Anonymous wrote:
$16.5K plus $4k/year in retirement savings isn't nothing. If you enjoy your job and want to stay in the workforce in the longterm, I wouldn't quit. If you are really excited about being home with your newborn, you can afford it, and your employer is agreeable, you could work out a longer unpaid maternity leave. Then in a few months, you can go back to work if you're feeling batty, or stay home if that's what works for you.


+1 If you can work out a flexible work environment (WAH, a schedule that works for your family, a workload that seems right) it may be worth it not to quit. $4K a year in 401K is nothing to sneeze at, nor is keeping a foot in the professional world. In 35 years that money will have grown exponentially. I look at it as an insurance policy.

This is me. I make slightly more than we pay for in childcare costs for two, but I have a flexible job that allows me to spend a good deal of time with my kids during the week. At least for me, that's been the best balance and I feel lucky to have it, even if we're not netting much money. I think there is a lot to be said for taking the long view and keeping your foot in the work world -- especially if it's possible to do so without working crazy hours and never seeing your kids. Sometimes I miss being able to do morning playdates, etc, but I know myself well enough to know I'd struggle if I was home with the kids full-time.

OP, wait till baby is born, enjoy the first few weeks of being exhausted, sleep deprived and poopy diapers and then decide. After being home, I could not see going back to work. I had all the day care arrangements made, etc. and right before I was going back decided to stay home. This isn't something you need to decide now. You will either love being at home or say, love my kid, but I want to work.

Don't base your life on your parents. I tried that which is why I was going back to work. My parents pushed me to go back to work (but would not help with child care or be a back up) and in the end, that logic was flawed. My husband urged me to separate my wants with my parents and make the choice alone. He supported me going back to work or staying home (he would have loved to stay home but we needed his income, not mine).

"And then we cycle back around to the age old question that pp brought up of, shouldn't I stay home and raise the kid myself? If I don't technically "need" to work then is it selfish and detrimental to my kid to drop it off at daycare 40 hours a week?"

Do you think that fathers who work don't raise their children? Do you think that people whose kids spend the day in school aren't raising them? My mother worked, and there is zero question in my mind that she raised me-- always felt her love and care and she was by far the most important and formative influence on my values and life choices. No matter who helps you care for your children, you are raising them. My mom worked hard and was an amazing role model to me; I don't think that she was selfish because she wanted to use her full potential in places other than the home. You have to do what seems right for you and your family, not worry about buzzwords in the Mommy Wars.

I think it is worth it to go back to work and see how it goes. If you feel like $16,500 plus the additional benefits are not worth being away from your child, then you will have your answer. I don't think you have to decide right when the child is born.

Another thing to consider if you stay at home is that you will no longer be able to contribute to your IRA.

Anonymous wrote:I seriously do not mean to be snarky but I feel very strongly that child care costs should not be "charged" or "counted" against the mom's salary. I assume you have a career that you have worked on and are proud of. (You work at a company that provides a 401k match, which is pretty rare these days).

You cannot just look at the costs right now. What about the years in lost seniority, lost retirement, hit to your career?

Of course, if you want to SAH, you should make that choice. But don't do any false calculations of "cost of daycare" vs "my take-home pay right now."

Never in our conversations have DH and I "counted" daycare against my salary. It's a household cost, same as the mortgage and whatever other joint expenses.

+1

Wait and see. I thought that I might want to be a SAHM. I ended up going back part-time and absolutely LOVING that arrangement.

OP Here, (the earlier was not me).

I really appreciate the points.

Particularly the future loss of income from lack of experience and promotions. As well as the "think about it from what you want" perspective rather than the is "16k worth it" persepctive.

DH makes substantially more than me, so him quitting isn't on the table. He also loves his job. I can see both sides of the argument in regards to childcare (ie whether it should not be counted against my salary or both of our salaries.)

I honestly don't know what I want. Going into
the pregnancy I swore I would keep working. I've had some rough days at work (March is our busy season) and sometimes I see the Clarendon moms pushing strollers outside my office window and think maybe THEY have it all figured out. Is it really work 16.5K to sit here for all these hours? Life looks so grand pushing that bugaboo around sometimes!

However the reality is that my mom and my stepmother were both stay at home moms. I saw them give up careers, pester their husband relentlessly, and lack personal interests. Their marriages (both to my father) are/were complete crap and I view both individuals as completely insane. Stepmother recently went back to work after 16 years of shopping at Nordstroms/raising my half sister and her relationship with my father has improved. I wonder if maybe one of the mistakes they made all along was quitting and giving up the stability, income and personal life that the work place can provide. I worry that being a SAHM is the first step into the slow decline that was those two marriages that framed my childhood.

And then we cycle back around to the age old question that pp brought up of, shouldn't I stay home and raise the kid myself? If I don't technically "need" to work then is it selfish and detrimental to my kid to drop it off at daycare 40 hours a week?

I think the PP who suggested going back to work and quitting if I need to might be the appropriate solution. It is my first kid. I don't know what this will feel like. Despite having lots of kid experience, every single person I meet waits about 2 seconds before telling me HOW THIS WILL CHANGE MY LIFE! I HAVE NO IDEA! So I feel like I'm dealing with this big X variable.

Thank you all for the suggestions - I look forward to discussing them with DH and feeling more confident in our decision.

I was kind of relieved to go back to work when my baby was 4 months old because really needed hands-on-attention all the time except when he was asleep. Now he's almost 1 and he's a lot more fun, and isn't so needy (he can feed himself finger food while I eat my lunch, for example). So it's harder for me to be away from him now than when I first went back to work. You might want to take as long of maternity leave as you can, go back to work and see how you like it. One of my friends thought she really wanted to be a SAHM until she had a baby and decided she wanted to keep working.

Your husband should also look into his parental leave options.

I use the lower income parent, who will probably stay home. You have to look at the cost/benefit of working if you can afford to stay home (or can't afford to work). Its not just about child care, but also about clothing, gas, and other work related costs. I used my income exclusively in terms of day care as once you took out all the deductions, take out $2000+ a month for day care, gas, lunch, etc. there was very little left. I don't look at it in this situation as a joint expense as regardless of if I was working, my husband was paying our mortgage and primary bills so I could pay day care or not count my income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - I'm thinking about that $16.5K and wondering how you guys are doing on saving for college?

We just made it a priority. Instead of buying a new car we needed, we choose to do the prepaid college fund and put money down and did a $400 payment and got it paid off in 3 years (we made additional payments too). We also save for retirement and do an IRA for me/staying at home.

Are you the OP?

Anonymous wrote:There are many intangible benefits (and drawbacks!) to staying home with your kids, you just can't make it about numbers. Many people take a huge loss to stay at home.

Staying home with your kids can be one of the best things you can ever do for your children, esp in the early years when forming emotional bonds are the foundation to feeling secure in life. It's controversial to say, but in my opinion the care the love that parents give is going to be better, in most (but maybe not all) cases compared to what you will get from a nanny or daycare. This comes from years of playground observation. So think about whether you want your child to spend their waking hours being cared for by someone other than you.

Did you have to go there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously do not mean to be snarky but I feel very strongly that child care costs should not be "charged" or "counted" against the mom's salary. I assume you have a career that you have worked on and are proud of. (You work at a company that provides a 401k match, which is pretty rare these days).

You cannot just look at the costs right now. What about the years in lost seniority, lost retirement, hit to your career?

Of course, if you want to SAH, you should make that choice. But don't do any false calculations of "cost of daycare" vs "my take-home pay right now."

Never in our conversations have DH and I "counted" daycare against my salary. It's a household cost, same as the mortgage and whatever other joint expenses.

I do not get this argument. Or perhaps you misunderstand. I suppose it sounds pejorative to "charge" daycare costs against the mother's salary, but that's not what it's about. The question here is whether OP (presumably the mother) should work. There does not seem to be an issue on the table regarding whether the dad works, so that's not relevant to this discussion. If the mom keeps working, that triggers daycare expenses. If the mom stays home, the daycare expenses do not exist. Put another way, let's say the dad and mom each take home $80K, and daycare expenses are $20K. If the mom stays home, there will be no daycare expense, and the family's take-home pay will be $80K. If the mom works, the family's take-home pay will be reduced by the amount of the daycare expense -- thus, effectively, the mom's take-home pay will be $60K.

This is not a sexist approach -- it would be the exact same equation if the family was evaluating whether the dad would work or stay home. It's just that, from a financial standpoint, the salary of the parent whose decision to work triggers the daycare expense must be evaluated in light of the amount of that expense.

In terms of economic analysis, all expenses triggered by one parent's employment should be "counted against" that employment when weighing the pros and cons of that employment. If I take a job that pays $60K but will cost $10K in commuting expenses, that effectively means my take-home pay will be $50K. It does not affect my husband's take-home pay, because it is my employment that triggers the expense.

Not sure how else to explain this. It's a clear dollars-and-cents calculation. I really can't understand how people make this into an issue of sexism. Obviously, there are other intangible costs and benefits to working vs staying home, but from a financial standpoint, of course it makes sense to "charge" the daycare costs against the parent who is considering staying home.

I don't disagree with you. My only point is that this analysis should come AFTER a woman (or man) decides that she may WANT to stay home because she wants to. Many times I hear from women "oh it's not even worth it for me to keep working because I'll only bring home $16,500" because the cost of day care is only charged to her. Rather, the decision to should be whether the woman wants to give up her career, wants the SAHM lifestyle, thinks it's better for her kids (all the usual considerations)...and then crunch the numbers.

First of all, not only will it be difficult to get back into the job market when you're ready, but you'll likely be doing so with a pay cut (this has been the case with all of the women I know who left, even for just a year, to be home with baby).

Second of all, the problem I have is that you, the woman, take all of the risk. If the marriage falls apart and you haven't re-established a career, it's going to be very hard for you.

And I don't care how good a marriage is, there is always a possibility that something will happen. And we no longer live in a society in which a woman is automatically awarded a generous alimony (if that ever really did exist).

I would keep the job. It will be really hard for the next 4-5 years, but you'll be thankful for it.

Anonymous wrote:I seriously do not mean to be snarky but I feel very strongly that child care costs should not be "charged" or "counted" against the mom's salary. I assume you have a career that you have worked on and are proud of. (You work at a company that provides a 401k match, which is pretty rare these days).

You cannot just look at the costs right now. What about the years in lost seniority, lost retirement, hit to your career?

Of course, if you want to SAH, you should make that choice. But don't do any false calculations of "cost of daycare" vs "my take-home pay right now."

Never in our conversations have DH and I "counted" daycare against my salary. It's a household cost, same as the mortgage and whatever other joint expenses.

I do not get this argument. Or perhaps you misunderstand. I suppose it sounds pejorative to "charge" daycare costs against the mother's salary, but that's not what it's about. The question here is whether OP (presumably the mother) should work. There does not seem to be an issue on the table regarding whether the dad works, so that's not relevant to this discussion. If the mom keeps working, that triggers daycare expenses. If the mom stays home, the daycare expenses do not exist. Put another way, let's say the dad and mom each take home $80K, and daycare expenses are $20K. If the mom stays home, there will be no daycare expense, and the family's take-home pay will be $80K. If the mom works, the family's take-home pay will be reduced by the amount of the daycare expense -- thus, effectively, the mom's take-home pay will be $60K.

This is not a sexist approach -- it would be the exact same equation if the family was evaluating whether the dad would work or stay home. It's just that, from a financial standpoint, the salary of the parent whose decision to work triggers the daycare expense must be evaluated in light of the amount of that expense.

In terms of economic analysis, all expenses triggered by one parent's employment should be "counted against" that employment when weighing the pros and cons of that employment. If I take a job that pays $60K but will cost $10K in commuting expenses, that effectively means my take-home pay will be $50K. It does not affect my husband's take-home pay, because it is my employment that triggers the expense.

Not sure how else to explain this. It's a clear dollars-and-cents calculation. I really can't understand how people make this into an issue of sexism. Obviously, there are other intangible costs and benefits to working vs staying home, but from a financial standpoint, of course it makes sense to "charge" the daycare costs against the parent who is considering staying home.

Anonymous wrote:OP - I'm thinking about that $16.5K and wondering how you guys are doing on saving for college?

We just made it a priority. Instead of buying a new car we needed, we choose to do the prepaid college fund and put money down and did a $400 payment and got it paid off in 3 years (we made additional payments too). We also save for retirement and do an IRA for me/staying at home.