Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a good idea.

As far as divorce...I don't plan for it. Seriously. The way we make our marriage work is that we are both in it 100%, no contingency plans. And I wouldn't stay home if I wasn't sure about that.

I don't have a great marriage, hence I work.

I'm right there with you. I'm also not sure SAH helps many marriages.

Anonymous wrote:
"You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones. "

Is it okay for your DH to give up time with his children?

My kids are 11 and 14. I don't regret for one minute giving up time with my children when they were small so I could go out and earn a living. Not one little bit.

Anonymous wrote:Life insurance is a good idea.

As far as divorce...I don't plan for it. Seriously. The way we make our marriage work is that we are both in it 100%, no contingency plans. And I wouldn't stay home if I wasn't sure about that.

I don't have a great marriage, hence I work.

Anonymous wrote:I'm pregnant with our second, and I'm thinking of SAH, but I am really nervous about reality of being a one income family. What if DH is injured or gets sick or worse? How do you plan for divorce (don't think its at all likely, but I don't live under a rock)? I can't imagine not contributing to a retirement plan and just hoping DH is there for me. Does everyone who SAH just have it so good that these aren't real worries? How did you plan?

Insurance on both of us for the dying and disabled bit.

I contribute the max allowed annually to an IRA, DH does 401k and IRA- both of us have been contributing for decades, so we are in danger of overfunding at this point.

Don't plan for a divorce, but there are things in place to assure an equitable distribution. The biggest issue would be the emotional fallout, especially for the DCs- but will be so no matter what ones working status is. A great many things do not point to divorce for us (married older, intact families, college educated, active in a religious congregation, similar world views, married for 19 years, have children.....). The only thing that is a negative statistically is the SN child- but we seem to be able to work as a team in that regard.

If you are worried about "the future" and both of you are on board with one of you staying at home, draw up an agreement and take it to a lawyer, so both of you are protected.

NP.
You might want to consider how long you have been married before deciding whether to stay at home. I didn't stay at home until we had been married more than 10 years and my oldest child was in elementary school. By then there was a lot more certainty that (1) my marriage was going to last and (2) DH could support all of us. Also, at 10 years you are guaranteed spousal social security benefits even if you divorce. Finally, after 10 more years of working, I had a bit of a pension and we had a lot more of a nest egg. And, staying at home with kids in school is the best!

PP, where in any of this did I say I had no plan? Sheesh. The SAHMs that contributed all stated they had life insurance, disability insurance, education etc.
If it makes you feel better to think the SAHM's are all one heartbeat away from financial doom and gloom, then by all means interpret as you will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do WOHMs have a plan? So many state that they need the two incomes in the DC area. What would YOU do with just your one income?

This is a silly, defensive and disingenuous question, but I will bite. Yes, most do. That is why they work, in part, because they are aware of what would happen if they lost thier husband's income. Through their employer, most will have gap insurance for the death of a spouse. Also, because they have been working, most WOHM would be able to keep their job, which they would need even more if they lost their husband or got divorced. If it was the WOHM who lost her job, most will be able to collect unemployment, and will, of course, be looking for and be able to find another job. The point is, there are much lower risks when both spouses are working. If one loses a job, you adjust and live off the remaining income. When only one spouse is working its obviously going to be a larger impact if that spouse dies or loses his or her job.

You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones.

No, I am not missing your point. It is a question of priorities. IF you got divorced or IF you lost your husband, your kids would be impacted. IF you have no plan in place, your children would be negatively impacted. Divorce is not a wild, entirely unlikely event. It happens often and very few people set out intending for it to occur, but occur it does. We all die, many of us get sick, and many of us lose jobs. These are not outlying possibilities, in fact, they are more likely to occur then many other things you insure against. Nobody is saying you should sacrifice your time with your children, something we all value. I just happen to have decided its more important to 100% know that I can provide for my children alone than for them to have 100% of my time during the day.

I think the pp wrote a beautiful response. But you are too stupid and hot-headed to get the point.

Good for you and your priorities. If you are so confident in your choices then there is really nothing to discuss. And furthermore, your justifications for whatever you do are not really the topic of this thread.

Neither is the SAHM's philosophy/rationalizing for not having any kind of contingency plan in place. The point of this thread is the importance of having a plan and knowing what that plan is. And I am not "justifying" my choices. I am happy with my choices.

I say po-tah-toe

You say toe-may-toe
I say toe-mah-toe

Different strokes for different folks

Anonymous wrote:
"You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones. "

This is a risk philosophy I just don't get. Its like saying fire insurance is so expensive and you are guaranteed to lose that money, but not to have a fire, so why buy it.

Can't we just all get along?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do WOHMs have a plan? So many state that they need the two incomes in the DC area. What would YOU do with just your one income?

This is a silly, defensive and disingenuous question, but I will bite. Yes, most do. That is why they work, in part, because they are aware of what would happen if they lost thier husband's income. Through their employer, most will have gap insurance for the death of a spouse. Also, because they have been working, most WOHM would be able to keep their job, which they would need even more if they lost their husband or got divorced. If it was the WOHM who lost her job, most will be able to collect unemployment, and will, of course, be looking for and be able to find another job. The point is, there are much lower risks when both spouses are working. If one loses a job, you adjust and live off the remaining income. When only one spouse is working its obviously going to be a larger impact if that spouse dies or loses his or her job.

You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones.

No, I am not missing your point. It is a question of priorities. IF you got divorced or IF you lost your husband, your kids would be impacted. IF you have no plan in place, your children would be negatively impacted. Divorce is not a wild, entirely unlikely event. It happens often and very few people set out intending for it to occur, but occur it does. We all die, many of us get sick, and many of us lose jobs. These are not outlying possibilities, in fact, they are more likely to occur then many other things you insure against. Nobody is saying you should sacrifice your time with your children, something we all value. I just happen to have decided its more important to 100% know that I can provide for my children alone than for them to have 100% of my time during the day.

I think the pp wrote a beautiful response. But you are too stupid and hot-headed to get the point.

Good for you and your priorities. If you are so confident in your choices then there is really nothing to discuss. And furthermore, your justifications for whatever you do are not really the topic of this thread.

"You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones. "

Is it okay for your DH to give up time with his children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do WOHMs have a plan? So many state that they need the two incomes in the DC area. What would YOU do with just your one income?

This is a silly, defensive and disingenuous question, but I will bite. Yes, most do. That is why they work, in part, because they are aware of what would happen if they lost thier husband's income. Through their employer, most will have gap insurance for the death of a spouse. Also, because they have been working, most WOHM would be able to keep their job, which they would need even more if they lost their husband or got divorced. If it was the WOHM who lost her job, most will be able to collect unemployment, and will, of course, be looking for and be able to find another job. The point is, there are much lower risks when both spouses are working. If one loses a job, you adjust and live off the remaining income. When only one spouse is working its obviously going to be a larger impact if that spouse dies or loses his or her job.

You are missing my point. See all those "ifs?" What is a definite is that your child is in a daycare, with a nanny, au pair, relative or something of that nature right now and you are working. You are not with your child while you are working. That is always, 100% going to happen if you choose to work full time for these "ifs."Life has a lot of "ifs", awful horrible unplanned things happen, but I, and perhaps other SAHMs of young children, are not going to give up this time with our children for things that might happen when right in front of me, happening right now, is the time I have with my little ones.

No, I am not missing your point. It is a question of priorities. IF you got divorced or IF you lost your husband, your kids would be impacted. IF you have no plan in place, your children would be negatively impacted. Divorce is not a wild, entirely unlikely event. It happens often and very few people set out intending for it to occur, but occur it does. We all die, many of us get sick, and many of us lose jobs. These are not outlying possibilities, in fact, they are more likely to occur then many other things you insure against. Nobody is saying you should sacrifice your time with your children, something we all value. I just happen to have decided its more important to 100% know that I can provide for my children alone than for them to have 100% of my time during the day.