SAHM’s - anyone successfully convince DH to support their staying home long term?

[Anonymous]

This is tricky.

Here is the thing. I would hope that my husband would treat me like a human being and not like a machine that needs to be operating at maximum capacity. The idea that your husband would see a space where you could be doing more for him and demand that it be done is selfish and childlike. It makes me think of a three year old stomping off to her room when she doesn't get her way.

At the same time, I would also hope that if my husband was worried about money or wanted to retire early, and I had an opportunity to help him out, then I would. The idea that I would just tell him that I had put in my time and I wasn't going to work is just as selfish a demand.

[Anonymous]

Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

[Anonymous]

This is the thread that never ends.
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend(s).
Some people started replying to it not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue replying to it forever just because...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

I wish women could acknowledge and understand this. Unless the man OR Woman (lesbians matter as well) is worth at LEAST 10 million... it isn't worth to be a stay at home mom.

However, even then... that's not guaranteed. NOTHING is guaranteed.

I'm sorry you're going through this and wish you the best of luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

your experience is an ANOMALY. The exception is not the rule. The majority of women are not and will never leave with millions from a divorce. Please stop being willfully obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

your experience is an ANOMALY. The exception is not the rule. The majority of women are not and will never leave with millions from a divorce. Please stop being willfully obtuse.

Which is why the majority of women should work during marriage and never rely on a fake sense of stability the marriage gives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

your experience is an ANOMALY. The exception is not the rule. The majority of women are not and will never leave with millions from a divorce. Please stop being willfully obtuse.

Which is why the majority of women should work during marriage and never rely on a fake sense of stability the marriage gives

The bolded is so true. This is even for women who marry a wealthy man OR woman. There are things you may have to live with and/or tolerate when you are financially dependent on you spouse.

[Anonymous]

You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

My husbands ex lived fine on hers. Her AP paid everything for her but refused to pay his child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

I am not sure “working to protect yourself” isn’t a wholly depressing way to go about life though. I don’t know that, even if something were to happen to my husband, I would trade the days I’ve had with my daughter away to be in an office so I’d be more financially stable in a hypothetical future. I say this from a place of relative privilege because I have family assets and a degree that would support me and my daughter comfortably if I did need to, but I can’t imagine going to work every day thinking “I’m sacrificing time with my child so if my husband leaves me I’m in a marginally better financial position”