Would you turn down a 200k job to be a SAHM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That job is what many (most?) biglawyers-to-SAHMs faced.

Agreed. I did not hesitate to quit my big law job where I was making $240k to stay home with my two kids. No regrets, but I hated my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would, because then I'd make more than my combined DH+my salary (I WOHM almost FT), and he could (and probably would) stay home.

Ha. Score one for DCUM making me feel poor again. Why do I click on these threads?

But seriously, that sounds like a recipe for an unhappy and chaotic household in my opinion. I realize going back to a career part-time is hard if you haven't been working, but I'd look for something that was maybe slightly less demanding for your first job back after SAH.

I still think Jeff needs to create a separate forum called "Stuff you only care about if your HHI is above $300k."

Seriously, though, OP seems to want to do it -- as long as her husband isn't going to turn into a jerk that demands OP does ALL the home stuff, and OP doesn't become exhausted/an asshole, etc., why not?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure why so many people have trouble believing this. There are a lot of high income families in the DC. Most mid level big law associates make over 200K in total compensation.

I walked away from a high pressured $240K job to stay home with the kids. The adjustment was difficult at first because my identity was tied to my career for so long. I don't regret my choice though and a large part of my decision was based on the fact that my DH was also a high earner so we did not have to change our lifestyle for me to SAH.

[Anonymous]

Is there any way you could take on the job for a while and then try to downsize it to part-time, or could that job at least get you a network where you might reasonably find a part-time job?

Of course, by the time you find it, the children will be much older and there might not be any point in staying home

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why so many people have trouble believing this. There are a lot of high income families in the DC. Most mid level big law associates make over 200K in total compensation.

I walked away from a high pressured $240K job to stay home with the kids. The adjustment was difficult at first because my identity was tied to my career for so long. I don't regret my choice though and a large part of my decision was based on the fact that my DH was also a high earner so we did not have to change our lifestyle for me to SAH.

....and some people choose to have both parents take less stressful jobs so both parents can be involved in the parenting. Higher paying jobs are out there but at a cost so yea, some people prefer the $150/yr over the $250+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't.
My husband works 50+ hours in a demanding job and I work 30 from home.
Our kids are 7, 7, 4 and we often feel like we're just keeping all the balls in the air.

I think it's easier to have two parents work very demanding jobs and outsource childcare with 1 or 2 nannies, etc when the kids are really young.
Yours are almost school aged and will start to notice when they are always with the nanny and not either parent.
In my experience of now having 2 second graders, you can often tell when school aged kids never see their parents and instead spend most of their waking hours with a nanny.
9 times out of 10, the "difficult" kids in our NW DC school are products of this type of arrangement.
Bottom line, infants/todders don't care who is holding them/feeding them/keeping them safe. School aged kids definitely notice who is (or is not) on the sidelines, doing home work with them, etc.

Argh, that bothers me so, so much. Just because infants or young children are not able to verbalize or articulate their preferences, you think it makes no difference who they are with? That mom or dad can be swapped out for anyone? Your post makes it sound as if it only matters what it "looks like" to other people. Does it look like they are always with a nanny? Most research on child development shows that the most important years for bonding, closeness, emotional development are in the early years. Babies are not just blank, empty bodies who don't care who is holding them. You could not be more wrong. Older children are much more capable of bonding and forming relationships with others, and in fact, it's good for them.

[Anonymous]

I have a different perspective. I grew up poor, and my parents both worked hourly jobs, and I don't think it impacted me negatively long term. I learned the value of hard work, and I put myself through college and grad school and now I work in a career that pays 6 figures. What I would have liked more was to have happy parents - parents doing work that was satisfying to them, so even on the bad days there was something better to look forward to. Eventually my mom finished college and had a steady "salary" job, and that was better.

That was my long way of saying you need to make yourself happy, and that will have a huge impact on your kids - bigger than I think is realized.

[Anonymous]

Do it OP. You are fucked if anything happens to your marriage or your husband's income otherwise. Get a good nanny and give yourself 2 years to find something or negotiate something more flexible. At the least now try for 1+ days a week telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do it OP. You are fucked if anything happens to your marriage or your husband's income otherwise. Get a good nanny and give yourself 2 years to find something or negotiate something more flexible. At the least now try for 1+ days a week telework.

Forgot to add I'm in a 200k at 40 hours a week myself with DH in biglaw. I'd love to be 30 or so hours but decided to take the higher pay for now. We have a fantastic nanny which helps.

[Anonymous]

Its a hard one, OP. I make 200K and am on a "reduced" schedule, but I would love to do three days a week. I think you need a PT position. Would it be easier to lobby for PT after working there for a while or to come in as PT?

[Anonymous]

Would I turn this down? No. I don't make anywhere close to 200,000 a year. But it doesn't sound like you need the money. So that doesn't really need to be a major part of the equation when you make your decision.

[Anonymous]

Risky to depend on your husband financially long-term.

[Anonymous]

I would take the job and do it for a year at least. It is difficult to get back into the work force and you can always quit later. Also, having a job sometimes builds the connections to find the part time job that you seem to favor,

[Anonymous]

Depends on if you want to be a SAHM. If you do, ditch the job. If not, take it. You're rich anyways, lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do it OP. You are fucked if anything happens to your marriage or your husband's income otherwise. Get a good nanny and give yourself 2 years to find something or negotiate something more flexible. At the least now try for 1+ days a week telework.

Forgot to add I'm in a 200k at 40 hours a week myself with DH in biglaw. I'd love to be 30 or so hours but decided to take the higher pay for now. We have a fantastic nanny which helps.

Not necessarily - sounds like her alimony could/would be more than my salary. Plus, if she's getting 200k job offers, chances are she's qualified and will be able to still work in a few years of SAHM'ing.