in thinking there's nearly always an element of choice in the decision to go back to work?

[benetint]

I would never judge anyone (mother or father) for going back to work after having children. I think its entirely individual choice, whatever works for each family.

However I'm getting a bit sick of people saying to me "oh its okay for you being a SAHM, I had no choice to go back to work" when they clearly have a nicer car/go on holidays/live in a bigger house/nicer area etc.

DH and I decided that one of us would stay home to look after DCs till they were in school. As he earned more we decided this would be me. Its not been easy financially by any stretch and we've had to stay in a not-so-nice area, not have holidays etc etc.

But what I don't understand is people who say they have no choice in this matter. Surely if there are people out there who can't afford to pay for childcare then the people who can afford it are choosing to do so? (I obviously make an exception for single parents here, who can't rely on someone else's salary).

I understand that people may have to go back to work to support the lifestyle they currently have...but if they really wanted to they could downsize/move to a worse area/not have a car etc etc.

Anyway I'm not looking for s SAHM/WOHM debate, I'm just a bit tired of biting my lip every time I hear the same comment.

YABU.

It is a choice made pre-conception when you choose a partner knowing their financial situation.

Sometimes you make financial commitments pre children though, or sometimes one partners income is hugely curtailed.

At the end of the day you are probably right, if someone really didn't want to work there would be a way not to, it might not be very palatable though.

You need to change your friends.

I have been a sahm for 13 years and no one ever says it to me. But in fairness I don't have many whiney friends.

Pag, you are fast turning into one of my favourite posters btw.

To a certain extent I do agree, even after paying childcare we're still about £1000 a month better off with me working three days a week, but we have a small mortgage. We could sell our house and buy a new one using the equity we've got and effectively be mortgage free, that would save us about £900 a month.

However where we live to buy a house for the equity we've got we'd have to live in a really rough area. I mean properly rough, drug dealers for neighbours etc. A friend of mine chose to go down this path and it was her choice entirely but I felt very uncomfortable with her living there with small children. It was a rough estate and she rarely left the house. Now she said she was happy with her choices, but she's since admitted she was scared the whole time they lived there. For me there is no choice, I wouldn't ever live in an area like that and expose my children to those kinds of risks.

Dont bite your lip op, I have this all the time!

We have done the same as you, live in an area that wouldnt be our first choice, in a house not as big as we would prefer, dont go abroad, and drive an old car between us. We made a choice to have less and be able to be at home wih the dc while they are small. Its no more or less than that. I know quite a few people who made the oposite choice, work and have more, thats fine too, it was a choice, but apparently our way makes us incredibly lucky?? cant see it myself, just another valid option in my eyes for many people!

[based on me and my friends/family]

Well we would have had the choice of me going back to work or moving house and buying a very small house in probably not a great area so that we could pay off debts and supplement dh's income as he had retrained prior to ds and was at the time earning about 50% less than before ds was conceived

Fortunately i earn enough to cover childcare with a bit left over. It's also about being pragmatic - ds is now at school and i dont have to look for a job as i already have one.

My friend did come out with the nicest thing I've ever heard on the subject though. When I was trying to justify going back to work she just said "be proud of the choices you've made, they're right for you and your family and as good people, the decisions you've made are what in your heart is best for your family too"

Why thank you Rhonda

It is sahm/wohm day I think. It always baffles me.

One woman I was chatting to did say "oh you're lucky to be able to stay at home" - so I guess I agree with the OP that it can come up in conversation. But she wasn't being arsey about it - and I agree I am lucky, because I didn't really want to go back.

People often have big mortgages which need 2 incomes to manage - we were in this position but we "fortunately" inherited some money. It wasn't fortunate for DH that his parents died though

I had no choice. I do not live in a particularly nice area, have a big house or a great car. What I do have is a roof over my head and food in the fridge, which I would struggle to have if I was not working.

I personally had no choice, as I am the higher wage earner. Husband was going to give up work, but didn't in the end as my parents offered childcare.

So for me, there wasn't a choice.

Another thread on the same subject???

YABU. We bought a 2-bed as first time buyers 6 years ago. You know what happened next. We are unable to sell the house without incurring unaffordable debt, so I have had to return to work PT.

The element of choice for us was switching to interest only for now, so I don't have to work FT.

Sometimes partners earn 50/50. We do. It means one of us can't quit. It also means that with two of us working we can afford a nicer area etc. If one partner earns a much bigger proportion, it is different.
Some people see a safe area with ok schools as a necessity. Others don't.
Some people are happy feeling less secure in the long term. Others don't mind a bit of uncertainty. Your 'luxury' is someone else's essential for wellbeing.
YABU

I suppose technically you are right in that people always have choices. But sometimes the choice seems like a non-choice, such as have one parent off work but be unable to keep up with debt repayments and have the threat of bailiffs knocking on the door or being taken to court. Those are very real possibilities some people would risk facing, and so they feel that they don't have a choice other than to have both parents in work - ensuring they can do things like keep food in the cupboard, make sure they keep up with debt repayments so don't make life worse for themselves, etc. Having 2 salaries doesn't necessarily mean those salaries get used on keeping up "a lifestyle" as your post would seem to be suggesting is always the case.

I get sooooo tired of the 'you don't really have to work, you just want nicer stuff/bigger houses/better cars'.

It just isn't true.

DH and I live in a smallish semi, we have one car which is 11 years old, we have no iPads, flat screen tellies etc. and we do not go on expensive foreign holidays. At present we have no mortgage and are comfortable due to an inheritance, but when the DDs were little it was a different story - two-thirds of my salary went on childcare, and there were months when I was on the border of going overdrawn. Both our incomes went on the essentials - food, heating, electricity.

I suppose we could have bought a smaller house, but this one was affordable for us - but it isn't palatial. As for not running a car - nice try, but no public transport where we are. We've both worked our backsides off to get to where we are now (low childcare costs, DDs in school, able to save) but we were definitely not living it up when the DDs were little, and one income would not have been enough.

I find it very hard to believe for anyone who doesn't enjoy their job. My job is crap, most of us hate it with a passion and of the women with children there all of them wish they could've stayed at home. I'm sure the men would say the same if it was culturally acceptable to do so.

Again? Really? We are doing this again?

OP - Of course it is about choice. There are so many amazing handbags at the moment. There are at least 3 Mulberry ones I want and a couple of Chloes. These things don't buy themselves.

I am not really sure why I bothered to have children as mine are being systematically damaged and I am missing all their precious moments. My jobs a bit of a laugh really. I just put high heels on and go on loads of business lunches where I charge bottles of Sancerre to my company credit card and flirt with the clients.

You on the other hand are a shining example of motherhood and the way it should be done. I wish I could be as great as you I really do.

But I choose handbags instead.

Many careers though it is not possible to stop for 5 plus years and resume.

Re qualification/refresher courses are needed.

When you have invested £ and time in becoming an x (solicitor, nurse whatever) it isn't just about money.

I realistically had no choice but to carry on working if I wanted to keep working as a solicitor.

Yes theoretically I could have paid to keep on roll each year, paid to attend training to keep up to date, paid to do the returners course but the chance of being re employed as a solicitor would still be slim.

catgirl

You are being a bit pedantic.

Saying "I had no choice" is shorthand for saying "I had no choice unless I made compromises unacceptable to me and my partner".

But what if you have no i-thingies or flat screen tellies no holidays even in this country when you do both work?
Is the choice quite so easy?