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.

[minipie]

Quint you're ignoring the fact that they'll be employing a nanny if the OP works. So if the OP will be taking a job out of the job market, she will also be providing one. And it means the tax coffers (and hence the general public) benefit twice.

Also I suspect the women you are talking about have children at school - so they have time on their hands. Not the OP's position.

WhoKnows (1) Jobs paying 350k a year do not accept part time or flexible working requests. Not a chance. (2) Where has the OP said that family are available to do childcare? If that was the case then childcare wouldn't outweigh her salary.

MaryWestmacott you make some interesting points in your 8.14 post. I know several couples of the sort you describe, where the DH earns plenty and the DW had an interesting/enjoyable but poorly paid job, and it was always agreed that the DW would be a SAHM when DC came along. But this is what they both wanted, and it was discussed from a relatively early stage.

I don't think the OP's DH is entitled to assume that just because he picked a DW with a (relatively) poorly paid job, that means she was always going to be a SAHM once DC arrived. If he's made that assumption he's got a bit of a shock coming, but it's his fault for not having had the conversation earlier. In other words I disagree with you that there is any sort of "deal" here that she would be the SAHW - if they didn't explicitly discuss it then his default assumption should be that she would want to carry on working.

[bakingaddict]

I can see why Quint is saying what she is saying but I think it's wrong to judge in this way. I don't get why the OP should be judged like this. Most of us will be doing a job for financial gain but some will be in the lucky position like the OP of doing it purely for personal satisfaction. I assume when the post was being advertised the OP was interviewed like everybody else and won the job on merit. It would then be morally wrong not to hire her or let the job go to someone else simply because of her DH's salary.

You could apply Quint's warped logic to any high powered professional couple. A woman should not be judged on her partners' income unless we want to go back to some 1950's type era

[minipie]

Here's another way to look at it.

If the OP had no husband, or a husband who didn't earn very much, then there would be no question that she should return to work (though she'd probably use a nursery rather than a nanny). She'd get tax credits etc to assist.

It would seem odd that her choice to work should be restricted simply because she has a DH who earns a lot.

I certainly wouldn't accept this - I'd rather my DH changed jobs and I could stay working, than have to give up my job simply because of his pay/hours.

Those suggesting voluntary work - she'd need childcare to do that. I very much doubt her DH would agree to pay for childcare so she could do voluntary work. Her DH wants her at home with the DC

[MaryWestmacott]

shall we put this into context, the Op's DH brings home approx £16,300 a month after tax. The OP working full time will bring in approx £1,700 a month.

Suggestions that he goes part time and she goes part time is hardly going to be a sensible for their family finances.

This is not to say she shouldn't work, but the idea that she's keeping her "financial independence" is not really realistic.

OP, even if you didn't have childcare to pay, to you think you could comfortably live off your wage? Not where you live now obviously, but could you see you managing to live somewhere as a family, even if he covered childcare?

[QuintessentiallyQS]

She will need a nanny if she volunteers, so win win on the job market!

[minipie]

Mary I think many of the posters saying she's keeping financial independence are making the point that if (god forbid) the couple split in future, the OP will be to a large extent expected to support herself financially (spousal maintenance being mostly gone these days), and so will be better off if she's stayed in the job market. I agree with you though that suggestions he goes part time are unrealistic, for all sorts of reasons.

[whattheseithakasmean]

I worked with a women whose husband was super rich. I knew that my salary was what was keeping my family together & paying the mortgage, while she was 'earning less than her DH's PA'.

I didn't mind, why should I? She was very good at her job, a great colleague and fully entitled to earn an honest crust, same as me. Jobs are given on the basis of ability, not who needs them most.

OP, go back to work, enjoy your life, don't let your DH turn you into a housewife if you don't want to.

Women fought like hell to get into the workplace in the first place - why are we still having to defend our damn right to work?!

[FreeButtonBee]

Really, I'm not allowed to continue to work if my husband earns above a certain amount? can you let me know what that level is so that I can hand my notice in when he reachs it? Does how much I earn have any impact or is only poor wee low paid people who have to quit when their big strong clever husbands earn lots of .

[FreeButtonBee]

Really, I'm not allowed to continue to work if my husband earns above a certain amount? can you let me know what that level is so that I can hand my notice in when he reachs it? Does how much I earn have any impact or is only poor wee low paid people who have to quit when their big strong clever husbands earn lots of .

[MrsKoala]

As an aside to the main point of the thread. I have worked for quite a few charities and art galleries. A lot of the women i have worked with have very high earning salary. Many of them donated all or some of their wages back to the employer. So much so i came up with a theory that some of the places were indirectly being majorly funded by City Bankers via their wives. One place i started at implied it was expected i should donate back or decline a payment, as all the others did. I pointed out i actually desperately needed the money and couldn't afford to work for free (costing me fares on top) they were a bit . Some of them in certain areas really did live a very cosseted existence.

[StackladysMorphicResonator]

What FreeButtonBee said.

Quint, you're missing the point. Should we all live in households where only one parent works, preventing the economy from growing and having SAHP feeling miserably unfulfilled just because their earning potential is lower than the other parent's? I love my job, and there aren't any voluntary positions I would enjoy half as much - I don't want to work in a charity shop, be a school governor or spend my time fundraising. I want to work and be valued for the work that I do. DH and I earn roughly the same amount, but could manage perfectly well on one salary - does that mean one of us should stay at home to give the job to someone who needs it more? Bullshit.

[rf241]

Erm / QuintissentiallyQS..., my job isn't a hobby and I think I specifically said that I loved it. I work with prisoners and the work my charity does is fantastic. It isn't easy and if I wanted a 'hobby' there are easier ways to spend my time

Also I think
It's utter tripe to accuse me of stealing a job from
Someone else!! The reality is that I volunteered to get experience when younger and am now very experienced. Why should I do a volunteer role (DEF not going to be at same level
In terms of breadth of work etc)? Also, it totally screws charities if wages are not reflected in the running costs...as another poster had said. Also not sure that most unemployed people want to work visiting and doing outreach in prisons-I could be wrong!

Def not an option to go part time for my husband,not least because we havea pretty hefty mortgage.

I think I have some very useful advice here! I really need to think about childcare in more terms thst who pays for it and whether I 'cover' it.

[puntasticusername]

I'm aghast at the suggestion that a woman's right to work and earn money depends on how much money her husband makes. I could say a lot about it but I think a simple "FFS" will suffice for now.

More power to you, OP, sounds as if you're well on the way to getting yourself sorted!

[AnyFucker]

Good Lord, it's like Feminism never happened.

[KenAdams]

WTF? No she shouldn't be a volunteer! OP go back to work if you want to! People will be snipey on here because of how much your DH earns. Ignore them.

[ssd]

why are you writing the thread title that your wages dont cover childcare when your dh earns £350k?

can you see how this might get peoples back up?

personally, I think you're just bragging.

[maggiethemagpie]

This post reminds me a little of my brother. He earns a packet, and when he and his wife had kids he was firmly of the opinion that 'a child should be at home with its mother'. This is also the man who when he smelt a smelly nappy on my baby niece, passed her to my SIL saying 'there you go mummy') .

I've always put it down to the fact that he thinks a child should be home with its mother because he was sent to boarding school at the age of 7 and we had a lot of nannies at home (I'm still recovering from the psychological fall out 35 years later)

So maybe the OPs DH just believes it would be better for the child to be with its parents rather than strangers, and as he earns so much he is probably used to having/doing what he wants.

I doubt he understands that the OP wants a job for her independence and sanity. OP is it possible to work part time, as a sort of compromise?

[minipie]

Yes maggie I agree.

I have the strong feeling that for the DH it's not so much about the financial aspect, as about the fact he wants his DW to be at home with his child and looking after all the domestic duties/admin. In other words he wants the 1950s set up.

OP is suggesting working part time! Her DH doesn't even want her to do that...

[rf241]

Ssp-
I'm certainly not meaning to brag. What my husband earns is what he earns...I was simply saying that my wages don't cover childcare as that's unfortunately a calculation women make often. I wasn't suggesting that we would struggle for me to work.

What's been nice about these responses has been people challenging the assumption that my wages should cover childcare. I can certainly cover my half

I think it's a number of things with DH. He's def used to getting his own way but I almost think
That he thinks that it's a privilege to stay at home and wishes he could ...but the reality of day in day out when he actually does weekends is not known to him. Husband great - does bulk of everything at weekends and always did expressed milk night feeds at weekends when bsby was little. BUT he doesn't appreciate how it's fun for a couple of days but tough all week. In addition as I have said I am lucky to have a job it love to pieces.

[SelfconfessedSpoonyFucker]

When you look at the long term benefit of working over the short term need for full-time childcare it is obvious that it still makes sense financially.

So for, what, five years? you have a full-time nanny and make an overall family loss on you going back to work. Once you no longer need a full-time nanny though there is a benefit of having stayed relevant and employed.

I'm just looking from a financial POV, of course there are many other considerations as others have said.

[rf241]

Thank you to everyone. I was scared to post as I know from my MN lurking that you're always bound to get a few difficult comments. But on balance everyone has been so supportive and come up with so many useful points.

THANK YOU.

[OneLittleToddleTerror]

ssd I never felt the OP is bragging either. It is very common that people think the mother should only work if it's financially necessary. Hence all the talk about covering childcare and if you can live off one wage. But I love working and I can't see why I want to stop, whatever my husband earns. So I can understand the OP pov. I really feel for women who wants to continue but couldn't afford to.

And I have the same feeling the OP husband wants a SAHW. He can't understand why with all he earns his wife still wants to work. But I'm sure if the tables are turned he wouldn't want to be SAH either. Many men seems to think that's all women wants.

That's why I think he might even support the employment of a nanny if the wife SAH. I know of two SAHM with preschool children who put their little ones in nursery for 2 days a week before 1yo.

[minipie]

Ha rf241 it sounds like he needs a bit more experience of what it's like to have sole charge and then he'd appreciate the reality! How often does he actually look after your DC on his own all day, say at the weekend if you have to go somewhere? (Though as you say, even one day of sole charge isn't the same as all week, week in week out).

Luckily my DH is quite aware of what's involved and he says he wouldn't want to be a SAHP so can completely understand why I don't want to be.

If your DH genuinely wants to stay at home, why don't you go back in September rather than October, and he can take the last month of leave instead (I'm pretty sure the new laws allow this, though he might have missed the deadline to give his employer notice). Yes it would cost financially but you could afford it. This would a) give him a real insight into what it's actually like to be a SAHP - not the fantasy weekend version and b) make him better equipped to do his share of the domestic/baby stuff once you are both back working.

[rf241]

I think you're right- hubby can't understand why I want to go back. He knows I love my job but I think he feels that we are in such a lucky position that I don't have to. He is not at all controlling but I think since we had our boy he's thinking about his needs more than mine .... I guess we both are!


Going to have to stress that I willbe a better mum for having my own thing. That I will be more engaged ok the four days at home and that when we are done raising kids I will still have my own thing. This is not true for all but for me I think I will be a better mum for not doing it full time. Kudos to those who do ... But I don't want to.