To want to go back to work when my wages don't cover childcare?

[rf241]

I love my job working for a small NGO. I earn 27k and going back part time would mean that I am paying more for the nanny than I earn after tax. My husband earns about 350k and despite always saying that he supported me going back to work now says that he doesn't see why I wouldn't rather be at home. I know that I'm very fortunate and that many would love to be a SAHM and can't, but I really can't face it. I love my boy but I want to go bdck three days a week and go back to a job I love. It doesn't help that my mother and MIL think that I am indulgent and should just stay home.

I am meant to go back in October and it's being ruined by the judgement of others.

frazzled The OPs husband earns a very very high salary. Higher than probably 95% of the UK. Benefits are means tested. Even if you earn slightly above average, your spouse won't be entitled to benefits. Is it fair, if you look at it another way, that someone earning £500k has a spouse claiming working tax credits.

Equally, the state expects the OP spouse NI contribution after all their children turn 12. At least that's how I understood it. Once you don't have under 12s, you are no longer topped up on class 3 NI. You are than supposed to find a job (no JSA if the spouse earns above average), or someone has to pay your NI. You need like 39 or 40 years to qualify for full state pensions.

But it's irrelevant in OP case. Her husband can clearly afford the nanny to enable her to do a job she likes.

I think he would be happy to pay for he nanny while she goes to the gym and do her nails. Me thinks.

Another thought op, do you think he picked you as a dw because he wanted someone who would be at home to support his career? Men earning that sort of money sometimes want someone who is their equal career wise (even of not exactly salary wise), but others don't want that, they do want someone to look after all the other stuff, run the home, look after the family so they can focus on their careers without having to feel guilty they aren't there, because their dw is always there.

It could be his reluctance is more that he sees you as not keeping to the "deal", even if he wasn't explicit at the start about what he wanted from family life. He's accepted the financial burden for the family will always fall to him, he's not chosen a wife who could say "well, if you lost your job, as long as I didn't have to pay for child care, I could cover the bills", you've been able to do a job you find interesting without having to think about earning decent wage (and on London, £27k is a very low wage for a professional), has your wage just been extra spending money, not paying 50% of everything.

Have you pursued and interesting rather than a profitable career because you know you have him to pick up the slack? Time to have some serious conversations, but not to assume he's been all bad here, if you've given him the impression your financial independence wasn't important (by not being fussed if you could support your own lifestyle without him or pursuing better paid but less interesting roles), then it's hardly surprising he doesn't expect it now and treats your job as unimportant.

Suggest he puts in a request for flexible working and goes part time so your DC can be looked after in the home by family on the days you work.

My DH has always been pretty good about sharing life's responsibilities equally, I went back to work after each of our DCs birth, however I took voluntary redundancy (due to stress) when the youngest was 3.5 and spent a very enjoyable year at home. We slipped into the traditional breadwinner/housewife pattern really easily and I decided to go back to work after that year. To my genuine horror, DH was a bit dismayed about the prospect of having to chip in a bit more with housework, childcare etc again, he isn't a dinosaur, but it was very easy for him to get into the habit of letting me do it all. We are back on a more even footing now, but I'm so glad I went back to work.

WhoKnows - that's a high risk strategy for the OP, it would mean a dramatic reduction in the quality of her living if her DH's wage dropped dramatically as she'll be bringing in a fraction of what he would on those days.

There was a thread about a year ago about a woman who'd been a SAHM or working part time married to a high earning man, he'd got to around late 40s and decided he'd had enough of the rat race, swapped to a lower paid job with much shorter hours, it paid the bills - just - but left little 'fun money'. She was very pissed off that the standard of her living had dropped dramatically - but didn't take kindly to the idea she went full time to make up some of the difference. (She'd started by saying he had to do half the cleaning and childcare now, which annoyingly he did with a big smile on his face and that seemed to piss her off more).

The general view on that thread was in 2 camps, either he was unfair to unilaterally change the 'deal' of their marriage that she'd be in charge of home life shit and in exchange he'd provide a great standard of living, and the other camp who said she should go out and get a better paying job herself.

OP - would you be prepared to move from your interesting job at the NGO to a less interesting but better paid one so that you did make a profit from working and were in a stronger financial position?

marywestmarcott I remember that thread too.

I don't think it's a high risk strategy as it's extremely unlikely that either he'll do it or it will be agreed. However it might make him see things slightly differently.

WhoKnows - but what if it was? It's a 'careful what you wish for' situation!

But is it moral to contribute to a family income of 380k if you are taking a job from somebody who might need it to feed their family?

Is it moral to take 27k from an NGO for the job you love doing, when really it is just a hobby and this income for you is a piss in the water?

Most women I know with husbands in extremely highly paid jobs do voluntary work unpaid.

quinessential so the OP should be a martyr to other people's happiness?

QuintessentiallyQS, totally, totally agree with your post.

No, but she should perhaps not argue her point about her "valuable financial" contribution and the childcare costs when wanting to do her job, but take it from the value of the work she do and how meaningful it is to her and others.

Maybe she could even do it as a volunteer....

Thanks Ham.

The country is full of people in poverty needing jobs. OP does not need one. I think it is morally wrong to take a job and draw a salary, especially from an NGO or a charity, if the money is not necessary for the family to function.

What utter nonsense QuintessentiallyQS.

Well why should she volunteer when the charity can pay for it? Can you not argue the proliferation of volunteers are taking away paid jobs in the Hurd sector? Why would any company pay for staff if they can find enough volunteers? It's the same argument as unpaid internships and work for the dole schemes.

Thats fine Ocado, you dont have to agree.
Maybe I also think you speak utter nonsense.

The 'OP shouldn't take a job away from someone who needs it' argument reminds me of the marriage bar, when women routinely and legally were sacked when they got married, because they had a husband to support them and the jobs needed to go to the poor spinsters who had to look after themselves.

Needless to say, I don't agree. And who is to say the OP doesn't 'need' to work - work is about so much more than a salary.

She'd 'need' to work if anything happens with her relationship, but after x years out of the workforce she wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of getting a job, btw...

I would continue working even if my salary did not cover the childcare at one point in time, as it would be very difficult to get back into my career in 5-10 years time, and I would want to get back to work when the children were at school. Plus it's a lot easier to go part-time at your existing job than to start afresh in a few years time...

But I am delaying child no3 for a few months, so that DC1 should be at school by then...

The NGO may well not want the OP to refuse her salary, because if her salary cost stops then it will come out of their budget and be very difficult to reinstate if the OP ever stops working for them.

There is also a point around paying a wage puts a value on the work done that simply isn't recognised when the work is given away for free. (You see the same phenomena with free books on Amazon Kindle - people disproportionately undervalue the quality of the writing, assuming that it must be shite. Authors get more sales when they discount the book to £1 than if they drop it to £0.)

In terms of whether the OP specifically should do the NGO job - I think the best qualified person with the most relevant experience should do it because that will get the best possible result for the NGO itself. After all her experience, that may well be the OP.

So what if you can't afford all of the nanny's salary?

You can afford your half of it. If he doesn't want to pay the other half he can always drop to half time himself.

It would seem to me the absolute best strategy would be for the DH to go part time - they could still live very comfortably on half his wage, he would get to be part stay-at-home, which is fair as he is the one who feels strongly about it, both partners would still have external jobs which is important as a. what if something happens to one of them/they split and b. the OP does not want to give up external work.

If DM and MIL also feel strongly about no external childcare, they could split the remaining time between themselves.

Yes? :)

Or... is it more the case that DH, DM and MIL see a very nice neat setup with OP at home, very little difference to their quality of lives apart from a nice baby to cuddle on the days off, while OP is expected to give up her external security and career to facilitate the lot?

Oh and OP you can afford childcare. Your JOINT FAMILY INCOME more than covers it.

I think you should go back. My dh makes enough for both of us and with 2 kids I'll be breaking even but I fully intend to go back. My mum and mil have said similar to me but I ignore them. I did 7 years at uni and 10+ on the greasy pole to get where I have. It helps of course that with one kid I was netting £1k after childcare and my dh doesn't make as much as yours. But why should your choice be limited as you are more fortunate than me.

Is it a status thing? Is it not the done thing to have a working wife.

At the risk of getting a pure flaming I think some imbalance in the roles at home will remain given he prob works more hours and brings home 10x the bacon. Rather than run the risk of arguments which end in "why should I get up to ds, I've x to do at work and I never wanted you to work." In stead pre empt it with an excellent nanny with good hours (maybe some nights baby sitting as a bonus), 2 x weekly cleaner, laundry pick up etc. I get a lot done in in terms of admin, organisation, gift buying on my 2 days off so actually weekends are mostly chore free.

It doesn't sound like you want a job.
It sounds like you want a hobby....anything to get you out of the house.
I agree with quint.
I totally understand needing time away from young dc (I have been a sahm for a decade...believe me, I know!! :)) but surely you could do voluntary work?

Yanbu your dp doesn't see the value of your career because he sees his own as more important. You going back to work is important for any career and means you can keep learning and hopefully progressing.