Resenting my wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really appreciate the views shared. I am trying to come to accept my wife as being a permanent SAH, though it's not our original agreement. House we bought was on the promise from her that she'd return to work. If this doesn't happen, our expenses are too high for my income. So I was thinking to tell her that if things don't change in 18 months we would sell the house, and adjust our lifestyle accordingly. I realize this sounds like an ultimatum which I would avoid but that's the gist. I admit it is 95% a money issue and 5% a principle issue.

If you can't afford your lifestyle and expenses now, don't wait 18 mos. to propose downsizing them. Do it now - if for no other reason than to help cover the costs of an additional child.

If your DW's been out of the workforce for 4 years (+ 18 mos. while she stays home with your second child), IF she can get a job she'll be earning a fraction of what she did before. It may not seem like such a good deal for her to go back before both your kids are in school.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.[/quote]

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?[/quote]

Not the PP, but it's just a matter of math. If the DW goes to work FT you have to give up whatever income she makes that has to cover daycare. If she stays home, you should not be paying for day care.

OP full time daycare for a preschooler as of August 2013 where I live was $1100 a month. You will have two under K age? Plus you have to gross up the math to include the income taxes you pay to make that $2200 to pay your daycare provider.

Honestly, it is probably best for your relationship and your finances if you just let her SAH. But I would put my foot down about expenses. If she is going to SAH then her job includes coupon clipping, meal preparation, and otherwise reducing the household budget. Moving to a smaller place you can afford goes without saying.

I would recommend you approach this gently, lovingly. "Since it seems like the job market is still tough, and since daycare for two kids is so expensive, it seems like it might make more sense for you to SAH until the kids are in elementary school What do you think dear? OK, but we both need to understand, we really will need to get a smaller house for a few years that we can afford on one salary. It's OK; it will only be for a few years".

Can you rent out your current home and buy or rent a smaller place? That way you can move back if/when the kids are older and the house is more affordable. Also if the market keeps going up, you can sell it later. [/quote]
Barf. I hope OP.doesn't have to talk to his wife like a child as you suggest. If I had to talk to my DH like that, or he talked to me like that, I would seriously have to resist the urge to punch him in the face. I'm not some fragile thing because I'm a woman. Just talk to her like a fucking adult and if she can't handle it, well....you got trouble right here in River City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?

Exactly. It's so short sighted to discount benefits....retirement, health care, potential bonuses, not to mention higher future earnings potential. If she actually committed to a career her earnings would ostensibly go up over time.

+1

It is sexist and simplistic to count childcare expenses against one (mom's) income.

[Anonymous]

Ouch. Why even get married and have kids? This couple seems to be heading for divorce.

Bringing kids into this world, when they are a burden on both parents, are a recipe for disaster. She loses her career and is unable to go back to work, he is resentful that he cannot meet the bills.

Maybe investing in condoms would have served them better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?

...because if she isn't working the expense doesn't exist? If she'll be able to earn 35K a year but the nanny is going to cost 42K, everyone's better off with her staying home (assuming that's what she wants to do).

That is a very short-sighted view of the value of work. By remaining employed, she is employable and capable of increasing her earnings. There are also benefits like retirement and health insurance to consider.

Childcare comes out of both incomes.

I agree. When my first child was born I SAH for a year. I returned to work PT @ 42k/yr. Mh child is now 7 and my w2 will probably come in at 162k, plus I have over 240k in ky own 401k and I'm only 33. Since I've beem in the game for a decead now I'm able to work from home.

I feel sorry for the OP. A huge driver for me to return to work a year after my first child was born was watching him suffer in quiet desperation. I was in tune to that and it lit a fire under my ass to get motivated and start pulling my share. To SAh when one spouse is not on board is deplorable. She sounds like a loser.

Today we are very comfortable and have a nice life.

[Anonymous]

^^good grief my phone is a sack of shit.

[Anonymous]

Yes, PPs, that is all well and good - except OP's wife doesn't want to go back to work!

But either way, we still have no idea what her profession or earning abilities are so my question is still valid. OP, how much are her skills worth in the workforce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?

It's pretty obvious.
When she doesn't work, they dont have to pay the expense.
If she does work they have the expense.
Especially when if she doesn't want to work, why would she work if they didn't come of ahead?

[Anonymous]

WHy do most of you base decisions on money only?
Aren't you willing to give up a few years of income to have extra time with the kids?

Why do most of you base everything on money?
Not just money but income potential in the future?

I'll take some less income Potential in the future in order to have extra time with my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?

Exactly. It's so short sighted to discount benefits....retirement, health care, potential bonuses, not to mention higher future earnings potential. If she actually committed to a career her earnings would ostensibly go up over time.

+1

It is sexist and simplistic to count childcare expenses against one (mom's) income.

As a female feminist, I can tell you this is not sexist. But if her new salary won't cover the childcare, then they can't afford for her to go back to work. It's just math. It's not that her salary is for covering for childcare just by itself. But really if her salary would be less, then it's not worth it.

OP, I agree that you need to have that discussion now. It is reasonable to downsize and try to make it in a smaller home. And have the conversation that when the kids are in school, she goes back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I only have sympathy for you if you literally cannot afford to pay your bills every month with the current set-up.
This is because having a baby changes a woman's priorities and it would be wrong to hold her to old agreements or begrudge her if she is happier staying at home.

DH was perfectly fine with me staying home, and after trying it, we both realized that I was far less stressed (I used to have regular panic attacks at my old workplace, pretty stressful job). Note that we made it work on 60K with DC1, and now with 92K with DC2. I scrimp and save and budget. We are happy. I also know that the job market is AWFUL for returning mothers, and my Master's is not worth anything without fresh work experience. Finding a reasonably paying job will be HARD for your wife.

That being said, if she's at home and you are in financially tight, there is no need for either a babysitter or a maid!!! The SAH bargain is childcare and clean house with meals instead of working. Of course you should absolutely help out too, like cleaning the gutters or mowing the lawn or taking out the trash, or ironing your shirts.

Start by opening the lines of communications. Good luck.

Bullshit. Why should the woman's happiness come at the expense of her husband? He's clearly unhappy about her reneging.

OP, I think your plan is a good one. You chose a lifestyle with certain financial expectations. Those expectations won't be realized, largely due to your wife's decisions. So, you adjust your lifestyle.

Warning, however, about demands to come: Eventually she will want to be in a bigger house with a better school system, or whatever. But she won't be willing to contribute financially for it. That will cause strife in your life down the road.

Signed, Been There, Doing That.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so she wants to be a stay at home wife. She probably resents you pushing so hard for her to work. If you want to be helpful, do 1/2 the housework, laundry, cooking, cleaning, shopping, and care taking while you are home. A babysitter will watch the kids but will not take care of all the little things. Oh, don't forget doctor and dental appointments, etc. too.

In the absence of some mega-special need requiring 10+ hours of doctor or therapy time a week, or 3+ kids under the age of five, there's no reason she can't get the laundry, dishes, and a base level of cleaning done (e.g. toilet cleaning once every week or two) during the time Dad's at work -- or, at the least, some reasonable progress made towards that goal. Medical appointments -- worst case, you have to be on hold for 30 minutes during flu season. I've never been on hold at my doctor more than 10 minutes.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really appreciate the views shared. I am trying to come to accept my wife as being a permanent SAH, though it's not our original agreement. House we bought was on the promise from her that she'd return to work. If this doesn't happen, our expenses are too high for my income. So I was thinking to tell her that if things don't change in 18 months we would sell the house, and adjust our lifestyle accordingly. I realize this sounds like an ultimatum which I would avoid but that's the gist. I admit it is 95% a money issue and 5% a principle issue.

That seems like the right idea. You'd either have to downsize or move further out. I wouldn't compromise on basic safety ("oh this neighborhood will be GREAT in 10 years!") or the schools (all your friends will bail and either go private or move to Rockville, Urbana, Vienna, or Ashburn.)

And yes, having kids does change things. But if your wife wants to be all touchy-feely mommy, she has to accept that you might have to work longer hours so you can move up in the workforce, commute longer, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if she found FT work would she be earning enough to pay for the childcare? It not, there is no point at all in pushing her to.

Why would you only count childcare expenses against her salary?

Exactly. It's so short sighted to discount benefits....retirement, health care, potential bonuses, not to mention higher future earnings potential. If she actually committed to a career her earnings would ostensibly go up over time.

+1

It is sexist and simplistic to count childcare expenses against one (mom's) income.

The household income goes up by X dollars. If the household expenses of Mom going back to work go up by X + Y dollars, you either have to have Y dollars in savings a year, some reasonable assumption of income appreciation (e.g. the woman who's pulling down 140k now after getting back in with 40k part time work), or some way of covering the extra expenses.

You can consider retirement, the eventual removal of child care expenses (assuming the kid's not a wild child that'll invite boyfriends over once they hit 7th grade), and the intangibles -- so like if Mom going back to work cost the household $100-$200 month, it's just another expense category.

But if you've got 3 kids and Mom would make $45k ... time to move out to Hagerstown or Winchester!

[Anonymous]

Mom going back to work is not an "expense category." It's not even a cost. It's an asset.

Even if she loses half that additional income to child care expenses and taxes, she's still adding money to the household.

[Anonymous]

If the OP were a woman the responses would be drastically different.

I'm sorry OP, but your wife bamboozled you so she could stay home. Basically she lied to you.

The people here defending her are wrong. You don't marry someone and then totally switch up things and get mad with they don't jump on board. That's not how marriage works and probably why the divorce rate will remain so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mom going back to work is not an "expense category." It's not even a cost. It's an asset.

Even if she loses half that additional income to child care expenses and taxes, she's still adding money to the household.

Childcare certainly is an "expense category" incurred by Mom going to work.

9:47, things change when you have kids. OP's wife will have to adjust to a different lifestyle and certainly could have been more direct about what she wanted.