S/O Why do you care if moms stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

+ 1

Honestly, PP, I do feel bad for your mom if she was "surprised" that none of the retirement accounts were in her name. I do not suggest women SAH without having some financial literacy. Our retirement accounts are only a fraction of what we save for retirement, so it doesn't really matter that the (largest) 401K is in DH's name. And like I said, we have a postnuptial agreement that indicates any assets earned during the marriage are shared. I suspect no one here on DCUM thinks a woman should stay home and be ignorant of her family's finances, just like no one (presumably) thinks a woman should stay home with her kids if her husband is an abusive alcoholic. But just because there are individual circumstances in which a woman should not stay home doesn't mean that staying home is bad or risky for all women.

Most women are not like your mom. As the other PP noted, among the SAHMs I know, it's the women who are in charge of the finances. My DH doesn't even really know how much money he makes, or how it's invested. We discuss it like once a year, and otherwise he trusts me. Likewise, I trust him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

+ 1

Honestly, PP, I do feel bad for your mom if she was "surprised" that none of the retirement accounts were in her name. I do not suggest women SAH without having some financial literacy. Our retirement accounts are only a fraction of what we save for retirement, so it doesn't really matter that the (largest) 401K is in DH's name. And like I said, we have a postnuptial agreement that indicates any assets earned during the marriage are shared. I suspect no one here on DCUM thinks a woman should stay home and be ignorant of her family's finances, just like no one (presumably) thinks a woman should stay home with her kids if her husband is an abusive alcoholic. But just because there are individual circumstances in which a woman should not stay home doesn't mean that staying home is bad or risky for all women.

Most women are not like your mom. As the other PP noted, among the SAHMs I know, it's the women who are in charge of the finances. My DH doesn't even really know how much money he makes, or how it's invested. We discuss it like once a year, and otherwise he trusts me. Likewise, I trust him.

You made a lot of assumptions about my mom. She is familiar with their various assets, accounts. She pays all of the bills and has for years. She was simply surprised that she doesn’t have the right to speak with the account manager of their 401k. She has to go through my dad. It makes her feel as though it isn’t really her money.

My comment wasn’t about financial literacy or educating yourself about your finances. It was about the fact that as a SAHM your husband is contributing most of his retirement savings into an account you don’t have access to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

[Anonymous]

^^ it’s great you have a postnuptial but the majority of SAHMs do NOT. Also these agreements aren’t fool proof and can be challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

No, it will feel like our money. Which it is.

This all reminds me of some couples who have separate account and joint accounts (which is fine), but then they are super petty about which account gets used. Eg I don’t eat that ice cream, YOU do, but I’m running to the store so I’ll pick it up and save the receipt and you can pay me back for YOUR ice cream. I just can’t live like that. It’s a marriage. It’s our money, it’s our expenses, and we make joint decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

I think it was an ego blow for my mom. She viewed the income my dad made as hers. They are a team. So having to go through my dad to make a financial decision about one of their main sources of income (401k) is off putting. It doesn’t make it seem as though the account is really my mom’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

+ 1

Honestly, PP, I do feel bad for your mom if she was "surprised" that none of the retirement accounts were in her name. I do not suggest women SAH without having some financial literacy. Our retirement accounts are only a fraction of what we save for retirement, so it doesn't really matter that the (largest) 401K is in DH's name. And like I said, we have a postnuptial agreement that indicates any assets earned during the marriage are shared. I suspect no one here on DCUM thinks a woman should stay home and be ignorant of her family's finances, just like no one (presumably) thinks a woman should stay home with her kids if her husband is an abusive alcoholic. But just because there are individual circumstances in which a woman should not stay home doesn't mean that staying home is bad or risky for all women.

Most women are not like your mom. As the other PP noted, among the SAHMs I know, it's the women who are in charge of the finances. My DH doesn't even really know how much money he makes, or how it's invested. We discuss it like once a year, and otherwise he trusts me. Likewise, I trust him.

You made a lot of assumptions about my mom. She is familiar with their various assets, accounts. She pays all of the bills and has for years. She was simply surprised that she doesn’t have the right to speak with the account manager of their 401k. She has to go through my dad. It makes her feel as though it isn’t really her money.

My comment wasn’t about financial literacy or educating yourself about your finances. It was about the fact that as a SAHM your husband is contributing most of his retirement savings into an account you don’t have access to.

Has she ever worked before? Has she never had her own 401K? These days it's pretty rare for a SAHP to have never worked before or participated in a 401K of their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

I think it was an ego blow for my mom. She viewed the income my dad made as hers. They are a team. So having to go through my dad to make a financial decision about one of their main sources of income (401k) is off putting. It doesn’t make it seem as though the account is really my mom’s.

Then I guess have her put half the money into her own account with her name on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

I think it was an ego blow for my mom. She viewed the income my dad made as hers. They are a team. So having to go through my dad to make a financial decision about one of their main sources of income (401k) is off putting. It doesn’t make it seem as though the account is really my mom’s.

When he retires he can roll it over into an IRA and give her access to it.

[Anonymous]

Some women don’t realize they need to have financial literacy ahead of time. Regardless of what they’ve been warned about, they think if they don’t have a prenup, they just get 1/2 and that is that.

Some women don’t know, what they don’t know. Shaming them, is not helping them. TEACHING them what they need to know, or if you don’t want to expend your energy, point to resources, but ffs enough with the shaming. Everyone makes a life choice and some of them are wrong, making someone feel guilty about it doesn’t help them move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

No, it will feel like our money. Which it is.

This all reminds me of some couples who have separate account and joint accounts (which is fine), but then they are super petty about which account gets used. Eg I don’t eat that ice cream, YOU do, but I’m running to the store so I’ll pick it up and save the receipt and you can pay me back for YOUR ice cream. I just can’t live like that. It’s a marriage. It’s our money, it’s our expenses, and we make joint decisions.

Good for you. I would be uncomfortable if my retirement was dependent on account I didn’t have access to. Money doesn’t feel like it’s mine if I can’t even withdraw it on my own free will. My husband would have to give me permission.

I assume you’d also be fine with your house title being only in your husband’s name since you don’t get hung up on petty details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

I think it was an ego blow for my mom. She viewed the income my dad made as hers. They are a team. So having to go through my dad to make a financial decision about one of their main sources of income (401k) is off putting. It doesn’t make it seem as though the account is really my mom’s.

Then I guess have her put half the money into her own account with her name on it.

You can’t do that unless you get divorced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Will it really feel like your money in retirement if you don’t have account access? You’ll Have to go through your husband to access the money, make trades etc and this limits your ability to control what happens with the money.

Valid point but... come on, you’d have to be married to a pretty big jerk, with whom you had very poor communication, for that to make a difference.

I think it was an ego blow for my mom. She viewed the income my dad made as hers. They are a team. So having to go through my dad to make a financial decision about one of their main sources of income (401k) is off putting. It doesn’t make it seem as though the account is really my mom’s.

Then I guess have her put half the money into her own account with her name on it.

You can’t do that unless you get divorced

If he can’t even withdrawn from the account upon retirement, what are you arguing about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

Enjoy dependence!

You missed the part where we planned and saved for years. Also, we depend on each other.

But why? Why wouldn’t you want to have a flexible job where you can spend time with your kids AND remain an independent person? My mom stayed home and sacrificed so much. Now that she sees me work a flexible job I think it has hit her how foolish she was.

The main person sacrificing in this arrangement is you. You won’t be contributing to your own retirement account. You will face challenges retentering the workforce. You have lost your identity outside of your kids and husband. Of course your husband will go along with this arrangement.

NP. If you’re talking about a flexible part-time job, how many hours do you have to work to be not dependent on your husband? If you’re talking about a flexible full time job where you work 40+ hrs/wk and also spend several hours per day with your children, then wow good for you but that sounds exhausting.

Can you explain why

Working isn’t just about money. It’s about being part of an equitable marriage where you aren’t just a nanny, cook and maid. It’s having your own retirement account, getting out of the house. It’s not experiencing a sudden change in your life (no longer going to work!) just because you had a child. It’s having the same opportunities as a man. It’s the ability to have a life and relationships outside of the home or children. I could go on.

I work 40 hours with a less than 15 min commute.

I don’t find working and having a child exhausting. Both are work but I wouldn’t want to give up my job or my child.

I didn't say anything about money. I asked PP how many hours a week a mom has to work to be considered independent.

I actually do have my own retirement accounts, that I built up through working bf having a child. And I leave the house every single day. In fact, I am "stuck in the house" for way less time per week than I was "stuck in the office." I do have the same opportunities as a man, but for now I'm choosing to stay home. Men also have the opportunity to stay home if they want. I had friends, family, hobbies, and interests outside of work while I was working, and I have those same friends, family, hobbies, and interests now that I'm at home.

Finally, your post is pretty disrespectful to people who actually ARE nannies, cooks, and maids. Who takes care of your child while you're at work? Do they know that you feel such disrespect for them?

I don’t have disrespect for PAID nannies, cooks and maids.

That’s great you once contributed to retirement but you’ve stopped. You see the difference?

Your opportunities, both financially and career wise, are limited by not working. That’s a fact. You can’t argue that you’re improving your retirement account balances and adding to your resume by NOT WORKING.

Actually, if you invest early and often your retirement accounts do continue to grow even once you stop working assuming you don't touch them. That's the magic of compound interest .

Duh. Everyone know this. I contribute 54k a year to retirement accounts through my employer. Would you advise me to stay home because I maxed out my contributions in my 20s? I doubt it. Losing decades of contributing to retirement absolutely hurts women who typically live longer than men. You’re not going to convince many that not contributing to retirement from age 35 on is going to be a good thing once you hit retirement age.

NP. Yet, staying home while my DH made equity partner seems to have dramatically helped our investments, and undoubtedly benefited me personally much more than continuing to work would have.

DH wouldn't have stayed at his current job if I didn't stay home - not because he doesn't like his job (he does, quite a bit) but because he couldn't both do his job well AND be 50/50 (or anything close) on sick/snow days, daily tasks and household management.

We have a postnuptial agreement outlining what would happen in the event of divorce, regarding assets and the children. And I fully plan on returning to work part-time when our kids are older.

You might be better off financially as a result of working, but that isn't true for all women. Yes, my career took a hit by staying home - and it will never look the same - but in return I've had some very wonderful, irreplaceable years at home with my young children.

You do realize your husband is an equity partner in his name only, right? My dad did well financially and professionally and my mom stayed home. She was surprised to find out in retirement that there aren’t any retirement accounts in her name. She can’t even make a financial decision or call up the broker to make a trade, distribute funds,etc. Perhaps the assets would be divided equally upon divorce. My husband receives RSUs and I know those are in his name only. A lot of women here seem to think they have just as much power over what are joint assets when they really don’t. My mom won’t have full access to my dad’s retirement accounts until he dies.

Can you explain why access matters in either a happy marriage or divorce? If divorce, she will get part of the assets. If they stay together, I don’t understand why access actually matters. I understand that technically or legally it matters, but in an actual equal partnership of a marriage, we discuss purchases, have shared goals, etc. and the money is not viewed as HIS money simply because of the name on the retirement account.

Does anyone have access to their spouse's 401K?

I do

This is not unusual with everything being online and if you know the pass words.