Anyone go from SAHM to retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a SAHM, once your kids go off to college - you are retired. Doesn't matter what age you are - this is what retirement looks like.

My kids are still in ES but I list myself as “retired” . My income is interest based from investment.

No, you still have to pick them up, take care of them -- you're still a SAHM.

Okay, but the bank doesn’t care about that.

So? You can be independently wealthy or a trust-fund baby and still be working as a SAHM. My point is that once your kids are out of the house - your job as a SAHM is over and you are retired.

So you’re saying they are retired from something that offered no pay? How odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a SAHM, once your kids go off to college - you are retired. Doesn't matter what age you are - this is what retirement looks like.

My kids are still in ES but I list myself as “retired” . My income is interest based from investment.

No, you still have to pick them up, take care of them -- you're still a SAHM.

Okay, but the bank doesn’t care about that.

So? You can be independently wealthy or a trust-fund baby and still be working as a SAHM. My point is that once your kids are out of the house - your job as a SAHM is over and you are retired.

So you’re saying they are retired from something that offered no pay? How odd.

Why is that odd? You can retire from any number of volunteer/no pay positions.

[Anonymous]

So you also retired from parenting once your children turn 18? It’s just a strange way of looking at parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re acting like people take jobs as cashiers for Walmart for “fun”. They don’t, they take those because they need them. I have friends who “work” 3 hours a week at Williams Sonoma or fancy boutique olive oil stores. One works as a gardener for a private residence. One works as a personal trainer a few hours a week. These are choices people make to benefit themselves- not to rock the corporate world at 52. Choices are always a luxury.

So high end service jobs for 3 hours a week. Or doing your hobby for a friend or two.

That’s not debating whether or not to go back to work.

Again, clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re acting like people take jobs as cashiers for Walmart for “fun”. They don’t, they take those because they need them. I have friends who “work” 3 hours a week at Williams Sonoma or fancy boutique olive oil stores. One works as a gardener for a private residence. One works as a personal trainer a few hours a week. These are choices people make to benefit themselves- not to rock the corporate world at 52. Choices are always a luxury.

So high end service jobs for 3 hours a week. Or doing your hobby for a friend or two.

That’s not debating whether or not to go back to work.

Again, clueless.

Those are things retirees do, which is what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

It may not be to you but it is to her.


You can deride women for limiting their choices then also criticize them when they recognize the fallout from those choices and make appropriate decisions. If you don’t need money you aren’t picking up menial work you don’t enjoy in your 50’s. If you have the option to not work and choose to work in any way you choose, good for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you also retired from parenting once your children turn 18? It’s just a strange way of looking at parenting.

Where did you get that?! You will always be a parent but not a SAHM once there is no child to care for at home. People who have children and never stay home are still parents! Fathers who work out of the house are still parents.

Why are you purposely being so obtuse, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re acting like people take jobs as cashiers for Walmart for “fun”. They don’t, they take those because they need them. I have friends who “work” 3 hours a week at Williams Sonoma or fancy boutique olive oil stores. One works as a gardener for a private residence. One works as a personal trainer a few hours a week. These are choices people make to benefit themselves- not to rock the corporate world at 52. Choices are always a luxury.

So high end service jobs for 3 hours a week. Or doing your hobby for a friend or two.

That’s not debating whether or not to go back to work.

Again, clueless.

Those are things retirees do, which is what this thread is about.

What are you taking about? The original comment that sparked this specific discussion was a 50-something woman who hasn’t worked in 20 years debating whether or not to return to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It may not be to you but it is to her.


You can deride women for limiting their choices then also criticize them when they recognize the fallout from those choices and make appropriate decisions. If you don’t need money you aren’t picking up menial work you don’t enjoy in your 50’s. If you have the option to not work and choose to work in any way you choose, good for you.

NP. But I think this is the whole point the other person is attempting to make. Portraying it as some wide-open decision point whether to work or not is not acknowledging the reality that that decision point is pretty much long gone.

And I suppose you all are hung up on what defines work. 3 hours at Williams Sonoma a week is probably not work to most people.

[Anonymous]

We definitely define work differently as you think people retire from parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We definitely define work differently as you think people retire from parenting.

You are responding to multiple people not one. Someone else is having the debate with you about retiring from parenting or whatever.

[Anonymous]

You’re so weirdly hung up on how you interpreted her decision to take a job or not that it’s useless to continue with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We definitely define work differently as you think people retire from parenting.

No one said you retire from parenting! You are a parent when your kids are in the forties and fifties with homes and kids of their own - you simply are no longer a SAHP. There is no reason to stay at home if there is no child to care for so you lose that job!

[Anonymous]

The op is being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

You cannot be a stay-at-home-mom if there is no one to stay-at-home for. However, obviously, you will always be a mom. When your kids leave home, you are retired from your stay-at-home-mom position but not your mom position!

I have no clue why this is so hard for one poster to grasp.