I know on these boards and sometimes IRL, it is hard to find a working mom who wants to be working. At least that is how it seems to me most of the time. However, I am one of those moms. I made the assumption that the burning desire to be a SAH would hit me once I had a kid, but nada.
Even if it had, we had already made the decision for me to work because we did not have any intention of cutting back in any way if we could help it. Selfish, perhaps, but it works for our family. In fact, my career really got better in many ways post-baby.
So, I guess what I am trying to say is: being a SAH isn't for everyone, and you won't really know until you're there. If you want to make sacrifices, it looks like you have room to do so, but don't feel badly about not wanting to do that. And, there are plenty of women who work and have babies and take vacations, and are perfectly happy... So, it can be done.
I'm one of those moms who wants to work. I was a SAHM for a year and I'm glad to be back to work. With this LO (i'm pregnant) I have zero desire to take 12 weeks.
I love my kids to death, but I also love my job and I need it for my sanity.
I think that you like the idea of sah but you don't have a good grasp on the reality. It sounds like you guys have had the DINK lifestyle for a while and you would like to have that after kids, but your H's salary on its own is just not there yet. I wouldn't dwell on not being able to sah and just take it day by day.
DD and I were talking about this on Saturday. I could have stayed home, at the time I had our kids it would have been fine. I chose not and because of this we did have vacations, we have a 32' boat that we take on extended (3 week at a time) trips, the kids had lessons for piano and other things. They went to church camps, sports camps, camps for organizations they belonged to. They took private lessons for their various sports. Study-abroad programs while in college, etc. They could be participate in just about anything we wanted because of my additional salary.
There are times I wished I stayed home, the kids are grown now, but we all know they wouldn't have had a lot of the experiences that make them the people they are. My kids really have turned out amazingly well. They probably would have without these extra things but we'll never know.
It sounds like there's a lot of wiggle room in your budget, and if you and your H really believed that you being a SAHM would be best for the family, you would be able to figure out a way to work.
But it sounds like you don't want to be a working parent because you don't want to sacrifice time, and you don't want to be a SAH parent because you don't want to sacrifice extra spending.
These are decisions everyone has to make. Do you really think your coworkers are lamenting having to work to afford their kid because they aren't willing to give up their semiannual Parisian vacations? Come the fuck on.
You actually can afford to be a SAHM, you just don't want to. There's nothing flameworthy in that, but I am having a hard time mustering up sympathy. You have choices - something many women don't have.
I haven't read all of the responses so far, so Im sorry if this has been said already, but have you compared your loss of income to the cost of childcare? Do you have family nearby that could help you out? I know that H and I are a long way away from TTC as we are both doing asters degrees right now, but when we do TTC we will have to consider if it would make more sense for one of us to SAH or not. I also think that going part time would be a good compromise if thats possible. Maybe if you did that and cut down on the luxuries like the big vacations (you could just take one smaller one) and the motorcycles, maybe being a SAHM wouldn't be such a sacrifice?
I assume the OP means she wants to stay home because she's lazy not because she thinks being a SAHM is lazy, but because working and having a baby would leave no time for laziness. That's what I think, at least. I dont' think staying home would be easy, at all, but I think working and having to be on kid duty whenever you aren't at work would be really tough for a lazy person!
My honest response to this post is that lazy people shouldn't have kids, period. I know that sounds harsh but working with children and staying home with children are both incredibly taxing. Parenting is simply not for the faint of heart. It is fun, rewarding, and, IMO, worth it in every way, but there's no room for laziness in child rearing, and anyone who is SAH to be lazy is most likely doing a pretty terrible job parenting.
Kids require sacrifice. You either have to deal with the stress and difficulty that comes with being a working mom (and there is plenty), or you have to deal with the stress and difficulty of being a SAHM and the financial sacrifices that entails. There are no easy choices here. Very few people can afford a SFH in HCOL, multiple vehicles, fancy vacations, and a SAH. You might be happier being a SAHM, but if you think that is the route you want to go, then you need to start planning for it by unloading unnecessary and expensive possessions and living off one salary now.
Are there people with babies who take 2 huge vacations a year? I'd figure that luxury would go away regardless of your financial circumstances.
Crazy rich people who travel with staffs of nannies? Sure. "Normal" people--even very well-off normal people--no, not in my experience. We are fairly financially comfortable and have a high tolerance for the craziness that comes with traveling with small kids and parents who are willing and able to watch our kids if we travel. We usually do one "big" vacation that requires plane travel each year (and I mean a trip to the Caribbean or Disney World for 6 days, not a 2 week African safari), a long-weekend ski trip, and then a weekend or two at the beach (4 hour drive) in the summer. Any other travel is generally to visit family for holidays, etc.
Back when we were DINKS I never would've thought we could afford for me to SAH, but after I got PG we found it made more sense. I work PT 2-3 days/week or on the weekend at a hotel when DH can be home with DD & my income doing that is more than if I'd worked FT and had to pay for childcare.
Things are definitely tight & our retirement savings is far below what I'd like to have, but it's worth it to us to have this lifestyle for the few years while DD is young. It's much less stressful since I can do errands, grocery shopping, cooking & laundry while DH is at work and we don't have to worry about catching up on those things after both of us have worked a full day. I love having the time home with DD most of the week but also getting to escape and spend a few hours with adults, & it's nice that DH gets some time to hang out with her on the nights I work.
Anyway, long way of saying it's not an all or nothing decision. Something will have to give- go down to 1 car, cut back on vacations, etc, but if SAH is a priority for you both there are almost always ways to make it happen.
Are there people with babies who take 2 huge vacations a year? I'd figure that luxury would go away regardless of your financial circumstances.
Crazy rich people who travel with staffs of nannies? Sure. "Normal" people--even very well-off normal people--no, not in my experience. We are fairly financially comfortable and have a high tolerance for the craziness that comes with traveling with small kids and parents who are willing and able to watch our kids if we travel. We usually do one "big" vacation that requires plane travel each year (and I mean a trip to the Caribbean or Disney World for 6 days, not a 2 week African safari), a long-weekend ski trip, and then a weekend or two at the beach (4 hour drive) in the summer. Any other travel is generally to visit family for holidays, etc.
This is us too. We're taking the boys skiing for the first time over a long weekend in February, all three kids to Disney for a week in March, and to the beach for a week in July. We're thinking about trying the Beaches resort in Turks and Caicos in April if DH gets a good bonus this year. So no safaris here :) But I wouldn't say that beach vacations are exactly cheap though. The house that we rented for July is 8k by itself.
eta: Maybe I am wrong but I didn't read her post as "I want to be a SAHM so I can be lazy" but rather that she doesn't want the stress of having to work full time and then come home and care for children on top of that. Nothing wrong with admitting that to yourself, imo.
there's a middle ground between SAH & working 50+ hrs/wk.
if your firm is very family friendly, maybe you could work 80% or some other alternative work schedule. Maybe you could look into getting a more part-time job so that you can SAH a few days/wk (I've found in home daycares in NoVA better for part-time arrangements than centers).
But, overall, I agree with pps. You can probably afford to SAH if it was important enough to you (I also agree LoCo isn't VHCOL). You just don't want the lifestyle downgrade. I completely understand not wanting a lifestyle downgrade. But own that.
Post by sillygoosegirl on Dec 17, 2012 12:57:45 GMT -5
If you've always wanted to be a SAHM, why did you buy a house and 4 new vehicles that you can't afford without 2 incomes? Our intention for me to be a SAHM has been a guiding principle of our budget and money-related choices for the past 8 years or so, and we aren't even TTC yet. For most families, having a SAHP requires quite a bit of planning and/or sacrifice.
Post by hokiegirl82 on Dec 17, 2012 13:06:16 GMT -5
I have tried to read and gather all of the responses, and I thank everyone for their responses.
First, on the lazy thing - I did not mean that I think SAHM = being lazy - I am so sorry if that is how it came out. I most certainly do not think this. What I meant is that I don't know if I have what it takes to work full time and be a good mom on top of those hours, plus taking care of the dogs, the house, etc, having a good marriage, etc - it sounds like a lot to handle, and I don't know if I could do it because I have been known to be lazy, not so much now but as a kid and in college. I don't think SAHM are lazy at all - I just think I personally feel like too lazy of a person to handle working FT and raising a kid. I am not lazy anymore, I think I take good care of our house, myself, and our dogs, but I still have those occassional weekends where I don't do much of anything except lounge around and watch tv - that is why I still feel lazy sometimes.
I also don't expect to keep the same kind of lifestyle as we have now - I said previously that I don't expect to go on the types of vacations we have been going on, or spending money in general the way we have been the past 6 years, because a lot of these things can't be done with a kid - I'm ok with that. But I'm not ok with having to sacrifice every little thing just for me to SAH, especially when I (for the most part) like my job. H has hobbies that he loves - his motorcycle being one of them - and I don't think he should have to give that up just so I can SAH.
I was wrong to say Loudoun in VHCOL, but I do think it is HCOL, at least in my eyes. We live in Sterling so not too far out in Loudoun, and we paid a crap ton for our home 6 years ago - and it's not new, over 25 years old. We have been waiting for the right time to sell, but we are still waiting for prices to come up more. We don't want to live in this area for much longer, so maybe SAH could be something that could happen when we move to a different part of the country.
I think that you like the idea of sah but you don't have a good grasp on the reality. It sounds like you guys have had the DINK lifestyle for a while and you would like to have that after kids, but your H's salary on its own is just not there yet. I wouldn't dwell on not being able to sah and just take it day by day.
This whole post is incredibly true - I don't have a good grasp on just how much money we spend and what H would need to make even to make us comfortable, not even continuing with the DINK lifestyle we have, just with enough of a cushion to not be stressed about money all of the time with me not working.
SAH is not something that is break-it or make-it for our decision to have a kid - it is just a nice thought and something I thought we could make work, but obviously I have a lot of rethinking and goal-setting to do.
You actually can afford to be a SAHM, you just don't want to. There's nothing flameworthy in that, but I am having a hard time mustering up sympathy. You have choices - something many women don't have.
This. You're allowed to want to work, you're even allowed to want to work so you can drive a new car, but own your decision. Say "I want to work so I can go to Europe twice a year".
I don't work because I'm lazy. I like my kids a lot, but the thought of having to work full time and juggle the household makes me feel tired. That's why I SAHM and will only work part time when I go back to work.
What I meant is that I don't know if I have what it takes to work full time and be a good mom on top of those hours, plus taking care of the dogs, the house, etc, having a good marriage, etc - it sounds like a lot to handle, and I don't know if I could do it because I have been known to be lazy, not so much now but as a kid and in college. I don't think SAHM are lazy at all - I just think I personally feel like too lazy of a person to handle working FT and raising a kid.
But you wouldn't be doing this alone, right? Or does your H not do anything domestic?
Depending on your job, working and having kids is not THAT difficult. I know some people make it seem like ZOMG IT'S HELL!!!! but really. It's been pretty damn easy for us. And I can enjoy coffee uniterrupted at work and even do some online shopping. Not true if I were home with my three year old.
You may find yourself not wanting to SAH once you have a kid. That goes double if you're kind of lazy (no judgment, I am!)
Ditto Jenny 1000%. I don't have kids but my sister works part time, and when my nephews were little, her most relaxing days were the days she spent at work. Spending every waking minute with little ones is haaaaard. At work you'll get to go the bathroom and eat lunch by yourself, and make a phone call without interruption; at home you won't get to do any of those things. Being a SAHM is not a lazy way out. (Really, having kids at all is not for the lazy.)
If your issue is that you don't want to have to bundle up a baby and take them to day care, get a nanny who comes to your house. If your issue is that you think you'll be too tired at the end of the work day to parent well, you will be way more tired after all day at home with little ones. There is really no easy solution here. If you're looking for an easy way out, don't have kids. lol. I'm serious though.
Will he keep riding the organ donors after you have a baby?
This seriously confused me. I thought I was missing some backstory and the husband was "riding" (screwing) someone else. Yikes. Now I get it though. Lol!
Post by shopgirl07 on Dec 17, 2012 17:12:18 GMT -5
I have a friend who used to live in Sterling.
Anyway, I don't think she was asking for advice. It sounds like she realizes they're not ready to make the trade offs that would be necessary for her to SAH. Nothing wrong with that.
What is with the motorcycle hate? Is it truly hate or is that the obvious luxury to get rid of?
I think it is probably a combination. It is both a safety hazard and an unnecessary luxury (as it is not the OP's only or, I would guess, primary means of transportation), so it seems an obvious thing to get rid off.
But is it really surprising that a lot of people hate motorcycles? I thought that was kind of a given...
What is with the motorcycle hate? Is it truly hate or is that the obvious luxury to get rid of?
Not sure either..I would consider it as a vehicle that can save gas during the nicer months.
Chances are the payments (assuming they're not paid off), plus maintenance, and insurance would outweigh the gas savings you could get from it since they're not being used to actually replace a car.
MM tends to be a buttoned up, risk averse group, so the dislike of motorcycles is not suprising.
But yes, I also think it is an obvious luxury to to get rid of if you want to be a SAHM.
No, we don't know all the details. But OP said they need cars because they can't take public transit to work. From that statement, I inferred that the motorcycles are "toys" and are not used for daily commuting.
The fact is still that they have 2 cars and 2 motorcycles. I find it hard to believe that owning only 2 cars would not be cheaper in the long run.
Motorcyles make me nervous and I won't ever ride one. And I'll be honest, I wouldn't want my H riding one, especially if we had children . If people want to ride them and are OK with the risks, that's their choice.
But, it is my understanding that many life, health, and disability insurance plans will have exemptions in them and will refuse to provide coverage in the event you are hurt or killed engaging in risky activities, which, in some cases, does include motorcycle riding. Most people are not aware of these exemptions until it is too late. So I think it's fair that people are questioning the choice to continue riding a motorcycle after having kids. Not only could the kid grow up without a parent, but the OP could be raising kids on her own without the benefit of a second income. Sort of a perverse result of choosing to work to keep the motorcycle , if you ask me.
Dh rides when he can, saves a ton on gas, 11-15 bucks a week to fill up his bike. We have 2 cars (used to have three) /2 motorcycles for us though, but there is no public transportation. Both bikes are pretty cheap to fix too, easy to store, cars on otherhand...big money suck. I wouldnt ask DH to get rid of it though, since I have the same chances probably to hurt myself in my car or even on any of my horses.