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?

Working, these are my choices and I wouldn't impose them on anyone else I was highlighting the cost of childcare for my situation. My Dh's job takes him away for at least 12 weeks of the year, he has to be flexible which means I cannot be. If he wasn't flexible he would lose his job, he wouldn't earn the same elsewhere and so me working would reduce our family income. We have insurances to ensure income should he lose his job and both he and I have joint assets worth more than our mortgage. If he left me tomorrow I would not be financially ruined and I have created revenue options for myself including patented products and paws on his business assets.

staranise I accept that some may be better than none but if you are faced with losing your home then I would think provided that you are not going to starve it's not going to be much use to you.

Maybe my lack of concern over the issue is due to the fact that despite having time away from work I still feel fairly employable: My training is up to date, I keep in contact with many of my former colleagues and whilst I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to waltz into any job I am confident that I could find work should I need to.

And you know what I suceeded in one apparently "difficult" career. By the time my youngest is an adult I will still be in my (very late!) 40's meaning at least 25/30 years of work ahead of me. Plenty of opportunity to do something I am sure.

I am assuming, nancy, that as childcare is such a large portion of the costs for most families that what I say still would follow for some e.g.

Dh earns £7, outgoings are, say, £5 for general stuff and £1 for travel/work costs, and I earn £3 entirely soaked up by childcare. Dh loses job but childcare costs and his travel and work costs evaporate as dh stays home, so we still have £3 and overall outgoings reduce. This means, yes, we still don't have enough but we have a second set of options in terms of skills etc. So we could both cast our net and seek extra hours/work to cover the shortfall.

I'm afraid I can't quite work out the cost of pensions on this scale!

Obviously, there are always going to be people who have planned for this better than others; people who have been out of the workforce for a short time and/or have specialist skills that are relevant regardless of gaps on CV; people with better savings etc.

Circumstances are so, so individual. Most of us really only understand our own. In my case, there is no way that we would be as financially secure if I don't go back to work, for many reasons. Apart from anything, if I take more than 2 years out of the workforce, I have to redo my core competencies for professional registration which inevitably implies a serious loss of income and job opportunity. That would not be the case for all, but it is for me.

The age thing worries me - I feel that if I'm not in salaried work/career back on track by the time I'm 40, I'll be unemployable. Am I being paranoid?

I'm freelance at the moment and it's great for fitting round the children while also keeping my hand in but there's no security/career progression/benefits etc. DC3 has jsut turned two, I'm 36, I feel it's time to start thinking about what happens next.

Tbh where one partner earns a much bigger that average wage in a demanding job, I would take my chances with the security. Someone in that position sounds pretty employable to me and would have to job hunt pronto! In this situation, a parent at home can be very supportive, long hours don't matter as much, provided they still see dc sometimes. Where income is 50/50 between two partners, as is now often the case (most of my friends certainly), then security is probably best served by keeping two incomes, even if P/T. What this thread shows yet again is that cost of living for essentials is very high now - mortgages, rent, council tax, transport, whereas luxuries such as clothes, electrical goods etc are relatively cheap. It also shows that all these people are sweating it out trying to make the best decision for dc's not themselves and that is fantastic!

staranise I would like to think that at 40, maybe even 50, you are not unemployable.

I can only speak for my own industry (law) and we certainly had a number of people coming to the bar in their late 30's/40's/early 50's. Admittedly many of those had been working in other careers so maybe the transition was easier but still not as easy as those of use who followed the traditional straight through uni-post grad-pupillage route.

There was certainly a lot of respect for those who had managed to retrain whilst dealing with the external pressures of family life/other employment.

working I agree we can only do what is right for ourselves no doubt you resent the cries that you put your career before the welfare of your children, that you are selfish etc as much as I resent the suggestions that I am a dull, financially dependent drudge with no interests or ability to talk of anything other than my children, who is going to be royally fecked when DH runs off with his secretary

I don't criticise anyone for making the decisions that they do and I certainly don't think my way is better fo anyone other than myself

I am a SAHM through choice. I have not worked for nearly 7 years now and my youngest child has just started school.

I feel no great desire to get a job as I want to be the one who does the school run, plus I want to be there to look after them during the holidays. So far I seem to fill my days really easily!

I realise that later on I might feel a bit 'bored' so have decided to do some voluntary work when that happens.

Fortunately I have the choice as to whether I want to work, I appreciate that others don't. I also appreciate that other mothers want to work even though financially they don't need to, again that's their choice. I don't think that either working or not working is a bad thing, it depends on your circumstance.

I realise that I am lucky in that my dh earns a good wage and financially we are not having to make sacrifices by me not working.

I also feel that by being in charge of the childcare and household, it enables my dh to concentrate on his job. His career has really taken off and I am very proud of him as he works very hard. He is career focussed and is also keen to provide for us.

Although I had a 'good' job I was never really career focussed and always intended to be a SAHM.

I am also very lucky in that my dh values the contribution I make to the family. We both have the same amount of 'spending' money and I don't feel as if I have to justify what I spend money on.

At the moment I feel as if I have made the right decision for myself and for my family.
Perhaps when they are older I may decide to work but at the moment I'm happy.

For me going back 2.5 days was an easier option than being a SAHM. Itis really hard work and I felt that being a SAHM was too much pressure. I'm happy with the balance I have. I did start to chunter a bit about being unfulfilled in my career but I've finally done something about it and signed up for a career enhancing degree.. I now feel much better as though I'm going somewhere again and not just a 'mum'

I think it all depends on how much you enjoyed your career in the first place and also how senior you are.

For me it was a no brainer - I hated my (well paid but soul destroying) job so I am very happy with my decision.
That's not to say some days I wouldn't love to be in the office again!

It won't affect my career aspirations though as I will always be able to find work at the level I had got to and would be able to pick up where I left off.
The lawyers and people who are really headed for the top I know don't seem to have that luxury so much.

I think long term it depends on what your role was in the first place.

This is a difficult one - I went back to work Full time (only option) 18 years ago when I had my first child. I hated leaving her and bitterly regret she had to go into a nursery. Became SAHM after second child who was born very poorly - just couldn't face going back. had 2 more children - staying at home more financially viable at the time than work (no childcare tax credit etc bak then).

However, I would now like to return to work but am virtually unemployable - apparently my past experience, degrees and references from ex employers are no longer valid as there is too big a gap. I am also at the "difficult" age almost 50 when the contributions an employer ahd to make towards pension etc become greater. I feel more employable than I was back then - but am on scrap heap. I did work freelance and part time for a bit and wish I had kept this up.

I don't regret SAH but should have planned for the furure which arrives way too quickly better.

In terms of individual circumstances being so variable, I completely identify with KnackeredofLeeds and know, in my case, that at least part of it is because I still (groan) haven't passed my driving test and am finding it increasingly hard work to occupy and engage an 11 month old when long walks/the park/trips out are ruled out/made less appealing by cold, windy weather.

So for me, though I feel horrendous about leaving him, I just feel I'm not able to engage him as I could and I am more worn out that before. Yet I might have felt totally different in a better climate!

I have found that my experience of being home has changed radically from month to month even on maternity leave and sometimes I crave a bit more routine/sameness. Yet I know I will really miss the flexibility and spontaneity of being at home.

In the end, it's opportunity cost, isn't it?
I want to work full time and be at home full time and am not bestowed with magical powers so have to choose a middle road where I will probably feel a bit torn between both sets of priorities.

Yet I am grateful to have this choice, too. I appreciate many don't.

Very interesting thread. It is nice to hear everyone's circumstances, and realise that I'm not the only one agonising over whether to work or stay at home.

I work full-time but not out of choice, and would desperately love to be home with DS. Due to a very recent change in circumstances there is a chance that I may be able to give up my job within the next year or so. However as much as I'd love this I'm still really torn as to whether its the sensible thing to do, especially since I earn more than DH? (DH does not want to be a SAHD).

Financial stability is very important to me. When I was growing up, my parents could barely make ends meet (my mum was mainly a SAHM) and I remember my father being made redundant 3 times while I was little, and I remember my mother crying her eyes out over how they were going to pay the bills and buy food. Now they are in their late 50s/early 60s and my father has been made redundant again, so they're struggling yet again.

On the other hand, I also really want another DC and I don't see how I can continue working full-time while having 2 DCs as I'm already utterly exhausted.

It's just all so difficult isn't it? Trying to figure what's the best thing to do for everyone? And then whatever any of us decide I guess we'll end up paying for it in one way or another.

Sorry if this is all very rambling!

Sorry, would just like to add that I am also extremely grateful that I may actually have a choice to stay at home, even if its in a years time!

I know what its like to have no choice at all.

I think the main thing about going back to work is having the childcare you are happy with. to me thats what makes or breaks it all.

I think do ponder the haggis situation which is very common. Plenty of women at home think they can get back to work and many are amazed they cannot even get minimum wage jobs as class room assistants. Of course they could set up their own businesses and many women do and do better than in the low wage jobs they were in before.

I always worked full time. It would be good (although you'll never get them on a mothers web site) to have more women of 50 - 70 posting because they can say if they regretted giving up work and enjoy ages 50 - 70 or wish they hadn't worked. I am 26 years into being a monther and never had a career break and like what I do., Most women choose to work and plenty could not cope with the sexism of economic dependence even if their husband were rich enough to support them.

I certainly think Xenia's point about age groups is a useful one.

I am mid 40s, and well into this parenting thing. Our eldest dc is an adult, the next two are fast approaching. Xenia's has older children, so sees things from the perspective of children having completed the University years.

Often there are threads where mums agonise over whether they are doing the right thing by remaining in work and using childcare. Many of us on MN are of the generation where we're seeing the results first hand. Our children have grown up, taken their exams at school, are in relationships and we can see first hand that having working parents has done absolutely no harm at all. My kids have gone through (or are going through) school successfully. They are positive, contented young people.

And as Xenia says, it can be really difficult to break back into the job market once you've been out of it. I average one letter a week, unsolicited, from people desperate even to get some voluntary work in the school where I teach. Teaching Assistant posts themselves (which is low paid) are like gold dust. Teaching posts, which of course are graduate level and professional are also like gold dust.

I am very glad that I never gave up work. I cut down to part time when my children were small, but was never out of the job market, and also ML was very short in those days, which helped as people werent off for long. I have never, ever regretted my decision to remain in work

Both Xenia and Violethill make valid points.
I posted before about the fact that women should NOT give up work, i understand that sometimes it may not make financial sense to go to work, but i am surprised by the number of posters who feel fine about being out of the workforce for a number of years.
My mother is in her early sixties (so roughly around the same age as the women that Xenia mentioned) she told my sister and i that the one piece of advice that she could give us was to always work(be it full or part time), because once you leave the working environment it is difficult to go back.
My dh and my sister's dh earn very good money and i suppose we could be stay at home
but i would never CHOOSE to stay at home unless circumstances dictated that i had to ,
ill health, unemployment etc. I have three young children and they benefit from the fact that i work, i do not miss school plays etc and i know that if my dh lost his job for any reason we would be able to cope.
My dh's friend was threatened with redundacy last week after 25 years in the job. His dw hdoes not work, so they will not have her wage to rely on. This is not a criticism of sahm because they do a commendable job(and i mean that in a non patronising manner) but i wcould and would not rely on my dh's wages

I disagree that women should NOT give up work at all. I just think that we need to be able to do it and not be penalised for it for the rest of our lives, which is what happens now.

I know someone who works for the police and they offer a rather marvellous arrangement for maternity leave - 5 years off, no questions asked, back to your job after 5 years.

She's had 2 children 18 months apart and she's thinking about having another one before she goes back. So basically, pop them all out at once, drive herself round the bend being a SAHM with 2 or 3 young children for five years and when she's had quite enough of that (which she reckons she will have done by the time the 5 years is up), back to work either full or part time. The advantage of this system, is that she doesn't need to think about her job at all when her DC's are really tiny and once she's back, she's back, she's v. unlikely to want to have another child after 7 or 8 years.

Not saying that's a panacea or anything, but it's being creative with leave, thinking outside the norms and trying to work out ways of retaining valuable staff and ensuring that people can function both as employees and as parents. At the moment, the market is far too inflexible - most employers are unable or unwilling (or both) to think about how to ensure that half the population can be enabled to participate fully in the workplace. And that's where it's the job of government, to help them, nudge them along, give them tax breaks for being creative and impose sanctions for not being. But while government is made up mainly of men with wives who do their childcare for them, it's never going to happen.

Disagree that the market is totally inflexible. Where I work, we have quite a few staff on part time, flexible hours. Also, paid ML and additional leave is at an all time high - you can have a whole year off!! - which is way more than many countries.

Realistically, I don't know how many businesses could really afford to keep a job open for 5 years, with the employee retaining the right to walk back into the job, no questions asked (or presumably turn around and say, 'no thanks, Im going to do something else now!') What about the employment rights of whoever has been covering the job for those 5 years? They just get dumped do they? And what if they have a young family to support?

It's all about balance, and tbh, I think things are pretty good these days, with long ML, the right to request flexible working for anyone with a child below 16 etc Plus you have to factor in that we're in the midst of economic recession, and there are thousands of people out there desperate to do most jobs, who are willing to work the hours needed.

I also think this is about accepting that it isn't an issue about women, it's an issue about PARENTS. It's all very well to blame male Govt ministers who have wives running around after them - but those wives are choosing to do that! Let's see more women expecting to continue being the main provider while maybe their male partner reduces to part time temporarily. The reality in my workplace is that every single request for flexible working has come from a woman - they seem to be the ones WANTING to cut down, or even give up work. Anyone else read the Guardian article yesterday about men feeling happier with their balance of life if their wife is working (either full or part time) too? The evidence in the article showed that men are as fed up of being assumed to be the sole or main provider, as women are fed up of it being assumed they will jack in work or go part time. This is the 21st century - women are educated to the same level as men these days, and have access to the same careers - thank god! It would be a real step backwards to see it any other way.

Just because your workplace does xy and z, that proves nothing VH, you have to look at the wider picture to make sense of it. If everything in the garden were as rosy as you say it is, then there would be no need for this thread. Taking a few years out of a 40 plus year career to be a SAHM, would not ruin a woman's career chances forever.

And yeah, go on, blame women for structural sexism in society. If men are so desperate to get a proper work life balance, why aren't they out there asking for it, insisting on it, fighting for it? You said yourself that all the requests for pt work in your place are coming from women, why aren't they coming from the poor men who want a work-life balance? What's stopping them asking?

Well, in some cases, it's probably the wife feeling it's her 'right' to reduce hours which is stopping them!! I certainly know one young dad on our staff would love to be a part time SAHD - but his wife felt her rights to go part time trumped his!

I'm not blaming women for structural sexism in society at all.

I am simply giving my view, which I am entitled to do, that I don't think the situation is as awful as some people believe.

And you didn't answer my question - what happens to the employment right of the poor sod who gets appointed, works his or her socks off for five years and is then out the door because the previous post holder is now bored after 5 years at home and wants to come back to work? You'd have to completely re-write employment legislation, which would then take rights away from people - which seems to be what you don't want to do!!
Or do you keep employment rights and expect employers to cough up a huge great pay out to each person they are laying off after 5 years? Erm... I think you'd find employers would be really wary of employing any women of childbearing age.

It's about balance - swing things too far and employers will simply vote with their feet and walk away from women who look as though they might get pregnant a few years down the line

I said I didn't think the 5 year thing was a panacea, I gave it as an example of creative thinking in enabling women to be mothers and workers at the same time, in the way they want to be if they want to be. Not everyone takes up the 5 year option, most do the normal maternity leave. And I've no idea how the police deal with it, but they obviously deal with it properly because it's working for them.

It's a question of approaching an issue and saying "how can we make this work?" instead of automatically thinking: "we can't make this work". Which too often, is the default position when you demand the right to function fully as a parent and as a worker.

oh and if you extend paternity rights to fathers, you level the playing field, so that young women of childbearing age, become no more undesirable or less likely to take time out of the workplace, than men of any age.

Oh I totally agree that it's about looking for solutions, rather than assuming that things won't work. And actually, that's what most employers want, believe it or not!
Every time the school I work in advertises a post, it costs £1000. Interviewing, appointing, costs more again - my time, the time of other people on the interviewing panel etc

Believe it or not, we don't want to have a huge turnover, or valuable staff leaving and not returning.

And I still fail to see how the 5 year thing, or 3 year, or whatever you want to make it, would function. It's all very well to admit 'it's not a panacea' - but you raised it as an example of good practice, yet surely if it worked so brilliantly, and people wanted 5 years off, and then floated seamlessly back into the workplace with all their skills up to date, while the 'cover' employee seamlessly floated out after their 5 years were up..... wouldn't it be happening everywhere?

No VH it wouldn't, because most employers are simply so dyed in the wool and conservative about trying new things. Look how rare job-shares still are, most of them are still in the public sector (where employment is going to be slashed) and yet the idea of them has been around for at least 30 years and they've been consistently practiced in the public sector for at least a couple of decades with overall response to them being a Good Thing (of course there are always exceptions, but in general they are held to work extremely well).

People don't like change. They need to be nudged towards it.

Viz your 5 years being thrown out because maternity missus is coming back, I think that's unrealistic. It's no different from any other contract and how many people nowadays expect to stay in a job for five years anyway? As far as I understand it, people know that someone is coming back and they have plenty of time to make arrangements, get jobs in another dept etc. And anyway, jobs change and develop in five years, my acquaintance knows that she won't be going back to do exactly the same thing, things move on.