to think that many SAHMs/part-time workers would have chosen differently with the benefit of hindsight?

[working9while5]

Just a thought, have come across this on another forum and wondering how it applies to me.

I have just the one dc. Originally, I was desperate to be a SAHM but grudgingly decided to go back p/t but cut it back to the bare, bare minimum (2 days a week).

A few months down the line, if I am honest I am wondering how much my decision was framed by having a small, non-mobile baby and enjoying lunches with friends and Summer walks. As the hormones/baby shock wears off, I do wonder why I am not going back to work 3 or even 4 days.. and if my thinking was very short-term.

Unfortunately, I effectively "gave away" the bulk of my permanent, public sector job and there is a job freeze in my area. So, my (hormonally-driven? rose-tinted?) decision, while not final, is not so easy to go back on. I am studying for a postgrad too, so it's not the end of the world.. but it has made me think.

I wondered what mothers who are much further down the line think with the benefit of hindsight? Was that initial decision the right one for you, or was it influenced by newbabyitis?

I am currently freelancing and working for someone who actively seeks Mothers with children. He reckons they are more committed, can multi task and deliver the goods with no ego/fuss etc. A refreshing attitude, i just wish there were more employers like that

Ensuring your financial independence actually has very littel to do with whether you work in paid employment or not.

There are plenty of woman who have posted on MN over the years who work, pay the childcare themselves and contribute to a mortgage in their DH's name whilst not contributing to a pension as they "can't afford it".

Equally there are many womany who do not work but own half their home, have savings and pensions in their own name. This happens principally because their DH's recognise that the income he earns is family income and that his DW is a conributor to that income - I am damned sure my DH couldn't earn what he did if he didn't have me to raise the children.

I have posted on this before but I just don't buy into the concept of having to work now, when I don't want to, in order to protect myself from some future event which may or may not happen. As insurance, IMO, it simply does not pay off.

The reality is:
DH could die - I'd be rich
DH could lose his job - he is quite capable of getting another
DH could run off with another woman - it'd be shit but I'd get half of our assets and would have to get on with things.

The more likely sceanrio is that twenty years from now he will be alive and working and we will still be married. If I had given up spending time with my DC "just in case" 20 years from now I am going to be pretty pissed off.

I don't buy it as a generalisation, nancy. For the majority, one partner earning one income leads to financial vulnerability. Others have mentioned that their homes are in their dh's name because the bank won't recognise them as a potential earner.

It is probably dependent on income level. Perhaps your dh couldn't earn what he does if you weren't raising the children and the level of income he brings in provides you with risk protection but, for us, it would mean less income overall for pensions, income protection, mortgage repayments etc.

Having had a childhood marred by a "just in case" scenario, I'm not sure I agree with your logic.

Sorry: Having had a childhood marred by what my parents might have thought when they married would be a "just in case" scenario, I'm not sure I agree with your logic.

yes I am one of those people - I was alreay a SAHM when we bought our first house. DH couldn't get this mortgage if he put me on it, bevasue obviosuly, in the beginnning, it wasn't a decision of "hmmm, do you deserve to be on the mortgage?" Besides, DH doesn't own half of the house either

Interestingly, my Dad's attitude has changed towards my Mum since she retired - it has been very very interesting to watch, and my Dad has always been the, take half the responsibility sort. and FWIW, they had no savings til my Mum retired, don't own their own home, don't own a car etc and have seen some rough times over the years.

Weird, I am a SAHM and me and DH have a joint mortgage. I have never heard of this problem before.

well I aint making it up!!

I wasn't saying you were. I would have gone to a different bank.

I could have gone on the mortgage but they would only have lent DH about 10 grand less than without me on it, as i was a non earning dependant. It is his first mortgage. Maybe it depends on how much you earn and how much the mortgage is? ONly had it 2 years as well so relatively new

I'm not losing sleep over it! It was the ONLY bank that would give us the mortgage, it is also part owned by someone else. (a company) we don't earn enough to own a whole house

I'd rather not have our own house anyway, drives me potty now we have!

working9while5, i agree with you

having seen the crap my mum has had to put up with since my dad got ill and had to stop working, forcing her to get a (any) job just to keep the roof over their heads after well over a decade without any paid work whatsoever, it's made me realise how important this is

i don't want any daughter of mine to experience that utter desperate vulnerability my mum has experienced. we didn't appreciate what she did for us when we were young, staying at home - i remember thinking that my dad always had the cooler job!

the problem is that 30 years ago women didnt have a lot of choice, did they? there wasn't an option to continue in a career (as opposed to a job) a lot of the time... and from what people are saying here it doesn't sound like much has changed. i think i've been shielded from that reality because i'm in the charity sector, it's so depressing to read this thread and find out... well, really, things haven't moved on, have they! Women are going to university, getting degrees, and when the kids start arriving that's when it all goes wrong, no matter what they choose, you're still fecked and judged in some way! Can't win!

I think another good point has been made here....

Yes it's ok if you are married to a footballer or someone who earns a 200k+ salary and can provide pension funds, properties and insurances for their spouses.

But there are a minute part of the population and I really don't think they are representative of people's general finances.

In general terms, SAHMs just have to make a lot of financial sacrifices, often including no pension, and a vulnerable financial situation should the other half decease/leave or lose their job.

Incidentally: one of our best friends' husband earns a £150k salary. Him and his wife have 3 young children. When they had her third she phoned me up and asked me what I would do, as she wanted to give up her teaching job. I advised her to keep it part time and she went 2 days a week.

A year later her husband lost his very secure £150k job and it took 6 months for him to find another similar role. She was able to temporarily up her hours and go full time whilst he looked after the kids.

It was a nice change for all of them.

Also she rang me and said it was the best advice that I ever gave her and she was so glad she hadn't jacked in her job and never ever would.

So nothing is ever safe and secure unless, as I said, you a millionaire or close enough.

Mine are 6 and 3 and I have not worked for 5 years (in a paid capacity anyway). Like some of the other posters on here, I have done a lot of voluntary work - mostly for the love of it and to serve my community and partly to keep my CV ticking over.

Am starting a part-time paid job soon (which has arisen out of some of the volunteering I used to do). Will be great to be bringing in some dosh at last!

Have found the voluntary work much more rewarding than any paid work I have done in the past (used to be a manager) - and more challenging. Employers often do take voluntary work into account - and look favourably on it in my experience.

Wouldn't change having been a SAHM - and feel lucky that I have had the choice. Things have been v tight financially, but that's a sacrifice worth making IMO. I'm not as high on the career ladder as I maybe would have been if I had carried on working, but doing the voluntary work has made me realise that I was in the wrong profession for me anyway - and have now discovered where my gifts truely lie.

Hooray for voluntary work!!

Sorry - truly (not truely)!

BTW - the complete lack of job share posts is a complete joke, recession or no recession.

Even those that are advertised as having the potential to be job-share often aren't in reality. I rang up about one such public sector post recently and the woman said "... well we'd rather take on one full-time postholder really." - well don't frigging advertise it as a possible job-share post then!!!

And the private sector need to come out of the dark ages and embrace job-share, FFS.

Rant over!

I never understand this. I've seen job shares in action where the sum is greater than the parts iyswim. You can sort of end up with one and a half a job done instead of one. I just think work should be for the good of society rather than society being just to facilitate work. A bit idealistic maybe but you get my drift.

I agree that for a minority of women married to wealthy men, not working is probably not that risky. If they earn/have millions in assets, great insurances, independent pensions, then there isn't that much to lose. However, that really is a minority of women, and only married women at that. And wealthy men don't always hand over their money willingly, especially if you leave them (I'm thinking of someone I know whose husband is certainly a millionare, but she's started claiming housing benefit as he's left, is hiding his assets left right and centre, and wants 50% parental rights to go with not currently paying a penny).

Of course, it's always a gamble. I'd certainly be dependent (and have) on my husband for a few years, he's also had to depend on my wage, not particularly willingly when he lost his job. I know two families who, in the last six months, have had to do a quick role reversal when the husband faced redundancy, with the wife then picking up her dormant career and paying the mortgage. It's certainly more empowering than sitting praying your husband gets another job in the middle of a recession, or losing your home for the sake of six months mortgage payments if you haven't got insurance (which is often complicated to claim when you get to it).

Thank you for this thread. I am going back to work FT next week after almost 3 years as SAHM (with a 2 month PT stint). It's definitely made me feel better about it. Incidentally, DH is going PT (3 days a week) and GPs will be looking after DS1&2 over those days. I think it helps a lot if you are 100% confident with the childcare arrangements you have (or near enough).

I was made redundant after coming back from ML with DS1 so staying at home was a decision made for me. As much as I enjoyed the time with my two boys and seeing the "firsts", I started to worry about the what ifs. The longer I had out of work, the harder it would be to get back in. Also, friends have said it's much easier to negotiate flexible working once you've been there for a while, rather than applying for the rare to find, school hours friendly job. Fingers crossed the plan works.

Oh, and to comment on another point about mortgages; we moved house this year and had to put the new house only in DH's name as the bank would lend us less money if my name (as a SAHM) was on there.

My final point is I have been hunting for a part-time job for the best part of 9 months and there were so few that I eventually gave up and went for FT. Things do need to change.

I am thinking then there is a great deal of virtue in any woman having children also having a Plan B for their support in case the DH breadwinner option fails, either because of divorce, illness, injury, redundancy or other life disasters. The two day a week thing seems to be a popular compromise.

A little bit late, but I wanted to say that I went for a promotion in my p/t job whilst on mat leave with ds2. It was a bit of calling the bluff for women's rights and partly a long term view of my career. However having now gone back since about 9 mths I really really wish I had stayed in the job I was. It just seems to be too many balls to juggle even though I have a really supportive dh. It is making me reconsider p/t work altogether but I do have the luxury of choice. But I am indecisive!

Good luck back at work Suzi. I've found this thread useful too.

I have two DDs almost 7 and almost 4.

I work part time. Three days a week, but I split it over 5 mornings and no, I would not change that for anything. If I could afford it, I think I would reduce my hours slightly (2 days instead of 3), but I would never give up work.

The benefit of my job (teaching) is that I am able to take my DD to school two days, breakfast club three mornings, and I pick up from school almost every afternoon. I work one afternoon a week. Further, I get all the holidays off. I mostly work whilst my DDs are at preschool / school. In my eyes, I have traded the 5 mornings for the first three years (after 3, the DDs are mostly at preschool when I work anyway) so that I am able to do all the pick ups and be there when my DDs need me for the next 13 years they are at school. I am very happy with that compromise. I also think it helps that when I worked my parents were on hand to do a lot of the childcare, particularly when the children were younger - they were the primary source of childcare for me, and I think that worked very well.

Forgot to say, I've only got these hours after 'doing my time' and 'proving myself' at work. I couldn't walk into my job and demand the hours I now have. If I had given up work and returned now, I wouldn't get the good hours I now have.

Working I had your set up with child number 1 but decided not to work when I had DC 2.

I have to say that for me the ideal would be, when they are small, 2-3 days a week that way you get the best of both worlds...quality mum/child/networking time and also time when you are not "just" mum!

Having said that I feel I have a much better bond with my second child - which I know sounds awful but im not sure if thats because we were together full time when he was small or if its just that he has an easy/relaxed personality.

Either way I would say DONT make any decision at this time, give it a few months to settle into a routine and whatever those with strong opinions say on here there is no RIGHT OR WRONG for anyone...if its right for you its right for you.