Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, OP, you were not going to get a good response on DCUM. Just know that.

We have a similar HHI, and are in the opposite situation: DH wants us to hire a full time nanny (I’m expecting #3 and SAH), and it’s not what I want. Mostly because we did have someone come 20ish hours a week for #2 and I felt like the nanny got good baby time while I took care of crap around the house, and I hated it.

You are not at all wrong for wanting to spend the money you have to make life easier, and my DH wants it for us because he knows that if I’m happy and not stressed, our whole family does better. BUT I’ve asserted (and DH is fine with this) that is rather have a 20 hour a week nanny and a 15-20 hour a week housekeeper (we previously just had weekly cleaners) who will do laundry, dishes, and odd tasks.

Perhaps your DH would be more open to hiring someone to do drudgery work, and a half-time nanny?

Regardless, I hate the responses of other PPs here who largely don’t know what it’s like to have a 750k+ income, or are just haters. Yes, a SAHM can survive without any of the help you are looking for - but at that income it’s ridiculous to just survive, you pay for luxuries, and the luxury you want is totally reasonable and would absolutely help both you and DH (and your older child).

Some of us are just as rich and much less lazy. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are just used to a rich lifestyle of having someone else do all the work at home and your husband is getting annoyed. He does work himself all day and so the idea that you can't look after the kids and need to outsource childcare despite being at home is frustrating.

99% of parents at home with their kids don't have nannies or night nurses to provide the child care while they come and go as they please.

I think this is a difference in values more than anything. You say your husband works 10-12 hours a day and that work is the financial income you live off of but you don't seem to really want to contribute anything back to the household. You want a carefree life of leisure while others are paid to do all the work. I doubt you cook or clean or do much around the house either - likely that is all outsourced as well.

Are you much younger than your DH? Did you see marrying him and his money as a golden ticket to a life of no work?

Since you don't want to look after the kids, you should get a job and use that money to pay the childcare costs.

Please explain why you think someone who's legitimately rich should live as if they're poor.

Not everyone, including Ops DH thinks that being rich means you outsourced your SAHM role. It isn't only the poors who raise their own kids. Your idea that rich means you outsource everything isn't the case. OPs DH hasn't outsourced his work - he still has to go and work hard and make this money they have to be rich. It isn't an inheritance and trust fund where he also just plays all day with no responsibilities. I get that OP didn't want this baby and therefore is resentful that she might have to provide some childcare but that is where OP and DH are not on the same page. He sees her as also being a contributing member of the household and having responsibilities despite the money he earns while working all the time. Op sees her role was just to birth the children and then step away and hire people to do the rest. There are many rich people who still work and have responsibilities and raise their own kids and contribute either financially or through work at home - your view that only the poors do this is strange.

First, OP's DH has presumably outsourced his cleaning, laundry, cooking and every other thing that isn't work.

Second, OP doesn't say she wants to outsource EVERYTHING. She cares for her toddler now and she said nothing about nannies or daycare so let's assume she's doing 100% of the childcare for the older child. She wants to spend time with her toddler and she wants to have a good night's sleep once in a while. She says she has cleaners but she didn't say she has cooks or laundresses or drivers or personal errand-runners. At this income level, having help is completely normal. Newborns are needy even if healthy. I never had a toddler AND a newborn at home but if I did, you bet I'd have help. Actually what I would do is have the toddler in 100% daycare before the newborn arrives.

Yeah, and I’ll point out that every WOHM I’ve ever known has kept their older kid in daycare when they had 3 months maternity leave, and no one ever questions that (nor should they). But when a SAHM wants help with multiple young children suddenly she’s called lazy...

Anonymous wrote:What would it cost to do this, like 50k?

I'd do it for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are just used to a rich lifestyle of having someone else do all the work at home and your husband is getting annoyed. He does work himself all day and so the idea that you can't look after the kids and need to outsource childcare despite being at home is frustrating.

99% of parents at home with their kids don't have nannies or night nurses to provide the child care while they come and go as they please.

I think this is a difference in values more than anything. You say your husband works 10-12 hours a day and that work is the financial income you live off of but you don't seem to really want to contribute anything back to the household. You want a carefree life of leisure while others are paid to do all the work. I doubt you cook or clean or do much around the house either - likely that is all outsourced as well.

Are you much younger than your DH? Did you see marrying him and his money as a golden ticket to a life of no work?

Since you don't want to look after the kids, you should get a job and use that money to pay the childcare costs.

Please explain why you think someone who's legitimately rich should live as if they're poor.

Not everyone, including Ops DH thinks that being rich means you outsourced your SAHM role. It isn't only the poors who raise their own kids. Your idea that rich means you outsource everything isn't the case. OPs DH hasn't outsourced his work - he still has to go and work hard and make this money they have to be rich. It isn't an inheritance and trust fund where he also just plays all day with no responsibilities. I get that OP didn't want this baby and therefore is resentful that she might have to provide some childcare but that is where OP and DH are not on the same page. He sees her as also being a contributing member of the household and having responsibilities despite the money he earns while working all the time. Op sees her role was just to birth the children and then step away and hire people to do the rest. There are many rich people who still work and have responsibilities and raise their own kids and contribute either financially or through work at home - your view that only the poors do this is strange.

First, OP's DH has presumably outsourced his cleaning, laundry, cooking and every other thing that isn't work.

Second, OP doesn't say she wants to outsource EVERYTHING. She cares for her toddler now and she said nothing about nannies or daycare so let's assume she's doing 100% of the childcare for the older child. She wants to spend time with her toddler and she wants to have a good night's sleep once in a while. She says she has cleaners but she didn't say she has cooks or laundresses or drivers or personal errand-runners. At this income level, having help is completely normal. Newborns are needy even if healthy. I never had a toddler AND a newborn at home but if I did, you bet I'd have help. Actually what I would do is have the toddler in 100% daycare before the newborn arrives.

Yeah, and I’ll point out that every WOHM I’ve ever known has kept their older kid in daycare when they had 3 months maternity leave, and no one ever questions that (nor should they). But when a SAHM wants help with multiple young children suddenly she’s called lazy...

Anonymous wrote:I don't think OP is wrong for wanting as much help as possible, but I think she might be disappointed if she has a 24/7 nanny and only weekly housecleaning! She needs a combination of a night nurse, a day nanny, a housekeeper, and ideally someone else to prepare meals (like delivered meal service, or chef that comes to your home once a week and prepares 4 days of food at once). Honestly, OP, my advice is to make sure you outsource the drudgery and not the fun.

Anonymous wrote:So I'm pregnant with our second child. With our first I tried to be "super mom" and did not hire anyone until a few weeks in when I finally broke down and hired a night nurse a couple nights a week. My husband put up a big fight about this but I overruled him since he wasn't getting up at night (I nursed).

Anyway, this time around, I want to hire a 24/7 baby nurse for at least 3 months since we'll have a toddler to take care of too.

My husband doesn't want to hire anyone even though we can afford it. When I point out that I'm the one who is going to be doing all the work so I don't think it is something he should be able to just veto, he says "I'll help out more this time."

But realistically I don't see that happening.

Our HHI is ~ 775k so we can afford this luxury. I'm really anxious about what it's going to be like taking care of a toddler and a baby at the same time. I think knowing that I'll have this level of support will help calm me down. H doesn't want to spend the money on it though and says that we should just "power through."

How should we resolve this?

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I should have mentioned that my husband works long hours (at least 10 but often as much as 12) and never gets up with the baby at night.

With our first baby, he planned to take a week off but went back after 3 days.

That's a big part of it.

And no I don't believe he will help at all, despite his claims. It is what it is. I have to hire help so I will do that. fortunately, we can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I nursed both kids and my husband got up maybe 3 times in the first year for each kid. I work outside the home.

If I had money to throw at things I would not want help with the kids. I would have a chef, a trainer who came to the house, I’d have hair and nails come to the house, daily or 2-3x a week cleaning. I would just hang with my kids.

Yes, that's what I would have done also! I'd outsource everything EXCEPT care of my kids-I wish I had more time for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are just used to a rich lifestyle of having someone else do all the work at home and your husband is getting annoyed. He does work himself all day and so the idea that you can't look after the kids and need to outsource childcare despite being at home is frustrating.

99% of parents at home with their kids don't have nannies or night nurses to provide the child care while they come and go as they please.

I think this is a difference in values more than anything. You say your husband works 10-12 hours a day and that work is the financial income you live off of but you don't seem to really want to contribute anything back to the household. You want a carefree life of leisure while others are paid to do all the work. I doubt you cook or clean or do much around the house either - likely that is all outsourced as well.

Are you much younger than your DH? Did you see marrying him and his money as a golden ticket to a life of no work?

Since you don't want to look after the kids, you should get a job and use that money to pay the childcare costs.

Please explain why you think someone who's legitimately rich should live as if they're poor.

Not everyone, including Ops DH thinks that being rich means you outsourced your SAHM role. It isn't only the poors who raise their own kids. Your idea that rich means you outsource everything isn't the case. OPs DH hasn't outsourced his work - he still has to go and work hard and make this money they have to be rich. It isn't an inheritance and trust fund where he also just plays all day with no responsibilities. I get that OP didn't want this baby and therefore is resentful that she might have to provide some childcare but that is where OP and DH are not on the same page. He sees her as also being a contributing member of the household and having responsibilities despite the money he earns while working all the time. Op sees her role was just to birth the children and then step away and hire people to do the rest. There are many rich people who still work and have responsibilities and raise their own kids and contribute either financially or through work at home - your view that only the poors do this is strange.

First, OP's DH has presumably outsourced his cleaning, laundry, cooking and every other thing that isn't work.

Second, OP doesn't say she wants to outsource EVERYTHING. She cares for her toddler now and she said nothing about nannies or daycare so let's assume she's doing 100% of the childcare for the older child. She wants to spend time with her toddler and she wants to have a good night's sleep once in a while. She says she has cleaners but she didn't say she has cooks or laundresses or drivers or personal errand-runners. At this income level, having help is completely normal. Newborns are needy even if healthy. I never had a toddler AND a newborn at home but if I did, you bet I'd have help. Actually what I would do is have the toddler in 100% daycare before the newborn arrives.