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.
Of course. But her retirement is pennies compared to the accounts my dad contributed to. She was a SAHM for decades and during those decades couldn’t contribute to a 401k. Almost all SAHMs will end up with smaller retirement accounts than of their husband unless they are only out of the workforce for a short period of time or they get lucky with a company stock.
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.
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.
Curious: what’s your opinion of the FIRE movement or Mr Money Moustache? Also, say someone has built up enough retirement savings to retire at 45 - are they allowed to do that? Or do they have to keep working til 65?
NP. It seems that some people only value things and actions if money is exchanged. So a woman who cooks for free is worthless, but a paid cook is valuable. Going to a job you dislike is empowering, but staying home (if you can afford it) is worthless. In our quest to ensure each women is financially stable, our society has completely devalued traditional women’s work decided the only work that is valued is white collar male work.
I am also curious to hear PP’s response to FIRE and Mr. Money Moustache.
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.
Of course. But her retirement is pennies compared to the accounts my dad contributed to. She was a SAHM for decades and during those decades couldn’t contribute to a 401k. Almost all SAHMs will end up with smaller retirement accounts than of their husband unless they are only out of the workforce for a short period of time or they get lucky with a company stock.
If you’re that hung up on it, had an agreed upon amount come out of the paycheck into your personal savings account or retirement account.
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.
Of course. But her retirement is pennies compared to the accounts my dad contributed to. She was a SAHM for decades and during those decades couldn’t contribute to a 401k. Almost all SAHMs will end up with smaller retirement accounts than of their husband unless they are only out of the workforce for a short period of time or they get lucky with a company stock.
I’m sorry, but many women these days and especially in this area are not surprised by this and are not in the situation your mom is in. She was surprised and I guess it’s too bad she feel undeserving or unimportant or whatever, but her experience is not ours.
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.
Of course. But her retirement is pennies compared to the accounts my dad contributed to. She was a SAHM for decades and during those decades couldn’t contribute to a 401k. Almost all SAHMs will end up with smaller retirement accounts than of their husband unless they are only out of the workforce for a short period of time or they get lucky with a company stock.
O.k. but upon retirement he'll be taking regular disbursements from the account, right? Those will go into their joint savings account and she will have access to the money then.
Many women will have smaller retirements accounts than their husbands do whether they work or not, btw.
I understand what you guys are saying re: not officially having access to a husband’s 401k. But come on, truly, what are the odds that my living, still married husband with whom I have an amazing open trusting relationship (which includes full transparency with all our finances) is someday going to deny me access to his 401k money? Are those odds big enough that they warrant me missing out on a few years of staying home with my children, if that’s what I want to do? For me, that risk is not big enough. And to be honest, there is very little that could happen to me in the future that would make me regret spending this time with my children. But I understand how that calculation is different for other people. And also, as I said, I do have my own retirement accounts from when I was working.
Anonymous wrote:I understand what you guys are saying re: not officially having access to a husband’s 401k. But come on, truly, what are the odds that my living, still married husband with whom I have an amazing open trusting relationship (which includes full transparency with all our finances) is someday going to deny me access to his 401k money? Are those odds big enough that they warrant me missing out on a few years of staying home with my children, if that’s what I want to do? For me, that risk is not big enough. And to be honest, there is very little that could happen to me in the future that would make me regret spending this time with my children. But I understand how that calculation is different for other people. And also, as I said, I do have my own retirement accounts from when I was working.
Anonymous wrote:I understand what you guys are saying re: not officially having access to a husband’s 401k. But come on, truly, what are the odds that my living, still married husband with whom I have an amazing open trusting relationship (which includes full transparency with all our finances) is someday going to deny me access to his 401k money? Are those odds big enough that they warrant me missing out on a few years of staying home with my children, if that’s what I want to do? For me, that risk is not big enough. And to be honest, there is very little that could happen to me in the future that would make me regret spending this time with my children. But I understand how that calculation is different for other people. And also, as I said, I do have my own retirement accounts from when I was working.
Anonymous wrote:I understand what you guys are saying re: not officially having access to a husband’s 401k. But come on, truly, what are the odds that my living, still married husband with whom I have an amazing open trusting relationship (which includes full transparency with all our finances) is someday going to deny me access to his 401k money? Are those odds big enough that they warrant me missing out on a few years of staying home with my children, if that’s what I want to do? For me, that risk is not big enough. And to be honest, there is very little that could happen to me in the future that would make me regret spending this time with my children. But I understand how that calculation is different for other people. And also, as I said, I do have my own retirement accounts from when I was working.
+1
+1000
There are risks and benefits to every life choice. None of this retirement business is ipso facto a reason a woman should never stay home.
Anonymous wrote:I understand what you guys are saying re: not officially having access to a husband’s 401k. But come on, truly, what are the odds that my living, still married husband with whom I have an amazing open trusting relationship (which includes full transparency with all our finances) is someday going to deny me access to his 401k money? Are those odds big enough that they warrant me missing out on a few years of staying home with my children, if that’s what I want to do? For me, that risk is not big enough. And to be honest, there is very little that could happen to me in the future that would make me regret spending this time with my children. But I understand how that calculation is different for other people. And also, as I said, I do have my own retirement accounts from when I was working.
The odds are actually fairly high.
You wish
People like you just can’t stand to see other people happy can you.
Sorry your relationship sucks but there are happy marriages out there
Also, if I had continued working, I'd have made like 100K annually. My DH makes nearly 10 times that. His contributions to our retirement accounts were always going to dwarf mine. So that risk existed, regardless of whether I kept working or not.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
.