Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Stay At Home Parent is a gift to your children. Not everyone wants to give them that gift.

Why do you assume everyone has kids? OP didn't say there are kids.

If there are no kids then it is a semantic discussion between adults. And by the way, I did not assume they have kids, I just said if there are kids having a parent home caring for them, especially when they are very young, is a gift.

I agree with this. Totally beats the hell of aftercare. And theoretically it allows the SAHP to create a more peaceful and healthy home environment.

Yes, if he/she wants to. I know many may disagree, but with some families having a stay at home parent relieves so much stress, especially if your job is going to demand more hours.

No one really needs more than 400k. I don't see why you can't still save for retirement with that amount of income. If you really can't, save their whole income for a year then have him/her quit then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be comfortable with it. Being a sole breadwinner is too stressful.

Two breadwinners working and stressing all the time isn't great either. This is especially true when it's not necessary.

This is what it came down to for us. Money being no object, to have two parents out of the home for a combines total of 80 or 100 hours simply wasn't what we wanted. That sounded more stressful than having one parent at home.