How much money did you lose each year by working during the preschool years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

My working enabled us to buy a house closer to the city when our first was a toddler. We both have had shorter commutes their entire lives than we would have if we had waited to purchase. Those hours with our kids have added up a lot, 15 years out.

[Anonymous]

I don't make a ton of money, but I definitely made more than preschool cost us (about $25k a year). Also I paid into social security and retirement and some benefits. This was good when my DH saw he was going ot get laid off when out first was 6 months old. We switched to my health insurance for the year while he figured out his next steps.

Besides the dollar amounts there are so many other benefits to continuing to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

My toddler was a freaking terrorist so I was pretty happy to drop them off at daycare every day. We would not have made it otherwise!

She's in 3rd grade now and an absolute DREAM to parent and live with, so hang on a parents raising the toddler terrorists!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hate when I hear people say it made sense to stay home because their salary was less than daycare cost. The is a myopic view that overlooks the lifetime compounding effects of raises, retirement contributions, etc. and the impacts of time out of the labor market on long-term earnings and career trajectories. Not to mention for some the mental health benefits of having time away from kids and something else to focus on. If you exit the labor market because you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. But be realistic about the reasons and the tradeoffs.

We're losing money on every sale, but we're going to make it up in volume!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hate when I hear people say it made sense to stay home because their salary was less than daycare cost. The is a myopic view that overlooks the lifetime compounding effects of raises, retirement contributions, etc. and the impacts of time out of the labor market on long-term earnings and career trajectories. Not to mention for some the mental health benefits of having time away from kids and something else to focus on. If you exit the labor market because you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. But be realistic about the reasons and the tradeoffs.

I think people say that, but they also *wanted* to stay home at some level. If they really wanted to stay in their job, they would make it work.

I think this is often (not always!) true, especially among umc/uc people. I would have broken even after childcare costs AND I really wanted to stay home with the kids for a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home for a long time, so yes, I lost out on some raises, some years contributed to my pension, and yes, my overall income long term is less, etc. But for me, no amount of money was worth losing out on those days, months, years with my little ones. And when I say that, it isn't a slam on anyone else who does it differently, it's just what was best for everyone in my family. I'm back at work now and my family has everything we need and most of what we want. But if we're talking strictly dollars and cents in the moment, a nanny for 10-11 hours a day would have been more than my teaching salary and day care would have been a few hundred less. In my case, it wouldn't have mattered if I made 500K. I wanted to be home with my kids.

Kudos to you!

As a teacher, that is a job that is fairly flexible for easily coming back to work after 2-3 years off.

[Anonymous]

None.
I had a paid maternity leave of 5 months. Daycare cost a fraction of my salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

No one thinks their job or benefits is more valuable than their kids. People do however make strategic choices about their jobs in order to care well for their children over the long term.

[Anonymous]

We lost between $1200-$1500 a month during the 2.5 years we had two in day-care while I worked. Worth every penny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

No one thinks their job or benefits is more valuable than their kids. People do however make strategic choices about their jobs in order to care well for their children over the long term.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

No one thinks their job or benefits is more valuable than their kids. People do however make strategic choices about their jobs in order to care well for their children over the long term.

Of course, and it is often a tough decision with many factors to consider. It's not the kids that are more valuable however, it's that time with them that there was not enough pay or benefits for me to choose over spending that time with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.


No one thinks their job or benefits is more valuable than their kids. People do however make strategic choices about their jobs in order to care well for their children over the long term.


Of course, and it is often a tough decision with many factors to consider. It's not the kids that are more valuable however, it's that time with them that there was not enough pay or benefits for me to choose over spending that time with them.

This is a luxury for the vast majority. This decision is no longer possible for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.

My toddler was a freaking terrorist so I was pretty happy to drop them off at daycare every day. We would not have made it otherwise!

She's in 3rd grade now and an absolute DREAM to parent and live with, so hang on a parents raising the toddler terrorists!!!

So true I won't have survived if I was a SAHM with my kids when they were infants and toddlers. We had an at home nanny, and my DH worked from home. I worked out of home, but was able to go in late or come early or work from home (IT job, just needed my computer). My DH spent "quality time" with the kids on his lunch and coffee breaks at home, without having the responsibility of diaper changes and preparing baby food. I came home to well rested kids and was able to spend quality time as well.

It all worked out for us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot, but I paid into social security, carried our healthcare insurance, built my career.

I make a lot of money now and that could never have happened had I left the workforce.

This. Combined with my pension, 401k contributions, etc. I personally, not including what DH has, have 7 figures saved from an average paying job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I have never believed that any part of my job or benefits or resume is more important than the time I spent with my infant and toddler children.


No one thinks their job or benefits is more valuable than their kids. People do however make strategic choices about their jobs in order to care well for their children over the long term.


Of course, and it is often a tough decision with many factors to consider. It's not the kids that are more valuable however, it's that time with them that there was not enough pay or benefits for me to choose over spending that time with them.

This is a luxury for the vast majority. This decision is no longer possible for many.

Expectations are just higher now. Families with SAHMs in the 50s (or 70s, etc.) just didn't have the same luxuries that families think are necessities now. Look at the typical SFH in the early 50s and compare it to the DCUM standard now. Many families in the 50s only had one car. Families with SAHMs in the 50's were definitely not taking the same vacations you see posted on the travel board here.

"The decision" is definitely possible for the vast majority of DCUM posters--they just make "the decision" to prioritize other things.