How much does it COST you to work?

[Nancy]

Insurance is the biggie for us. I pay 24.00 every 2 weeks for medical, 18.35 for dental, 3.46 for vision for the whole family. It is a high deducible health plan but company puts 1000.00 a year into HSA acct and if we don't go to the doctor a lot we keep that money. DH's work was over 130.00 for medical a week! That did not include dental or vision (not offered where he works).

So, it isn't just take home pay that goes into account. We crunched numbers when I changed jobs last year because it was a slight drop in pay for me..but this makes sense and since I don't pay for daycare or have too many out of pocket expenses for my job it makes sense to work. Good thing I do too since DH's company put him on salary and we are losing some of his income this year due to no more OT for him

 

[KAMLEM]

Aside from the retirement aspect, I have always thought about this when mom's would say, "I wish I could stay home, but I just can't afford to.." Many of them "could" afford to, but never crunched the numbers to find out..

You cannot just forget about the retirement aspect. That's what too many people do. Without getting into the debate about whether or not social security will be around in the future, you lose all those years by not paying into the system. In addition you lose any retirement benefit you may receive if you were working. You cannot ignore the retirement aspect or it's not an accurate comparison.

 

[U2_rocks!]

I have crunched the numbers, and my job is way too lucrative - it wouldn't be worth giving up. Basically, we'd have to sell the house, and it isn't even a fancy house, just a basic 3 bedroom with no pool or anything. DH makes less than I do, but it costs next to nothing for him to work - in fact, since he owns his own business, he actually gets to write off stuff for taxes that we would have to pay for out of pocket otherwise. It wouldn't be worth having him quit working to look after kids, because they are in fulltime school. If he ever changed what he did, the biggest benefit would be to get a super-flexible job where we wouldn't have to find as many camps or childcare options for school holidays. But even when I add up those costs, he can still make way more than that by working a fulltime job.

Our biggest costs are mortgage, groceries and private school fees (which we feel are very necessary where we live), and none of those would change for the better if either of us stopped working.

My job is very secure. DH's business could suffer, but he's the kind of guy who can always find paying work of some kind. He'll never be sitting at home with no income.

 

[C.Ann]

You cannot just forget about the retirement aspect. That's what too many people do. Without getting into the debate about whether or not social security will be around in the future, you lose all those years by not paying into the system. In addition you lose any retirement benefit you may receive if you were working. You cannot ignore the retirement aspect or it's not an accurate comparison.

------------------------

I don't think I said to ignore it - did I? If so, I certainly didn't mean it that way..

However, I have come across two-income families where the retirement aspect "could" be put on hold until the children were a little older, but because they never did the math, they assumed they could not afford their day-to-day living expenses - when in fact it was costing more for the mom to work than to stay home..

 

[ticktock]

You cannot just forget about the retirement aspect. That's what too many people do. Without getting into the debate about whether or not social security will be around in the future, you lose all those years by not paying into the system. In addition you lose any retirement benefit you may receive if you were working. You cannot ignore the retirement aspect or it's not an accurate comparison.

Most women these days work enough before they have children and after the kids are gone to get social security. Both my grandmother and my DH's mom were SAHMs that worked just enouge after the kids left to get SS.

MANY woman who work don't put anything towards retirement. If you have a career and your company has a retirement plan (if it doesn't go belly up) your argument is valid. But A LOT working mothers don't fit into that category. I think we tend to forget that since we surround ourselves with people who are mostly in our same socioeconomic background.

All the working mothers I know have to work (or think they do, they're not very frugal) and don't think they have enough "extra" to put towards retirement.

So for career women that is a valid argument, for the bulk of working moms in America I don't think it is.

 

[Colleen27]

Back when we only had two kiddos, we decided that it cost too much. We couldn't afford to buy a home in a good school district close to my work even with two incomes, though, so it was the commute costs that tipped the scale - nearly 80 miles per day is a lot of extra gas, more wear & tear on the car, more daycare hours, etc. The way I saw it then was that we could move to a good school district and I'd quit my job, we could rent indefintely, or we could live close to work but spend most of my income on private school. Quitting my job won, and I've never regretted it.

I'm a firm believer in "a penny saved is a penny earned" and we've saved a LOT of pennies because I'm available at home, I still freelance from home so I didn't really give up all my earning ability, plus my husband has been much more able to pursue his career in ways that have more than made up for the loss of most of my income.

 

[Colleen27]

You cannot just forget about the retirement aspect. That's what too many people do. Without getting into the debate about whether or not social security will be around in the future, you lose all those years by not paying into the system. In addition you lose any retirement benefit you may receive if you were working. You cannot ignore the retirement aspect or it's not an accurate comparison.

I don't think SS is really that big an issue, because most women work long enough before having kids or as the kids get older and leave the nest that they qualify. Their benefit may or may not be lower, depending on their career path in the years that they do work, but most will work enough to qualify on their own.

 

[MrsPete]

It really doesn't cost me much to work. I eat the same lunches I'd eat at home and my commute is only 3 miles each way. I don't buy a lot of clothes because due to my impoverished childhood, I am a master of mixing and matching.

But I can tell you this -- I was a SAHM for a short time, then gave up my career for familial obligations and worked part time in non-high-paying professional jobs. When you compare what my pension savings look like compared to my dh's.... it makes me very very nervous because I have HALF of what he does and we started out at the same rate of pension savings. ANd let me tell you, the notion that once your kids are older that you can get back into or start a new career -- big fat lie. Age discrimination is alive and well. So, I am stuck in a lower-paying JOB, not a higher-paying career with less money and little to no personal satisfaction.

If my dh and I ever divorced, I'd never be able to stop working because my pension would NEVER support me. It kinda makes me sick that I'll probably be unable to afford to travel in retirement because of it. unless I start socking away extra money right now and a lot of it, too which means I sacrifice a lot of fun stuff in my good years. I did the 'right' thing, but I'll be paying for that for the rest of my life.

I was going to write essentially the same thing, but you already did it for me.

Yes, it costs me SOMETHING to work, but it doesn't cost me much. I live 1.5 miles from school, and my dress code is rather lenient. Regardless, I don't really buy into the "work clothes are so expensive" argument because the things I wear at home tend to run about the same amount. I have no option but to bring my lunch to school, so my expensive lunches are limited to half a dozen teacher workdays per year. I tend to go out to lunch with friends much more often during the summer months when I'm not working. Perhaps most important, my kids no longer need day care or after-school care.

I do believe strongly in the idea that you MUST save for retirement TODAY -- even a year or two hurts the bottom line pretty badly. I really think my generation is going to be in serious trouble in a couple decades.

Having said that, everyone has to do the numbers for themselves. If I had had twins, or if I had a husband who traveled more often, or if some other detail had been different in my life, working might not've been practical. It might've been that the difficulty of making a 2-career family work might have been "too much". If that'd been true, though, I'd be doing something now to make up the retirement difference.

Aside from the retirement aspect, I have always thought about this when mom's would say, "I wish I could stay home, but I just can't afford to.." Many of them "could" afford to, but never crunched the numbers to find out..

I agree with that. I also think quite a few women who "have to" work could quit -- again, as you said, we're ignoring retirement -- IF they were willing to really be frugal. Just getting rid of one car could be the difference.

All the working mothers I know have to work (or think they do, they're not very frugal) and don't think they have enough "extra" to put towards retirement.

I'd argue that if you can't save for retirement, you need to scale back your lifestyle. Unless you're really living in poverty, it can be done. However, I also know that's not a popular opinion.

So for career women that is a valid argument, for the bulk of working moms in America I don't think it is.

That's probably true. I tend to think about women like me with college degrees and careers. For women who work in a low-wage job, it's probably a different story; after all, day care and other costs are still just as high, but their wages are much lower.

 

[MrsPete]

I don't think SS is really that big an issue, because most women work long enough before having kids or as the kids get older and leave the nest that they qualify. Their benefit may or may not be lower, depending on their career path in the years that they do work, but most will work enough to qualify on their own.

I agree. One must only work 40 quarters to be qualified for SS. That's a total of ten years at some point in your life.

The real question is whether there'll be any money left for us at retirement!

 

[freckles and boo]

I have a freelance career, but before that I worked for a company with great benefits and decent pay. The problem was that I was leaving my house at 6:30am to drop our infant daughter off at daycare and not picking her up until 5:30pm. The emotional cost was very high, plus we paid nearly $200/week in childcare. My husband's job has always involved a lot of travel so in many ways the bulk of the parenting and running the household fell on me alone even when I was working full-time. I was putting 45 miles on the car each day, driving on the Dan Ryan Expressway twice a day, missing my baby, and very stressed out.

I never did turn into a fabulous housewife, but I am a good wife and mother and I enjoy some very fulfilling professional relationships. I am able to take work that fits into our schedule. I have taken a hit on my retirement (the main reason I continued to work as long as I did after the first baby was to become fully vested in my 401k), but I contribute the maximum allowed to my IRA and I also manage our money very, very well. As it turned out, our younger daughter also has several challenges so being home has been very good for her. It has worked out for our family, but I know that it isn't good for everyone.

 

[Christine]

------------------------

I don't think I said to ignore it - did I? If so, I certainly didn't mean it that way..

However, I have come across two-income families where the retirement aspect "could" be put on hold until the children were a little older, but because they never did the math, they assumed they could not afford their day-to-day living expenses - when in fact it was costing more for the mom to work than to stay home..

Then one of the parents was just not making much money. Even in a high cost area such as DC, pay is usually much better than anything you put it. One starts really "losing" benefit of working when you hit child #3.

 

[portocall]

I make way more than it cost for me to work. We crunched the numbers backwards and forwards when DH was offered a promotion in a nearby city. I told him if we were moving, I was not going to work at least until the youngest was in Kindergarten. He took the promotion and lived in the city four days a week for a year until the position was available back home. (We have family members there with a apartment over their garage that he stayed in for expenses only). I work at my children's school, which allows me to be there for all the special events and I love my job, and joke that even if I were to win the lottery I still wouldn't quit. I even took a hefty paycut to work there initially, but the gamble was worth it in the end. But for me, as much as I always wanted to be a SAHM, now that they are all almost school aged, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Retirement seems to be a very sore point, but for me, it is more than that. I love my DH more than anything, and can't see us ever divorcing, however, I like to know that should something happen, I will be fine and not having to do a last minute scramble to figure out what to do.

I know that for many people who work, it really doesnt make as much immediate financial sense as they think it does. But for this number crunching mom, it didn't work out in my favor... (to be a SAHM that is). My new dream is to be a SAHgrandma instead

 

[Aimeedyan]

It doesn't cost me much, honestly.

The clothes argument doesn't hold water, IMO. Few companies are still in full business attire and even then, you buy 2-3 suits and they last years. I wear a varied dress code and would have these items in my closet anyways.

I need the benefits; my employer covers the bulk of my insurance. I pay $10 a month for a pretty decent PPO plan. When my DH was working, we ran the numbers and we'd have to pay $190 a month for him to add me. Not to mention the continued education my employer covers. I am able to stay current in my area and it's not on my dime.

I also have a good 401K plan set up. My parents divorced after 28 years of marriage. My mother never worked FT anywhere long enough to save for retirement. She will NEVER retire. EVER. The closest she may come is to come move in with me when she's too old to work and we will care for her. I will not make that mistake and assume my DH will take care of me. I know better.

Gas isn't a big deal, I don't drive far and it's rarely in traffic.

We don't have children but we've run the numbers already and it won't put too much of a dent in our budget if I'm working.

I bring lunch or eat for free at work. It's rare that I eat out. We eat out more when we're stuck at home just so we can get out of the house.

Matter of fact, I'm confident that it would cost us more for me to not work.

 

[EthansMom]

I'm a former-professional-turned-SAHM. My youngest will be going to Kindergarten (4 hours each day) next fall. DH and I have discussed the possibility of my going back to work in the future.

I've run the numbers. Between federal tax, state tax, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid, at least 42% of every dollar I make would go toward some kind of tax. Also, I would insist on maxing out my 401k (so, let's say 10% for that). Add in commuting costs, before-and/or-after-school childcare, and convenience costs (increased eating out, nicer clothes for work, etc..), and I'd be lucky to bring home 35-40% of every dollar I make.

Our children both have asthma and missed 14 days of school between the two of them last year.... Anyone know of an employer that doesn't mind if you miss 14 days of work to care for your children every year?

Also, DH works a lot of OT and does some business travel. If my position required OT and/or business travel (as my previous positions did), it would be difficult to coordinate our schedules. For good or bad, I'm pretty sure that DH would automatically expect that his schedule should take precedence.

And there's no way I'd feel like spending my evenings and weekends taking the kids to all of their swim lessons, team practices, and meets if I'm working 8 hours a day.

So, really, beyond the economics of working, there would also be a lifestyle change that I'm not sure anyone in our family would like. Should we NEED my income, I'd clean toilets and urinals at truck stops for minimum wage, if necessary, to feed and house our children. But at this point, between economics and lifestyle, my staying home is probably the better option for our family.

BTW: We contribute the maximum allowed to a spousal Traditional IRA. It's money in my name and deductible on our taxes. It isn't as much as DH is putting away in his 401k, but it's something in my name and it's saving us taxes, which is never a bad thing. In the case of divorce, the woman can request a QDRO to have her "share" of the husband's retirement accounts transferred into retirement accounts in her name.

 

[alexy]

Daycare = $180/wk = $720
Lunch = $8/day = $160
Gas = $150

Total = $1,030

(I didn't list clothes or a car payment because I'd have those costs regardless.)

Work Related Perks = $150/mth + pension + 401k matching + stock matching

Could we afford for me not to work? Probably not, but we have survived though my 4 layoffs over the years because we spend conservatively and keep a good lump in savings.

Now, if my husband was laid off, that probably would be a lot easier for us to absorb for an extended period. However, I don't think he would ever choose to be a stay at home dad full time.

 

[mum4jenn]

It does not cost me very much at all to work.It is about 13 miles one way and my car gets around 30 mpg. I can make a tank of gas last two weeks if I limit my other trips around town. I am a school lunchroom manager and my dd goes to my school and I just wait until she gets out of school each day before I go home. I am scheduled 6:30-2:30 and I usually leave around 3 0r 315. I can eat breakfast and lunch free of charge. I wear scrubs at work and I get great deals online and they last forever. I did not even buy any new ones this year at all. So I guess it costs me around $30-$40 a month to work.

 

[Colleen27]

Then one of the parents was just not making much money. Even in a high cost area such as DC, pay is usually much better than anything you put it. One starts really "losing" benefit of working when you hit child #3.

I think that you actually tend to lose the benefit sooner in lower-cost areas. There's some variation in daycare cost, though not proportional to the difference in cost of living, but the rest of the expenses of working - gas and more frequent car maintenance, professional clothing, etc. are fairly constant regardless of location. Salaries, on the other hand, vary widely.

I made about 35K in my first full time job out of college here in low-cost Michigan; I interviewed for entry level jobs in DC, MA, and CA where I'd have made 60 or 70K for the same work. My clothing budget, the cost of my commute, my daycare expense wouldn't have doubled if I'd taken one of those jobs, so it would have taken a lot more for the cost of working to come close to equaling or exceeding the benefit.

 

[Colleen27]

And there's no way I'd feel like spending my evenings and weekends taking the kids to all of their swim lessons, team practices, and meets if I'm working 8 hours a day.

That's something far bigger than money in our case. We have 3 kids, and the older 2 are very active. Baseball, football, cheerleading, ballet, swim lessons, horseback riding lessons, boy/girl scouts... They'd have to give up a lot of that if I went back to work, because I'd be much less able to facilitate their activities and much less willing to spend my time off at various sports fields. My mother managed it as a single mom so I know it can be done, but I also know from my own childhood that it is more hectic and stressful than I want our lives to be if I have any better option!

 

[ticktock]

It doesn't cost me much, honestly.

The clothes argument doesn't hold water, IMO. Few companies are still in full business attire and even then, you buy 2-3 suits and they last years. I wear a varied dress code and would have these items in my closet anyways. I live in shorts and T-shirts. Just to work as a teachers aid or assistant at my local library I would have to go out and buy all new clothes. So this doesn't apply to everyone. I guess I could work at a car wash with my present attire.

I need the benefits; my employer covers the bulk of my insurance. I pay $10 a month for a pretty decent PPO plan. When my DH was working, we ran the numbers and we'd have to pay $190 a month for him to add me. Not to mention the continued education my employer covers. I am able to stay current in my area and it's not on my dime. $10 a month! That's fantastic! Most of the two income households I know have one insurance or the other because it is cheaper to add the spouse and children then to have separate insurance. You are very lucky. Again this doesn't apply to everyone.

I also have a good 401K plan set up. My parents divorced after 28 years of marriage. My mother never worked FT anywhere long enough to save for retirement. She will NEVER retire. EVER. The closest she may come is to come move in with me when she's too old to work and we will care for her. I will not make that mistake and assume my DH will take care of me. I know better.My Dh works for the DOD. The ex-spouses of military and civilian employees of the military are eligible for part of their husband's 401k and retirement based on how long they were married. Pretty sure this is how it works for all Federal government employees. Your mother would have received half of your dad's retirement having been married 28 years.

I know there are other companies were this is the norm because I have divorced great aunts living off their ex's retirements. In any case she should have gotten a better lawyer it sounds like she got screwed. I've known many women in that position though. I've also known women who fought for what was rightfully their's and won. So once again this doesn't apply to everyone.

Gas isn't a big deal, I don't drive far and it's rarely in traffic.

We don't have children but we've run the numbers already and it won't put too much of a dent in our budget if I'm working.

I bring lunch or eat for free at work. It's rare that I eat out. We eat out more when we're stuck at home just so we can get out of the house.

Matter of fact, I'm confident that it would cost us more for me to not work.

The rest of your list once again doesn't apply to everyone. I know the OP asked for specific instances but you seemed so confidant that many of your arguments apply to everyone's situation and they don't .

It sounds like at this time it is better for you to work. That's great, I hope you like your job and don't just work because of any fears generated from seeing what happened to your mom.

If the husband has a good job working usually only benefits middle class educated women with a career (and unless she makes a lot of money the main benefit is retirement not her salary) OR women who can work at their children's school. This is not the bulk of working mothers in America, though from the number of ones who post on this board you would think so .

I'm not saying everyone should be a SAHM. Do what works for you. I've known some women who were so driven and intense that I thought it was a blessing for their child that they worked. Other wise they would be one of this horrible stage mothers or something. They just needed recognition so bad that they would have had to get it through their children's accomplishments if they didn't have their own outlet of working. Their being a SAHM would have been a nightmare for everyone involved. There can be many reasons other than money for a woman to work and as long as they're not harmful I think they're all valid. Just like I think all the reasons for a woman not to work are valid as long as she's not getting welfare to sit at home it's none of my business. So everyone is different, just don't think you can apply your situation and your needs and desires to anyone else.

 

[Chicago526]

Zilch!

I work from home now full time. No gas, no clothes, no eating out (well, i do go to mcd's now and again...), and the company pays for my internet and gave me all my equipment for work (computer, fax, printer, phone, etc.). I do have go go to the office about 6 times a year, give or take, but I've got enough "nice" clothes that I don't need anything new and it's so infrequent, there's no need to figure in what the gas costs.

My DH works nights so between the two of us if/when we have kids, we won't need day care either.