Do you stay home with your kids or work?

[Caradana]

But really, the defining reason for our choice wasn't practicality or money or any of that. It was about me. I've never been professionally ambitious, and though I had a career before kids, it wasn't a part of my identity the way my home life is. It isn't just the role of mommy - I'll likely be a SAH wife long after the kids are gone. It is the whole package - growing an ever-increasing share of our food, cooking/baking from scratch, helping DH build his business and working with him as needed, remodeling and redecorating, volunteering in our community.

I think yours is a very cool perspective, and I admire it. Personally I wish I had some of those talents (cooking/baking from scratch, entrepreneurship). I find that mine lie more in the corporate space. But I'm really glad you've found the right harmony for you + your family.

 

[MrsPete]

"Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'"

No, but I bet you CAN find stories about people who upon their death bed said things like this:

I wish I was leaving my family with more resources.
I hate knowing that this means my wife'll probably have to sell the house -- but what can she afford?
I wish I could've left my kids with enough money for college.
I hate that I didn't have time to grow my business into something that could've become a legacy for my children and their children.​

It's wonderful to talk about putting your kids first, etc., etc., etc. BUT part of raising those wonderful kids is paying for their needs! I don't want my kids to grow up living in an apartment. I don't want my kids to go without braces, vacations, summer camps and other enrichment activities. I don't want them to have to get jobs at 16 so they can afford car insurance, and I don't want them to graduate from college deep in debt. I don't want them to be burdened someday with parents who have no retirement funds. Though my children are far from spoiled, raising them the way my husband and I chose means two incomes.

Yes, working mothers DO have to focus more on balancing their lives than SAHM, and it is often exhausting to essentially hold down two jobs . . . but kids DO need more than just hugs and time, and being the one who's there to change all the diapers is just part of the equation.

I'd advise anyone who's in the process of making the SAH vs. work decision to consider more than just the immediate paycheck. The bottom line is that "putting your kids first" has many meanings, and it's important to consider your child and your family's needs -- emotional and financial -- for the next two decades. Well, really you need to consider how this decision'll affect the rest of your life -- again, emotionally AND financially. Again, it's necessary to consider both; you simply cannot afford to ignore either side.

 

[mumom95]

No, but I bet you CAN find stories about people who upon their death bed said things like this:

I wish I was leaving my family with more resources.
I hate knowing that this means my wife'll probably have to sell the house -- but what can she afford?
I wish I could've left my kids with enough money for college.
I hate that I didn't have time to grow my business into something that could've become a legacy for my children and their children.​

It's wonderful to talk about putting your kids first, etc., etc., etc. BUT part of raising those wonderful kids is paying for their needs! I don't want my kids to grow up living in an apartment. I don't want my kids to go without braces, vacations, summer camps and other enrichment activities. I don't want them to have to get jobs at 16 so they can afford car insurance, and I don't want them to graduate from college deep in debt. I don't want them to be burdened someday with parents who have no retirement funds. Though my children are far from spoiled, raising them the way my husband and I chose means two incomes.

Yes, working mothers DO have to focus more on balancing their lives than SAHM, and it is often exhausting to essentially hold down two jobs . . . but kids DO need more than just hugs and time, and being the one who's there to change all the diapers is just part of the equation.

I'd advise anyone who's in the process of making the SAH vs. work decision to consider more than just the immediate paycheck. The bottom line is that "putting your kids first" has many meanings, and it's important to consider your child and your family's needs -- emotional and financial -- for the next two decades. Well, really you need to consider how this decision'll affect the rest of your life -- again, emotionally AND financially. Again, it's necessary to consider both; you simply cannot afford to ignore either side.

Why do you seem to assume that a family where only one spouse works can't afford all of these things?

 

[Robinrs]

The one continuing factor I keep hearing is working is for money. Money is not the only reason people WORK!

I love working because it gives me a purpose. I work to feel good about myself and what I accomplish. But it's what I DO. Who I AM is Michael's Mom, and that is what I do everything for.

Like I said before, money is power but it's not always the reason people make a living. I LOVE working, I know most people don't but I do. What I do NOT love is being home all day while my son is at school. YUK. I did it for a year and it doesn't fit me.

 

[RN4Babies]

Well, it's not really true that you can do both. You can't be a full-time mother to your children and work full-time in a workplace away from them. That doesn't mean that your children won't turn out fine, or that you won't have a happy life that way, but the reality is that your children will be primarily cared for by other people - not you. And clearly for many people, that's just fine.

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. These are the people I love most in the world, so I want to spend as much time as possible with them. That's especially true, for me, in the early years, when children have little sense of time and the amount of time they are awake each day is short. It would make me very sad to spend eight or nine hours a day at work, with people I may like well enough, but don't love, and only an hour or two with the children I love so deeply before they have to go to bed. I believe my children felt the same way about me as well - they loved me, not any babysitters I might have used from time to time, and they wanted to spend most of their time with me.

I also wanted to be the person who passed on the values and beliefs that I think are important. So many of these are things kids learn by observation, not by what we tell them, and the more time we have together the more opportunities they have to see me live my values.

There are a couple of sayings that I've always thought made sense for me "People are more important than things" and "Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'" My kids are grown now, and yes, they probably did without some of the things their friends had because I tried to minimize time apart from them. But they tell me all the time how much they value our relationship, how glad they are that I chose being with them over bringing in more money.

Obviously, not everyone would make the same choices, and I'm not suggesting they should. I just think we need to recognize that "having it all" is kind of an inaccurate statement. You do have to give up something, and often what you are giving up is time with your child or children. For many people, that's a worthwhile trade-off. Not for me.

Teresa

You state you're single; how do you support your household financially, with medical coverage, etc. if you're not working full-time? My mom did some freelance work when my sisters and I were young, but it was my dad's employer who provided the medical and dental insurance, his salary that social security retirement payments are based on now, his employer who provides a very nice pension.

 

[MrsPete]

It's when two people are not making the decision jointly. My cousin was determined NOT to work when she had her kids. There was no way in heck that she was going to turn her kids over to daycare. So, she stayed home and her husband busted his butt. I never thought he was overly happy about the situation. Even busting his butt, they got into debt. Why? Because they (she) wanted it all. She wanted to be home, she wanted the beach vacations a few times in the summer, and she wanted her kids to be in all the activities they deserved. Finally, at $25,000 in debt (this was the 80s), she HAD to get a job. She still wouldn't put her kids in any type of care. So her husband worked overtime, and she took a late night job bartending. Needless to say, her marriage could not survive this AT ALL. Way too much stress and resentment. While I don't have a crystal ball, I can't help but think that if she had just gotten a job from the beginning there would have been so much less stress.

I can add a similar story:

My mom stayed at home with us for more than a decade. I remember wonderful years as a small child, but then she and my father had trouble -- marital trouble and financial trouble -- about the time I started school. She found herself divorced and in posession of only a high school diploma and obsolete job skills. My father moved out of state to avoid paying child support. With a house full of children, she couldn't afford not to work, she couldn't afford to work (even though we were old enough not to need day care), and she was in a real mess. We did without necessities, we lived off of gifts of relatives, and we were on public assistance. It was no fun wearing tennis shoes with holes in them, and too-short jeans. It was no fun doing without eyeglasses. It was no fun going to pick up government-provided cheese and peanut butter . . . and taking it from classmates who were doing community service with the BETA Club. All of us suffered for her choices, and she says today that the misery we lived through in those years was in no way worth the enjoyment of all the quiet, relaxed time we had at home as small children. The youngest child especially bears scars from those years.

Of course, many -- maybe even most -- families don't have tragic stories like this one, but it is fairly common. No mom, SAH or working, can afford to put herself into situations that could turn out this way. In my mom's day, women didn't see this kind of thing coming; divorce was just becoming "acceptable" and many of them were blindsided by it. Today women should know better.

 

[mumom95]

I can add a similar story:

. All of us suffered for her choices, .

It seems to me that you suffered because of your father's choices more than your mothers. Your mother stayed and did everything she could for you, your working father took off and didn't help at all.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Caradana, your point was just what I was trying to respond to. To me, an income of $360,000 a year, or even $1 million a year wouldn't have been worth being away from my kids full-time. Not even a question in my mind!

And obviously you and many others feel differently, which is fine.

And Mrs. Pete - I agree with you that there are many things to be considered. My kids did have to do without some of those things on your list, and I found creative ways to accomplish some of the others, but I felt the trade-off was worth it. So do they, at the moment (they are in their 20s and early 30s now), but they might change their minds later, for all I know. They did have part-time jobs to pay for car insurance when they learned to drive, and they all got through university without incurring debt through a combination of scholarships and part-time work.

I think what makes this discussion hard sometimes is that the reasons some of us choose to spend more time with our children are intangible. You can't put a number on it, so it's hard to explain. While I won't have a lot of money to leave my kids, I do feel that I will be leaving them with many important resources of the intangible kind.



Teresa

 

[MrsPete]

Why do you seem to assume that a family where only one spouse works can't afford all of these things?

Oh, I know that SOME can, but MOST cannot -- not unless all the statistics we see from multiple sources are wrong. It's not hard to find news articles about families who are head-over-heels in credit card debt, upside down on mortgages and car loans, not saving for retirement. It's not a handful of people who are in these situations, and these clearly are not families who are able to do all these things on one salary.

And don't misread me: I think most people CAN make it just fine week-to-week, month-to-month, but I'm talking about long-term financial stability in addition to giving the kids the things I want to give them.

I'm advocating a healthy medium somewhere in betwen "I have to be the one who changes every diaper" and "What time does daycare open on Thanksgiving day?"

 

[Robinrs]

It seems to me that you suffered because of your father's choices more than your mothers. Your mother stayed and did everything she could for you, your working father took off and didn't help at all.

Wow, aMEN.

 

[MUFFYCAT]

The one continuing factor I keep hearing is working is for money. Money is not the only reason people WORK!

I love working because it gives me a purpose. I work to feel good about myself and what I accomplish. But it's what I DO. Who I AM is Michael's Mom, and that is what I do everything for.

Like I said before, money is power but it's not always the reason people make a living. I LOVE working, I know most people don't but I do. What I do NOT love is being home all day while my son is at school. YUK. I did it for a year and it doesn't fit me.

I haven't agreed with you on some subjects here on Dis but I do this time.
You said it perfectly!

 

[hentob]

Why do you seem to assume that a family where only one spouse works can't afford all of these things?

I was thinking the same thing

Not all people are desperate for money when one parent stays home

 

[MrsPete]

It seems to me that you suffered because of your father's choices more than your mothers. Your mother stayed and did everything she could for you, your working father took off and didn't help at all.

Actually, by the time I was 6 or 7 he wasn't a working father -- that was quite a bit of the problem! She didn't do everything she could for us. She left me, the oldest, in charge and essentially disappeared to get job training that she hadn't completed earlier. Other people came and went in the story, and it's all complicated. I only gave you a sliver of the whole story; the truth is that they both failed to plan well, and the whole family suffered for both of their choices.

I was determined NOT to repeat their mistakes. I also will push my girls not to repeat them. I want to see them each earn a college degree in a field that will allow them to be profitably employed -- IF they chose to do so. Once they have a degree and they are ABLE to support a family, I don't care if they never work a day in their lives . . . just so long as they're able to support themselves and their families if they need or want to do so.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

RN4Babies - I am Canadian, and we have universal health care here, so health insurance is not a concern. When my children were younger, the government at the time had legislation in place that limited rents and rent increases; because of that I was able to rent a house. When the government changed and that program ended, we moved to a smaller town about an hour away where the cost of living was lower. And I work, but most of my work is done from home and is flexible. I work more hours now that my kids are grown, but I try to keep at least some of that flexible time so that I can spend time with my grandchildren (and their mother - she's at home full-time as well).


Teresa

 

[VickiVM]

Here's what I know. I work full time AND I am a full-time mom. As far as I'm concerned, even when I'm at work, I am still mom to 3 kids. My values, discipline, input and influence is still shaping them even when I'm not with them. And I know this because of the choices they make, because of the way teachers and friends speak of them and their behavior.

I work because I need to and because I want to. It fulfills me to be productive in a workplace. I don't feel guilty about it, nor do I think every stay at home mom should feel guilty about her choices.

My children are fed emotionally from various sources other than me and my husband - from school, church and friends they hang out with. I can not say with any certainty that they will be perfect model citizens - no more than a stay at home mom can say that about her children. In the end, children make their own choices as adults.

I hate that we women still debate this after years of no solid proof that either lifestye proves to be better for the kid. And I hate that you will never see dads debate this at all - even though they are parents, too. Ladies, it does us no good to tear down one another's choices. And I think it's pretty safe to say, if you're not a good parent when you're working, you probably wouldn't be a good parent if you stay at home and vice versa. Because, in the end, we're all making the best of whatever circumstances we're in.

 

[RN4Babies]

RN4Babies - I am Canadian, and we have universal health care here, so health insurance is not a concern. When my children were younger, the government at the time had legislation in place that limited rents and rent increases; because of that I was able to rent a house. When the government changed and that program ended, we moved to a smaller town about an hour away where the cost of living was lower. And I work, but most of my work is done from home and is flexible. I work more hours now that my kids are grown, but I try to keep at least some of that flexible time so that I can spend time with my grandchildren (and their mother - she's at home full-time as well).


Teresa

Ah... "I am Canadian" explains a lot. Not flaming you; I was just curious how you could possibly be a single SAHM. I truly don't think it would be possible for 99% of women in the US in today's world.

 

[MrsPete]

I think what makes this discussion hard sometimes is that the reasons some of us choose to spend more time with our children are intangible. You can't put a number on it, so it's hard to explain. While I won't have a lot of money to leave my kids, I do feel that I will be leaving them with many important resources of the intangible kind.

And why do you think that working moms aren't ALSO leaving their children with these same intangibles?

Values, beliefs, work ethic, family traditions, life lessons, family stories, shared experiences . . . all good parents share these with their kids regardless of their time frames. It's a mistake to think that working parents can't provide these things too -- especially when you're talking about a two-parent household in which both parents are dedicated to providing their children with the best possible upbringing.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I've been a stay at home mom for a year and DH is telling me I need to go back to work. Of course I don't want to, but I'm really going to have to at least part time, but I'm curious at how many mom (or dads) actually do stay home with their kids.
I was going to post a poll, but don't see the poll thing

I would need a "both" choice in the poll. - I work IN the schools, so in the summer I stay at home.

 

[Caradana]

Caradana, your point was just what I was trying to respond to. To me, an income of $360,000 a year, or even $1 million a year wouldn't have been worth being away from my kids full-time. Not even a question in my mind!

To each, her own!

D

 

[momx2]

Here's what I know. I work full time AND I am a full-time mom. As far as I'm concerned, even when I'm at work, I am still mom to 3 kids. My values, discipline, input and influence is still shaping them even when I'm not with them. And I know this because of the choices they make, because of the way teachers and friends speak of them and their behavior.

I work because I need to and because I want to. It fulfills me to be productive in a workplace. I don't feel guilty about it, nor do I think every stay at home mom should feel guilty about her choices.

My children are fed emotionally from various sources other than me and my husband - from school, church and friends they hang out with. I can not say with any certainty that they will be perfect model citizens - no more than a stay at home mom can say that about her children. In the end, children make their own choices as adults.

I hate that we women still debate this after years of no solid proof that either lifestye proves to be better for the kid. And I hate that you will never see dads debate this at all - even though they are parents, too. Ladies, it does us no good to tear down one another's choices. And I think it's pretty safe to say, if you're not a good parent when you're working, you probably wouldn't be a good parent if you stay at home and vice versa. Because, in the end, we're all making the best of whatever circumstances we're in.

Perfect post...thank you! I agree that although I work full-time and that both my girls were in daycare from 6 weeks I am the one that molds and shapes their behavior and values. Just last week my DD's second grade teacher emailed me the end of the year and told me that my girls were "raised right." Those were her words, not mine.

While I do think that sometimes work and/or home life suffers because there is just too much to do, it can be done well, not perfect, but WOHM can raise good, well-behaved children also.