When is the most impactful age to SAHM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

THIS. I was fortunate enough to have a flexible job that allowed me to be home every afternoon at 3:45, but if that weren’t the case I definitely would have quit and stayed home during those years. So, so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

Proving that what's preferred and what's practical are not necessarily the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

Proving that what's preferred and what's practical are not necessarily the same.

??? It was both extremely practical (financially, logistically) and very much preferred (also financially and logistically) to SAH when my kids were babies. They’re 22 months apart. I quit my job when DC 2 was born and went back FT when they were 3 and 15 months. Didn’t make sense to do it before then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

Proving that what's preferred and what's practical are not necessarily the same.

??? It was both extremely practical (financially, logistically) and very much preferred (also financially and logistically) to SAH when my kids were babies. They’re 22 months apart. I quit my job when DC 2 was born and went back FT when they were 3 and 15 months. Didn’t make sense to do it before then.

Glad that worked out for you. Others' experiences are not always the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

DP, but why wouldn't it be more important for very young kids? Because they can't verbalize those memories? They still have them.

As PPs have said, middle and high school kids (and elementary) still need engaged parents who know what's going on. That doesn't translate to SAH, necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

Just wondering how you think it impacts your child's life that mom or dad were in the room where these firsts happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

Proving that what's preferred and what's practical are not necessarily the same.

??? It was both extremely practical (financially, logistically) and very much preferred (also financially and logistically) to SAH when my kids were babies. They’re 22 months apart. I quit my job when DC 2 was born and went back FT when they were 3 and 15 months. Didn’t make sense to do it before then.

Glad that worked out for you. Others' experiences are not always the same.

I was responding to your statement that preferred and practical aren’t always the same. They were for us and for many other families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

DP, but why wouldn't it be more important for very young kids? Because they can't verbalize those memories? They still have them.

As PPs have said, middle and high school kids (and elementary) still need engaged parents who know what's going on. That doesn't translate to SAH, necessarily.

I don’t remember taking my first steps, speaking my first words, or laughing as an infant and who was there with me when those happened. No one does. But I do remember my mom always being there for a big hug when I got home from elementary school on the bus and her chaperoning my field trips and seeing her beaming smile as I looked into the crowd at my soccer game. Because, you know, brain development.

Parent being there for infant milestones = only the parent remembers.
Parent being there for older kid milestones = parent AND kid remember/consciously understand.

The choice is easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

DP, but why wouldn't it be more important for very young kids? Because they can't verbalize those memories? They still have them.

As PPs have said, middle and high school kids (and elementary) still need engaged parents who know what's going on. That doesn't translate to SAH, necessarily.

I'm a pp here. I'm not really sure what your point is (because kids don't remember, it's important that I remember their firsts?). My point was only that from my experience, the most important moments ended up being when the kids walked into the door or off the school bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my personal experiences, as a parent, I'd never want to miss the first moments the kids come off the bus or in the door from school or big event.

That means more to you than first steps, first words, first foods, baby laughs, etc.?

No question. It's not about me and my memories. It's what's much more important and impactful for the kids.

DP, but why wouldn't it be more important for very young kids? Because they can't verbalize those memories? They still have them.

As PPs have said, middle and high school kids (and elementary) still need engaged parents who know what's going on. That doesn't translate to SAH, necessarily.

+1 What worked for us was a SAHM in the 0-5 years, both working FT during elementary (we got the "come off the bus" stuff, it was just at extended day pick up), and then a parent working at home during MS-HS (DH and both WAH a couple days a week).

Also, my kids aren't generally talkers. They don't want to dissect their day when they get home from school. I'm more likely to hear about it when driving them to sports practice or music lessons, which happened in the evenings, after my work day was done. And, we kept up some 1-on-1 one "bedtime" connection time into middle school. You don't have to be there every day at 3:45 to "be there" for older kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Development aside, 0-2.5 works for many families as a practical and financial consideration because that is usually the age for which childcare is the most 1. scarce (there are a lot more spaces/programs for 3s and up around me than infant rooms) and 2. expensive, generally speaking.

This. For us it made the most sense bc infant care is so freaking expensive and I would’ve been working for like no money. For a lot of families, it doesn’t make sense financially speaking for both parents to work when the kids are babies.

It's particularly true if you have Irish twins or multiples because that is finding and paying for two spots in care or a full time nanny.

Proving that what's preferred and what's practical are not necessarily the same.

??? It was both extremely practical (financially, logistically) and very much preferred (also financially and logistically) to SAH when my kids were babies. They’re 22 months apart. I quit my job when DC 2 was born and went back FT when they were 3 and 15 months. Didn’t make sense to do it before then.

Glad that worked out for you. Others' experiences are not always the same.

I was responding to your statement that preferred and practical aren’t always the same. They were for us and for many other families.

So preferred and practical are not always the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle school.

I think *flexibility* is extremely important when your kids are middle school age (eg being home when they get home, having the time to be involved in their life, drive them and friends to activities, etc.) but staying home full time? Nah.

This. I have a 5th grader and 8th header. I am home at 3 every day (well, pre Covid.). Kids get home at 3:30. Why do I need to be home beyond that?! I can definitely see the argument that late ES/MS/HS is the most important time to have a flexible job, but I’m just not buying that that’s the most important time to be a SAHM.

This for sure. Why do your school-aged kids need you at home during the day while they're in class?