Would you stay at home with small children, or wait for more work flexibility for kids when older?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

I agree there's a different answer for everyone. However, all my friends who re-entered the workforce after a 5+ year hiatus, came back at half to 2/3 their previous salary. I'm surprised you re-entered law easily after 8 years. Is it a certain niche? or did you keep up your credentials or do some consulting projects in those 8 years off?
I think all moms would like to know the path to meaningful career re-entry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

I agree there's a different answer for everyone. However, all my friends who re-entered the workforce after a 5+ year hiatus, came back at half to 2/3 their previous salary. I'm surprised you re-entered law easily after 8 years. Is it a certain niche? or did you keep up your credentials or do some consulting projects in those 8 years off?
I think all moms would like to know the path to meaningful career re-entry.

I did nothing during the time I was off that was job related. I had 10 years experience, non equity partner status when I left, and the type of credentials in terms of schools and firms that impress employers that care about such things. I also had excellent references. I think the degree of difficulty getting back in is hugely overestimated, of course, only a small percentage of people can afford to take the time off, that is the big limiting factor, not reentry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

I agree there's a different answer for everyone. However, all my friends who re-entered the workforce after a 5+ year hiatus, came back at half to 2/3 their previous salary. I'm surprised you re-entered law easily after 8 years. Is it a certain niche? or did you keep up your credentials or do some consulting projects in those 8 years off?
I think all moms would like to know the path to meaningful career re-entry.

I did nothing during the time I was off that was job related. I had 10 years experience, non equity partner status when I left, and the type of credentials in terms of schools and firms that impress employers that care about such things. I also had excellent references. I think the degree of difficulty getting back in is hugely overestimated, of course, only a small percentage of people can afford to take the time off, that is the big limiting factor, not reentry.

With all due respect, I believe you are a bit of an anomaly. Most parents who have stayed home for a significant period of time, and not kept up credentials or certifications, have a difficult reentry years later. My neighbor was an event planner for an association and is having difficulty finding something at the level she was and is now leaning toward getting her masters in education so she can teach. Another friend, who stayed home for 10 years, worked as a consultant at one of the then-big 6, and she too had a hard time finding the right fit. It is doable, but it certainly isn't as easy as you make it sound. I can only guess your degrees/experience are such that you were able to take such a long time off with no consequences. I believe, however, that situation is fairly unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

I agree there's a different answer for everyone. However, all my friends who re-entered the workforce after a 5+ year hiatus, came back at half to 2/3 their previous salary. I'm surprised you re-entered law easily after 8 years. Is it a certain niche? or did you keep up your credentials or do some consulting projects in those 8 years off?
I think all moms would like to know the path to meaningful career re-entry.

I did nothing during the time I was off that was job related. I had 10 years experience, non equity partner status when I left, and the type of credentials in terms of schools and firms that impress employers that care about such things. I also had excellent references. I think the degree of difficulty getting back in is hugely overestimated, of course, only a small percentage of people can afford to take the time off, that is the big limiting factor, not reentry.

With all due respect, I believe you are a bit of an anomaly. Most parents who have stayed home for a significant period of time, and not kept up credentials or certifications, have a difficult reentry years later. My neighbor was an event planner for an association and is having difficulty finding something at the level she was and is now leaning toward getting her masters in education so she can teach. Another friend, who stayed home for 10 years, worked as a consultant at one of the then-big 6, and she too had a hard time finding the right fit. It is doable, but it certainly isn't as easy as you make it sound. I can only guess your degrees/experience are such that you were able to take such a long time off with no consequences. I believe, however, that situation is fairly unique.

Another mom here who had zero trouble reentering. I think the key is to keep up your professional network while out of the workforce, and to leave as a top employee. Frankly, I did stellar work while I was in the workforce full time, and people remembered that. I had no trouble getting a plum consulting gig once my youngest hit kindergarten. Actually, I regularly turned down offers in the years I was out of the workforce.

If I left the workforce as an admin, or a just-above-entry-level employee, I'm sure I'd be singing a different song.

I know that this board is read by women in all different parts of the country, but there are many women like me in DC and close-in 'burbs. I'm no unicorn around these parts. In fact, I can think of quite a few women off the top of my head who left the workforce and had no trouble getting back in - one did web design and leveraged a business contact to get back in, and another was a lawyer who had a notably impressive ability to deal not only with clients, but with difficult senior personalities at her big law firm.

[Anonymous]

I did both. I stayed home in the beginning. Went back to work at 2-5yrs old and put them in a great preschool/daycare. Once they went into K, I stayed home again. I am currently working part time with youngest in 3rd and oldest in 10th. It is still REALLY hard to schedule everything. The activities, the school functions, the high school games right after school to watch, the carpooling, the dinners, helping with homework, lunches, etc... I honestly have no idea how working moms do it. I worked full time one year when I had two kids in school and my weekends were all about catching up. I was miserable.

So if I had to pick, I would pick working FT while they are young. Why?

1. They are playing ALL day and when you go and get them you can focus on them on YOUR terms. You feel like crap after a bad day a work? Snuggling at home and PB&J sandwiches for dinner will make those little ones and you happy. You have a crappy day at work when they are older and you miss your kid's lacrosse game, are late picking up son from karate, and when you get home everyone wants to know what is for dinner? Oh and you have a school function that night. It SUCKS!!

2. You will be able to get back to you if you are home when the kids are in school. Yes, you use that time to cook, clean, shop, and errands so you can focus on the kids when they get home but if you time manage, you can volunteer, do a hobby, go to the gym in peace. Happy wife and mom makes for a very happy home.

3. Your weekends are much more relaxing (schedule-wise) when the kids are young. You can spend so much time with them. Plan day trips, visit family, go to playgrounds, have working mom playgroups. As your kids get older, they will be going to activities, parties, etc.. and not only will your weekends be in the car a lot. You won't see them as much. If you are working, it is really tough to keep up with what is going on in their lives and it is a very crucial time to be able to do that.

4. Kids are exhausted after school no matter what their age and it is nice to not be exhausted and snippy along with them. Kids enjoy coming home to mom. Snacks, some downtime, kisses. Even my teen and tween are talkative about their day after a plop on the couch and a decent snack.

5. Summers. Camps are thru the roof expensive and most kids hate going week after week. Getting just a summer nanny is really expensive.

6. Days off from school. Random holidays, teacher days, your kid's sick days, snow days, etc... They add up very quickly. Not really an issue when they are younger. You can focus on work more. Not sitting at work creating your family schedule in hopes that you don't have to ask for 4 days off a month.

7. Two working parents figuring out who is getting who each days is a nightmare and very stressful on the marriage. Very little time to see each other and have time alone and date nights. I now meet my husband for lunch once a week or so. It is very nice to do that without worrying about babysitters, etc..

8. Just my opinion but the school years are what the kids remember and emotionally need you more. Younger kids seem needier but the olders ones secretly need you around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did both. I stayed home in the beginning. Went back to work at 2-5yrs old and put them in a great preschool/daycare. Once they went into K, I stayed home again. I am currently working part time with youngest in 3rd and oldest in 10th. It is still REALLY hard to schedule everything. The activities, the school functions, the high school games right after school to watch, the carpooling, the dinners, helping with homework, lunches, etc... I honestly have no idea how working moms do it. I worked full time one year when I had two kids in school and my weekends were all about catching up. I was miserable.

So if I had to pick, I would pick working FT while they are young. Why?

1. They are playing ALL day and when you go and get them you can focus on them on YOUR terms. You feel like crap after a bad day a work? Snuggling at home and PB&J sandwiches for dinner will make those little ones and you happy. You have a crappy day at work when they are older and you miss your kid's lacrosse game, are late picking up son from karate, and when you get home everyone wants to know what is for dinner? Oh and you have a school function that night. It SUCKS!!

2. You will be able to get back to you if you are home when the kids are in school. Yes, you use that time to cook, clean, shop, and errands so you can focus on the kids when they get home but if you time manage, you can volunteer, do a hobby, go to the gym in peace. Happy wife and mom makes for a very happy home.

3. Your weekends are much more relaxing (schedule-wise) when the kids are young. You can spend so much time with them. Plan day trips, visit family, go to playgrounds, have working mom playgroups. As your kids get older, they will be going to activities, parties, etc.. and not only will your weekends be in the car a lot. You won't see them as much. If you are working, it is really tough to keep up with what is going on in their lives and it is a very crucial time to be able to do that.

4. Kids are exhausted after school no matter what their age and it is nice to not be exhausted and snippy along with them. Kids enjoy coming home to mom. Snacks, some downtime, kisses. Even my teen and tween are talkative about their day after a plop on the couch and a decent snack.

5. Summers. Camps are thru the roof expensive and most kids hate going week after week. Getting just a summer nanny is really expensive.

6. Days off from school. Random holidays, teacher days, your kid's sick days, snow days, etc... They add up very quickly. Not really an issue when they are younger. You can focus on work more. Not sitting at work creating your family schedule in hopes that you don't have to ask for 4 days off a month.

7. Two working parents figuring out who is getting who each days is a nightmare and very stressful on the marriage. Very little time to see each other and have time alone and date nights. I now meet my husband for lunch once a week or so. It is very nice to do that without worrying about babysitters, etc..

8. Just my opinion but the school years are what the kids remember and emotionally need you more. Younger kids seem needier but the olders ones secretly need you around.

Almost all these issues can be easily remedied with a part time nanny or sitter to help with activities and sick days, if one wants to work (.preferring to stay home is fine, but not a necessity). I am happy I was able to spend time at home when my kids were little and parent centrc.

[Anonymous]

A ton of educational and psychology research shows that the first five years of a child's life are foundational in many ways. I hear parents on here frequently saying that it doesn't matter who is taking care of the kids when they are babies and that "it doesn't matter to a baby but it does to an older child." This could not be more wrong. Parents engage differently than care-givers and are more invested. If you can stay home with young children, it is the better option. Those early years can be drudgery but it is more important for a loving parent to be there then versus later on. Practically speaking, it also makes more sense to stay at home when kids are young since older kids, especially in middle and high school, are in school and afterschool sports or programs until nearly 5 pm. It just doesn't make sense to drop out of the work force for a few hours a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2. Despite reports to the contrary, tweens and teens need you a lot. Not to mention activities I need to be around for, and also the stability of having someone home after they get home from school (or thereabouts) to sort of monitor the situation.

Couldn't disagree more. Most kids spend more and more time in extracurriculars and with friends as they get older.

However, there are some sahs of older kids who feel they must constantly spread this myth to justify their decision. And yes, I have older kids. There were a lot more opportunities to spend quality time with them when they were younger.

Believe me this is not a myth. Life is incredibly busy with one or more teens with heavy academic loads and busy extracurricular schedules. It has easily been the most exhausting and emotionally demanding stage of parenting for me. I think cutting back on work at this time makes sense if for no other reason than the parent's mental health.

My kids both are on club teams, plus play other sports and I work 40 hours a week in a flexible job. It is very easily doable with a sitter and carpooling, I don't understand why it is so hard for some to say they stay home because they like it imsead of pretending it would be impossible to do otherwise. I was a sah when my kids were younger, but it wasn't a necessity, they would have turned out equally well with a nanny or in daycare, I wanted to stay at home for those years and was fortunate enough to be able to do so. Own your decisions ladies and stop acting like you had no other choice, staying at home is always optional unless you have a dependent that is sick or special needs.

[Anonymous]

I stay home because I like it.
I stay home because my kids like it.
I stay home because my husband likes it.
I stay home because it's way easier than working full time and having a large family.
I stay home because we are wealthy already and I prioritize time and experiences before the pursuit of more money.

I've never pretended that having a SAH parent is a necessity. For us we believe it's best, but certainly not necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I decided to go with option 2. Our kids are now 7 & 10 and so far it is the right decision. We are aggressively saving for their college so they have more options than DH and I did in our 20s. I personally think that will be more meaningful to them in the long term.

It won't. They want their Mom now. Not her money when they move out.

Do they also want their Dad now, not his money when they move out?

Mine absolutely do. However, my husband needs to work, therefore they get what they can ~ A loving caring Dad who WAH and a SAH mom. The answer to the knowledge that kids DO want to be around their parents isn't "well don't give them access to either parent since they can't have full access to both parents". At least, it wasn't for us.

+100
I just love that circular, illogical argument seen often here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer. Work and continue advancing and building income (financial security) when kids are younger.

I did. I've worked hard the last 10 years (while my children have had excellent childcare), and now I'm in a position to retire at age 45.
Many of my friends quit to become SAHMs in their early 30's, and went back to work about 10 years later. They started back at much lower salaries and now have to work until age 67.

Unfortunately, a woman's prime earning years are around age 35-45. Being out of the workforce for most of that time is extremely detrimental to your family's financial security.

Don't let emotion overrule your decision

I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

This. Sounds very similar to my own situation, though I'm not in law. And now that my kids are older and busy with their own lives, I'm happy to be back at work. I also have no desire to retire in my forties, and my kids needed me most when they were young. I feel extremely fortunate that I was able to be there with them during that time, as I know it's not financially possible for so many parents. Those were some of the best years of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A ton of educational and psychology research shows that the first five years of a child's life are foundational in many ways. I hear parents on here frequently saying that it doesn't matter who is taking care of the kids when they are babies and that "it doesn't matter to a baby but it does to an older child." This could not be more wrong. Parents engage differently than care-givers and are more invested. If you can stay home with young children, it is the better option. Those early years can be drudgery but it is more important for a loving parent to be there then versus later on. Practically speaking, it also makes more sense to stay at home when kids are young since older kids, especially in middle and high school, are in school and afterschool sports or programs until nearly 5 pm. It just doesn't make sense to drop out of the work force for a few hours a day.

I couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A ton of educational and psychology research shows that the first five years of a child's life are foundational in many ways. I hear parents on here frequently saying that it doesn't matter who is taking care of the kids when they are babies and that "it doesn't matter to a baby but it does to an older child." This could not be more wrong. Parents engage differently than care-givers and are more invested. If you can stay home with young children, it is the better option. Those early years can be drudgery but it is more important for a loving parent to be there then versus later on. Practically speaking, it also makes more sense to stay at home when kids are young since older kids, especially in middle and high school, are in school and afterschool sports or programs until nearly 5 pm. It just doesn't make sense to drop out of the work force for a few hours a day.

I'll add that employers are more accepting of breaks in employment when kids are young, as that is the more conventional time to be a sah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I decided to go with option 2. Our kids are now 7 & 10 and so far it is the right decision. We are aggressively saving for their college so they have more options than DH and I did in our 20s. I personally think that will be more meaningful to them in the long term.

It won't. They want their Mom now. Not her money when they move out.

Do they also want their Dad now, not his money when they move out?

Mine absolutely do. However, my husband needs to work, therefore they get what they can ~ A loving caring Dad who WAH and a SAH mom. The answer to the knowledge that kids DO want to be around their parents isn't "well don't give them access to either parent since they can't have full access to both parents". At least, it wasn't for us.

+100
I just love that circular, illogical argument seen often here on DCUM.

I have never, not once, read on DCUM the argument that if the father doesn't also stay home, then the mother shouldn't stay home either. Never. Not once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree. So much so, that my husband and I made it a priority to have one of us at home during all of these stages.

Which one of you?

In our family we chose the person who carries and nurses the baby. We also chose the person who needed the money, whereas I didn't;. Men deserve the right to be financially secure, as well.

So, "My husband and I made it a priority to have me (the wife) at home during all of these stages"?[/quote]


So what's wrong with that? Have you not noticed a rather large tendency among all species for the mother to be the primary caregiver? Are we to assume that's just meaningless?