SAHM wanting to work - would you "pay" to work?

[Anonymous]

Don't assume you can only get a 30k job. I'm a basket-weaving major who has worked FT for 8 months out of the past 8 years. After months of searching, I recently got an offer for 50k. Not great, but will cover daycare for my little one and after care for my big one.

Even for 30k, it might be worth it if you can get on a path and get out of the house. Looking back at it, the SAHM years were the worst and I wish I'd gone back much sooner even if I'd have been paying to work.

No woman should have to pay to work though. This country really sucks when it comes to that.

[Anonymous]

Breaking even, or breaking even plus transportation or another smallish cost. Yes.

Having to substantially dip into savings to cover working. No. Or rather, only if I could see with very much certainty that I would be making more in 1 year either there or elsewhere.

I wouldn't start spending down savings for anything remotely long term. It sucks on a personal level but I'd feel selfish doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am originally from another country, have a law degree (there) and license to practice law (there). I work as an intern in a law office there during my 5 years of college and after graduating had my private practice for about 18 months. I have been living here in the US for the past 10 years without working. The first years I was working on improving my English (it was VERY basic level when I moved), then I had children.

Now I have a K and a 18m baby, but I really would like to work outside the home again. It was never really my plan to be a SAHM and I am already 36y old, so I think I should get back into the work force as soon as possible.

I would have to get an entry level office position and the salary is around 28k-30k/year. At this salary level, I would literally have to pay to work and would be in the negative U$1000 to U$1500 per month to cover childcare and work related expenses.

Realistically, I think it would take at least 2 years for me to be able to apply for a position that offers a higher wage in order to at least break even.

While we could theoretically afford this in the short term through the use of savings, I am not sure if is smart. Or maybe I could hire an aupair (we have the room).

Thoughts?

I am a SAHM and all for going back OP, but you said you have not been working for 10 years.
You have two young children 5 and 18 months. This looks more to me like you have had it staying home with the kids.
I would support this the second both children are in school. I don't think why now with an 18 month old child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would wait until my 18 month old could go to preschool and do it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry you are so educated and have to go back to an entry level job. That stinks, but it is reality.

I would wait a year until you can get your youngest into preschool, and then hire an Au Pair (we have one, they are great), and then go back to work. Maybe in the meantime, take on some part-time projects or volunteer work that sharpens your skills. Maybe that will help you start at higher than entry level.

Where do people usually look for volunteer opportunities?

Only women volunteer. Don't work for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

Simmer down. You've completely missed the point of the comments. Of course the woman should return to work if she wants to. But to say the husband is "subsidizing" her re-entry into the workforce is ludicrous. In healthy marriages, one partner doesn't consider the other one to be "subsidizing" anything, whether that's staying at home, or paying for childcare. Comments like that remind me of morons who insist the husband is "subsidizing" a wife when she stays home to care for the kids (or vice-versa). It's simply the family's money, not "his" and "hers".

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't put ourselves in the hole $1500 a month, but up to $500- probably. At some point getting your foot in the door is worth the cost and later, when you're making more, it'll have been worth it. You have to decide how much your family can expend on this and whether you will actually enjoy working knowing you're doing entry level work and paying to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

Simmer down. You've completely missed the point of the comments. Of course the woman should return to work if she wants to. But to say the husband is "subsidizing" her re-entry into the workforce is ludicrous. In healthy marriages, one partner doesn't consider the other one to be "subsidizing" anything, whether that's staying at home, or paying for childcare. Comments like that remind me of morons who insist the husband is "subsidizing" a wife when she stays home to care for the kids (or vice-versa). It's simply the family's money, not "his" and "hers".

That is a very naive way of thinking about finances. All too often, women default into thinking that their salaries ought to cover the cost of childcare, which is why drop out of the workforce. No--if dads work, then they need to have childcare, too. The cost of childcare should be considered a shared family cost--not one that is covered solely by the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

Simmer down. You've completely missed the point of the comments. Of course the woman should return to work if she wants to. But to say the husband is "subsidizing" her re-entry into the workforce is ludicrous. In healthy marriages, one partner doesn't consider the other one to be "subsidizing" anything, whether that's staying at home, or paying for childcare. Comments like that remind me of morons who insist the husband is "subsidizing" a wife when she stays home to care for the kids (or vice-versa). It's simply the family's money, not "his" and "hers".

That is a very naive way of thinking about finances. All too often, women default into thinking that their salaries ought to cover the cost of childcare, which is why drop out of the workforce. No--if dads work, then they need to have childcare, too. The cost of childcare should be considered a shared family cost--not one that is covered solely by the mother.

You just repeated exactly what I was saying, so I have no idea why you called my line of thinking "naive". The cost of chilldcare - or any family costs, for that matter - are shared expenses, period. In a healthy marriage, no one considers one spouse "subsidizing" another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The cost of chilldcare - or any family costs, for that matter - are shared expenses, period.

I don't think that matters from financial/mathematical perspective. If in order to increase your family income by $20K, you need to incur family expenses in the amount of $30K - would you go for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

Simmer down. You've completely missed the point of the comments. Of course the woman should return to work if she wants to. But to say the husband is "subsidizing" her re-entry into the workforce is ludicrous. In healthy marriages, one partner doesn't consider the other one to be "subsidizing" anything, whether that's staying at home, or paying for childcare. Comments like that remind me of morons who insist the husband is "subsidizing" a wife when she stays home to care for the kids (or vice-versa). It's simply the family's money, not "his" and "hers".

That is a very naive way of thinking about finances. All too often, women default into thinking that their salaries ought to cover the cost of childcare, which is why drop out of the workforce. No--if dads work, then they need to have childcare, too. The cost of childcare should be considered a shared family cost--not one that is covered solely by the mother.

You just repeated exactly what I was saying, so I have no idea why you called my line of thinking "naive". The cost of chilldcare - or any family costs, for that matter - are shared expenses, period. In a healthy marriage, no one considers one spouse "subsidizing" another.

So it makes no sense for the mom to give up her career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think of the cost of childcare as coming out of DHs salary, not yours. He is subsidizing your re-entry into the workforce.

Nonsense.

+1
PP clearly has no sense of "marriage as a team".

Please explain why a woman who gives up her earnings potential for years (even into the hundreds of thousands of $$$) to support her husband is considered to be a team player, but thinking about childcare costs (which, generously come out to about $25K/year for a very limited number of years) as a contribution from the man means that there is no sense of marriage as a team?!? What is your logic here? Why wouldn't a couple want to allow a woman who is well-educated and has work experience to use her talents in the workforce?

Simmer down. You've completely missed the point of the comments. Of course the woman should return to work if she wants to. But to say the husband is "subsidizing" her re-entry into the workforce is ludicrous. In healthy marriages, one partner doesn't consider the other one to be "subsidizing" anything, whether that's staying at home, or paying for childcare. Comments like that remind me of morons who insist the husband is "subsidizing" a wife when she stays home to care for the kids (or vice-versa). It's simply the family's money, not "his" and "hers".

That is a very naive way of thinking about finances. All too often, women default into thinking that their salaries ought to cover the cost of childcare, which is why drop out of the workforce. No--if dads work, then they need to have childcare, too. The cost of childcare should be considered a shared family cost--not one that is covered solely by the mother.

You just repeated exactly what I was saying, so I have no idea why you called my line of thinking "naive". The cost of chilldcare - or any family costs, for that matter - are shared expenses, period. In a healthy marriage, no one considers one spouse "subsidizing" another.

So it makes no sense for the mom to give up her career.

If a marriage works as a team, then it makes sense for both partners to pull together and do whatever is needed to make the family run as smoothly as possible. In some families, two FT working parents is what's needed, while other families function better with a FT parent at home. In healthy marriages, no one is "subsidizing" anyone, as each partner has an important role to play.