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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are 12 and 15. I've been lucky enough to work part time (24-32 hrs per week) throughout my kids' lives, but as infants and toddlers, they still had to go to daycare, as we have no family in the area and I was too nervous to go the nanny route.

Looking back and at where we are now, I think flexibility has become more important in their later childhood (tweens and teens).

Despite what some may suggest on this site, you're not a bad mom if you work to secure your family's financial stability.

What if you're in a job that offers no flexibility? I'm a teacher and my hours will always be set.

Except for the 4 months you have off a year, of course. Thats pretty darn flexible.

I don't have the flexibility to work from home, or leave work early on Tuesdays to pick up my kid from soccer practice, etc.

[Anonymous]

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

But they were there while there kids were growing up. You missed out on most of their childhood. I'd rather be there to focus on raising my kids, and work later on when I have an empty nest.

[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.

Totally true. As someone who decided to be a SAHM the entire time kids were growing up, obviously I feel there's value to being home for both stages, but if I had to choose just one I would go for the later years for all the reasons above.

[Anonymous]

Option 2. I work as I like to work. I'd love to stay at home with my children, but frankly, I think I would get bored. I'd rather have more time when they are older.

[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 agree that there is value in staying home in the early years, however if someone has to choose between early and later years, I would still chose later. The stress of trying to work while keeping up with hectic pace of a teen's life can just about kill you, and quite frankly those are the years that the kids need the most guidance and are making decisions that can have life long consequences.

[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.

So, you had to re-take the bar exam? Catch up on 10 years of CLEs? I find it hard to believe you did absolutely nothing job related (keep your bar membership, for example) and get back in as a partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 husbands 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.

Are you kidding? We see this all the time. Someone says they SAH because it's best for their family. Then someone predictably and defensively responds that in *their* family, both parents wanted "equal" amounts of time with their kids and so they decided for both parents to work so they'd each be able to spend exactly the same amount of time with their kids. Which makes zero sense when they could have one parent spend a lot of time with them instead, giving the working parent far more quality time with the kids than they'd have with two working parents; all the errands and chores are completed by the time working parent gets home, as well as free weekends without scrambling around, trying to get everything done. That doesn't leave quality time for anyone.

So yes, this circular reasoning is seen all the time here on DCUM. It's a result of the defensive bean counting mentality in which all things must be split 50/50, even when it makes no sense and results in less quality time for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Of course we are! In order to prove our feminist credentials, the woman is *never* supposed to express a desire to stay home with her children. At least here in crazy, extremist DCUM-land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

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?

If you what you mean is, "We made it a priority to have the mother at home", then you should say that, not "We made it a priority to have one parent at home".

(Also, yes, I do actually consider it rather meaningless to my life decisions that among (for example) cats and grizzly bears, mothers are the primary caregivers. Just as you presumably consider it meaningless to your life decisions that among many birds, both parents are equal caregivers, and that among many amphibians, reptiles, and fish, neither is a caregiver at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you kidding? We see this all the time. Someone says they SAH because it's best for their family. Then someone predictably and defensively responds that in *their* family, both parents wanted "equal" amounts of time with their kids and so they decided for both parents to work so they'd each be able to spend exactly the same amount of time with their kids. Which makes zero sense when they could have one parent spend a lot of time with them instead, giving the working parent far more quality time with the kids than they'd have with two working parents; all the errands and chores are completed by the time working parent gets home, as well as free weekends without scrambling around, trying to get everything done. That doesn't leave quality time for anyone.

So yes, this circular reasoning is seen all the time here on DCUM. It's a result of the defensive bean counting mentality in which all things must be split 50/50, even when it makes no sense and results in less quality time for everyone.

No, that's not all the same thing as "the father couldn't stay at home, therefore the mother also didn't stay at home". That's -- both parents wanted time with the kids. And if both parents wanted time with the kids, then having one parent stay at home full time and the other parent work full time does not accomplish that goal.

What you're saying, basically, is that you think parents who want equal time with the kids are wanting the wrong thing --- what they should want is for the kids to have a stay-at-home parent. But people get to want what they actually want, not what you think they should want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 agree that there is value in staying home in the early years, however if someone has to choose between early and later years, I would still chose later. The stress of trying to work while keeping up with hectic pace of a teen's life can just about kill you, and quite frankly those are the years that the kids need the most guidance and are making decisions that can have life long consequences.

Hard to believe critical guidance can only be provided between 3pm and 6pm on weekdays, even assuming a teen is regularly home in that time period This point is just ridiculous.

[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.

So, you had to re-take the bar exam? Catch up on 10 years of CLEs? I find it hard to believe you did absolutely nothing job related (keep your bar membership, for example) and get back in as a partner.

I never said I came back as partner I actually came back as a fed in one of the high paying financial regulatory agencies.

And all I did when I was home was pay bar fees, neither Maryland nor DC bars have CLE requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are 12 and 15. I've been lucky enough to work part time (24-32 hrs per week) throughout my kids' lives, but as infants and toddlers, they still had to go to daycare, as we have no family in the area and I was too nervous to go the nanny route.

Looking back and at where we are now, I think flexibility has become more important in their later childhood (tweens and teens).

Despite what some may suggest on this site, you're not a bad mom if you work to secure your family's financial stability.

What if you're in a job that offers no flexibility? I'm a teacher and my hours will always be set.

Except for the 4 months you have off a year, of course. Thats pretty darn flexible.

I don't have the flexibility to work from home, or leave work early on Tuesdays to pick up my kid from soccer practice, etc.

This. Teaching is not *flexible* but does provide more vacation (at pre-determined times). I work in a field where I could work in a school or a corporate position and ultimately went with the corporate path because while I have to work in the summer, my hours are completely flexible year-round. I WAH once a week, can leave early or come in late as I need to and WAH whenever I need to. My kids prefer to go to camp in the summer anyway.

[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

But they were there while there kids were growing up. You missed out on most of their childhood. I'd rather be there to focus on raising my kids, and work later on when I have an empty nest.

Exactly how I feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 2. I work as I like to work. I'd love to stay at home with my children, but frankly, I think I would get bored. I'd rather have more time when they are older.

While I agree that kids continue to need parental presence even as they get older, it's a fallacy that you actually spend more time with them during middle and high school. When they're little, they need you all the time. Older kids are far too busy with their own friends and activities to need you nearly as much.