S/o SAHMs - why do so many men want one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because you can't invest in a 401k with pre-tax money if you don't have a job. That's great you and your husband invest a lot. We do as well. However you still won't have your own retirement account and you aren't paying into social security. If you end up divorced you'll end up working at Walmart. The 5k a year ira isn't going to do much. The money you invest isn't protected like retirement money and is owned by both of you. Whereas your husband owns the 401k and he also is paying into social security. You're at a disadvantage.

If you're that worried about disadvantages, why get married in the first place? I mean wither arrangement is going to but bout spouses at some type of disadvantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to hear "so many men" want their wives to SAH. I think some baby boomers may, but for most younger people all of that went out the window with present-day economic realities.

Man here with SAH wife. Not sure I realized I wanted one till wife decided to stay home after first kid. Sort of like how you have no clue what it will be like having kids till you have them. I make a decent salary, my wife was making about 60k per year, so when you tax her income at my highest rate, then add in extra costs of work stuff and meals out that come with dual working spouses, the extra money from her job was somewhat negligible. Our house runs smoothly. We relax once kids are in bed.

If she wanted to go back to work, I would support her. But all else equal, I much prefer having a SAH wife.

The flat in this is that she isn't saving for retirement. She could invest 18k a year tax free if she had a job. Over many years this adds up. Same with social security. Your wife will be severely disadvantaged come retirement age just so that your house runs smoothly. Pretty selfish imho.

Np. I am a SAHM and we invest $100k a year extra for retirement. Plus we max out any tax advantage vehicles open to us (one 401k, 2 IRAs, and one HSA). Why would you assume they are not?

Because you can't invest in a 401k with pre-tax money if you don't have a job. That's great you and your husband invest a lot. We do as well. However you still won't have your own retirement account and you aren't paying into social security. If you end up divorced you'll end up working at Walmart. The 5k a year ira isn't going to do much. The money you invest isn't protected like retirement money and is owned by both of you. Whereas your husband owns the 401k and he also is paying into social security. You're at a disadvantage.

They both own thr 401k. The divorce courts think so too.

SS is huge. Both DW and I will be drawing the max amount in retirement. We both have been contributing to a 401k since we were 22. Our 401k is at 7 figures and we are 39. If SS is still around, the way we have set things up, we won't even have to heavily draw from it.

I don't doubt the logistics are easier NOW, but the future benefits and security are huge. I definitely did not want a SAHW. Ambition was very attractive to me in picking a wife.

I'm skeptical that men want a wife that doesn't work for money. Like another poster, we outsource the housework, laundry, shopping ect.

[Anonymous]

Do people actually think SS will still be around? That's silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread a joke? Why would a man want to come home to a home cooked meal, a peaceful house, a relaxed spouse and all the bills, chores and other household things taken care of?

What person, man or woman, wouldn't want that?

SAHM are too frazzled to do all of that and take care of their kids.

I can pay the bills at lunch, we have flexible schedules so we cook most nights, the house is nice an clean since nobody was trashing it all day.

[Anonymous]

Do people really get the impression that lots of men want SAH wives? Or working wives? I think often it's a combination of circumstances and the wife's wishes.

Yes, there are people who say "My husband would NEVER want to be married to someone who doesn't work" or "My husband LOVES that I stay at home" but I always wonder what those people are boasting about, since life changes so much and the whole point of marriage is to stick together through thick and thin. Just because someone works doesn't mean they're ambitious, and just because someone stays at home doesn't mean they're doing your laundry and cooking...

Ideally, I want a spouse who is happy and satisfied and has a full and rich life, and I don't want to have to worry about finances. I want my kids to be cared for and to feel secure and loved.

WOH, SAH...those labels are not predictors of any of the above. And many people, when they get married, have no true idea of what life is going to be like with children, where they're going to be in their careers, and what is going to work for their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people actually think SS will still be around? That's silly.

Yeah, people actually think that. I can't believe this either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people actually think SS will still be around? That's silly.

It should be! I'm paying into it with every paycheck!

What I don't understand though is how spouses can get it even if they never worked. Neither of my grandmas ever worked but they both receive it (and not survivor benefits, I mean they get their own).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to hear "so many men" want their wives to SAH. I think some baby boomers may, but for most younger people all of that went out the window with present-day economic realities.

Man here with SAH wife. Not sure I realized I wanted one till wife decided to stay home after first kid. Sort of like how you have no clue what it will be like having kids till you have them. I make a decent salary, my wife was making about 60k per year, so when you tax her income at my highest rate, then add in extra costs of work stuff and meals out that come with dual working spouses, the extra money from her job was somewhat negligible. Our house runs smoothly. We relax once kids are in bed.

If she wanted to go back to work, I would support her. But all else equal, I much prefer having a SAH wife.

The flat in this is that she isn't saving for retirement. She could invest 18k a year tax free if she had a job. Over many years this adds up. Same with social security. Your wife will be severely disadvantaged come retirement age just so that your house runs smoothly. Pretty selfish imho.

Np. I am a SAHM and we invest $100k a year extra for retirement. Plus we max out any tax advantage vehicles open to us (one 401k, 2 IRAs, and one HSA). Why would you assume they are not?

Because you can't invest in a 401k with pre-tax money if you don't have a job. That's great you and your husband invest a lot. We do as well. However you still won't have your own retirement account and you aren't paying into social security. If you end up divorced you'll end up working at Walmart. The 5k a year ira isn't going to do much. The money you invest isn't protected like retirement money and is owned by both of you. Whereas your husband owns the 401k and he also is paying into social security. You're at a disadvantage.

Well we don't count on SS in our retirement figures. If we divorce, I will take half of DH's 401k and other retirement accounts AND the equity he owns in his business which is worth several million dollars. We both pay taxes on these stocks so we own them jointly. A divorce would be very expensive for him. You don't need to worry about me. Thanks for your fake concern though

[Anonymous]

People, social security is going to be means tested at some point. No one rich (meaning no one posting in this thread) is going to be eligible to receive it so just forget about it. Consider it a tax like any other that doesn't benefit you and never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people actually think SS will still be around? That's silly.

You are nuts if you think ANY social program in this country is going away. I say this as someone who works very close to elected officials. Not a single person will touch the idea of anything other than preserving Social Security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish my wife would go back to work. 2 401ks at the least would make an enormous impact on retirement.

Who would have raised your children before they were old enough for school? Daycare? (Perhaps you missed the thread about "The Hell of American Daycare"?) A sitter off the street? Who? You?

You had best kiss your wife's feet for doing the work that few people actually *want* to do.

And before you make any assumptions about me, I'm a single mother.

We raised our kids you ding bat.

Don't call her that. Her question is a valid one. She's pointing out the very real dilemma of working and parenting; that if your wife had always worked, you'd need daycare. If she never WOH, yes, you only get one 401K. And if wife returned to work now, which many women do and is reasonable, she is entering the workforce at a severe disadvantage. Again, that doesn't make it unreasonable. But ask yourself if you'd want to do the jobs she's now qualified to do being out of the workforce for, let me guess; 5-7 years? (think retail, clerical, food service).

The point is, you got a good deal when the kids are little. And lots of WOH spouses want it both ways: SAH spouse when kids are little, WOH spouse when they're big. Why not? No deal benefits YOU better. Unsurprisingly, the spouse on the other end of that deal may not agree, as it sounds like your wife does not.

You're not alone...this is a dilemma many of us face. But the fact that you can't answer PP's question without name calling speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to hear "so many men" want their wives to SAH. I think some baby boomers may, but for most younger people all of that went out the window with present-day economic realities.

Man here with SAH wife. Not sure I realized I wanted one till wife decided to stay home after first kid. Sort of like how you have no clue what it will be like having kids till you have them. I make a decent salary, my wife was making about 60k per year, so when you tax her income at my highest rate, then add in extra costs of work stuff and meals out that come with dual working spouses, the extra money from her job was somewhat negligible. Our house runs smoothly. We relax once kids are in bed.

If she wanted to go back to work, I would support her. But all else equal, I much prefer having a SAH wife.

The flat in this is that she isn't saving for retirement. She could invest 18k a year tax free if she had a job. Over many years this adds up. Same with social security. Your wife will be severely disadvantaged come retirement age just so that your house runs smoothly. Pretty selfish imho.

Np. I am a SAHM and we invest $100k a year extra for retirement. Plus we max out any tax advantage vehicles open to us (one 401k, 2 IRAs, and one HSA). Why would you assume they are not?

Because you can't invest in a 401k with pre-tax money if you don't have a job. That's great you and your husband invest a lot. We do as well. However you still won't have your own retirement account and you aren't paying into social security. If you end up divorced you'll end up working at Walmart. The 5k a year ira isn't going to do much. The money you invest isn't protected like retirement money and is owned by both of you. Whereas your husband owns the 401k and he also is paying into social security. You're at a disadvantage.

Well we don't count on SS in our retirement figures. If we divorce, I will take half of DH's 401k and other retirement accounts AND the equity he owns in his business which is worth several million dollars. We both pay taxes on these stocks so we own them jointly. A divorce would be very expensive for him. You don't need to worry about me. Thanks for your fake concern though

Good luck with that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people really get the impression that lots of men want SAH wives? Or working wives? I think often it's a combination of circumstances and the wife's wishes.

Yes, there are people who say "My husband would NEVER want to be married to someone who doesn't work" or "My husband LOVES that I stay at home" but I always wonder what those people are boasting about, since life changes so much and the whole point of marriage is to stick together through thick and thin. Just because someone works doesn't mean they're ambitious, and just because someone stays at home doesn't mean they're doing your laundry and cooking...

Ideally, I want a spouse who is happy and satisfied and has a full and rich life, and I don't want to have to worry about finances. I want my kids to be cared for and to feel secure and loved.

WOH, SAH...those labels are not predictors of any of the above. And many people, when they get married, have no true idea of what life is going to be like with children, where they're going to be in their careers, and what is going to work for their family.

Thank you! Finally, someone who has a healthy perspective on marriage (and life generally).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised to hear "so many men" want their wives to SAH. I think some baby boomers may, but for most younger people all of that went out the window with present-day economic realities.

Then why are there so many SAHMs in this area???

Because this area is relatively affluent and not representative of the country at large.

Because the cost of childcare is astronomical around here, and the traffic is terrible. Unless the SAHP makes over $80k or so, almost all of the second income money will go to childcare and transportation costs, all for the grand privilege of never seeing your kids except between 6:30-8 pm, after spending hours in traffic getting to and from work and daycare, then rushing through dinner and a bath.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/542558.page

This thread is why.