what he/she needs and the 3s and 4s can wait a minute or two. Eight 18 month olds in a room is hectic - and fun - but none can "wait a minute."

[Anonymous]

My mom SAH hoping to undo the toxic effects of having been raised by a miserable, absent WOH mother who struggled to make ends meet and didn't have time for her kids. Turns out trying to resolve your own trauma by "doing it differently" doesn't really work and is usually triggering! I WOH and hated every single day of dropping my kids off at their lovely, cheerful daycare. I am much happier now that they are elementary school age and I work part time from home and my work day ends when they get off of the bus. Are they ok? They seem to be joyful and thriving, but maybe they will grow up and resent me and try to fix that through their own kids. Who knows! It's all a crap shoot, but seems to return to the drumbeat of "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."