To wonder how it is affordable to be a SAHM?

[Moobieboobie]

This is not a WOHM vs SAHM debate but am genuinely curious ....... I am on mat leave with DC2 and keep being asked if I am returning to work. I would love to stay at home this time round but sadly this is not a possibility as both myself and DH earn roughly the same thus my salary is 50% of the household costs. We would not receive any benefits etc as we would still be above the threshold even without my salary. If there is someway around this please let me know as I will try anything!!

Agree that there are so many permutations it's hard to compare different situations.

One thing is a truism though, women who choose a partner who is a high earner always have more choices. I'd hate to be a SAHM, but even if I wanted to we couldn't afford it. Even though we live in a part of the UK with a low cost of living, we need both our small salaries.

On an income of £9k a year with a sahp and 4 kids, that family will be getting literally hundreds of pounds of tax credits, working tax credits and child benefits a month. That's how a sahp can be afforded- if those benefits stopped overnight, both parents would need to work.

LittleBearPad

_A friend I work with earns 9000 p/a, has a SAH partner, 4 DCs, nice house, car, holidays. Easily doable for them. This is in London

Seriously how?_

I cant speak for family in question but 9,000 isnt a right lot I would imagine they will get topped up quite a bit with working tax credits and also 4 children would amount in a decent amount of child tax/benefit. They will probilly more than likely be getting help with rent and council tax

" is how economically vulnerable SAHMs are when/if they don't have an income and when they are out of work for a long time and find it hard to get back in. "

Given that the average cost of living in the UK is way beyond what the average single parent can earn, you are simply vulnerable if you have children and you expect to be the resident parent, whether you work or not.

When I read these threads I always wonder why it is inevitabley the woman whose salary 'doesn't cover childcare'

These threads are about choosing whether to be a stay at home parent or not, in that circumstance it is valid to discuss whether the family are worse or better of if the person considering staying at home's salary covers childcare.

However, it's only ONE factor, and it's very short-term thinking - enjoyment, career development and long term prospects / earning power should all come into the decision too.

I would be willing to work at a loss in the short term but we are not struggling on the breadline so I know I'm privileged to say that.

"it's about the freedom the wage gives me".

Freedom to do what?

If you work and have children and a home to care for you have piss all time to spend your money on anything truly meaningful.

"And also about the fact I enjoy having a professional identity distinct from my identity as a mother."

I agree that it is a good thing to see yourself as a valuable and unique individual. Maybe if I had a job which defined me I'd want an identity associated with it, but my jobs have never defined me. They are what I do, not what I am.

when we had our first child DH and I earned about the same. But he was at the bottom of his earning potential and I was at the top of mine. So in our case that's how the woman's salary came to be the one that didn't cover childcare. He now earns as much as we both used to earn combined, and has the potential to earn more. If he had given up work instead of me we'd have been stuck on a tiny salary forever.

This has to be one of the silliest questions I have read - sorry OP. If you do not earn as much as childcare, which is horrific if you have more than one child, then it is cheaper to stay at home with your children than to work. THis is obviously a short term view though as eventually when children are at school childcare costs reduce.

It is not the woman's salary that has to cover childcare - it is the joint family salary. If the woman is considering going back to work and her salary does not cover childcare costs, then overall with her going back to work the family earnings will be depleted.

Mamadoc - because we live in a society where woman earn less than men, and it's still the norm to marry a man who's older than you rather than younger, if only 2-3 years, so will have 2-3 years more experience and payrises.

Plus woman tend to be the ones who want to go part time or not work.

DH's full time wage is at least £1k a month more than I could earn fulltime, as he gets overtime payments, it usually more like £2k more than I could bring in. If one of us were to give up, it makes sense it was me. (plus I was expected to work longer hours than him, the DCs get more time with both parents at home with DH being the one to work than me).

It still is amongst the woman I know, very unusual to have settled down with a man who earns significantly less, unless they have a career in the public services.

Oops posted too soon

When we had DC1 DH and I earned a similar amount and it has remained that way for 8 years and another DC until I recently got a good promotion.

I always had more job security and a better chance of earning more but it was me who went part time just because he had no desire to SAH. We briefly tried him working PT as well as me and he hated it and outsourced most to his mother.

I don't want to be a SAHP but I want to have a SAH partner! My male colleagues who don't have to juggle childcare and get their houses cleaned and shopping done are more effective at work and happier than me.

However I can't force him to SAH against his will and be unhappy and in my nobler moments I feel it is the right thing to do for is both to have a chance to work if we want to.

Why don't men feel the same? Why are all these women saying they don't have a choice to work as their wage won't cover childcare. If they were men I bet they'd do it anyway and the family would take the financial hit and the partner stomach the inconvenience to support a choice they want to make.

If it's a positive choice to SAH I have no argument with it BTW. I just wish women wouldn't say they have no choice. There is a choice and I bet lots of men are doing it otherwise there'd be many more SAHDs than there are.

"When I read these threads I always wonder why it is inevitabley the woman whose salary 'doesn't cover childcare'"

You are right.

The cost of childcare comes out of the family budget, not the woman's wages.

Never the less, which ever part of the household budget it comes out of - it's still shed loads of money.

You can probably tell that I do indeed have a career in public services

"THis is obviously a short term view though as eventually when children are at school childcare costs reduce."

Before and after school childcare would cost me £200 a week for two children.

Plus at least £300 a week during holidays.

Really - having children at school only massively cuts your childcare costs if you BOTH have flexible working (so one to do drop off and the other to do pick up), or family willing to take children before and after school/holidays.

"I don't want to be a SAHP but I want to have a SAH partner!

I would go back full-time like a shot if I had a SAHP doing what I do. :-)

Oh yes, and the "childcare costs are for both of you" argument is bollocks if you share money, it's money into the pot vs money out.

After tax, full time I earned just under £2300, (gross £36k far more than the national average) we live in a commuting town to London, train ticket with tubes was approx £400 a month, full time childcare for 1 DC in a nursery we used for DC1 (not the most expensive in our town) was £1k a month. This still gave a good profit with 1 DC and I did go back 3 days a week after having DC1, but after DC2, I was looking at a loss each month. (even using childcare vouchers)

If you don't have family childcare and your DH/P earns too much for you to get any help from tax credits etc, you need a very high 2nd wage to make a profit once you've got 2 or more DCs that are preschool.

Taking the very long term view. I wonder if these decisions affect the life expectancy of women?

I suppose my point is that where a man is the lower wage earner it's largely not considered that he would stop working even if the family makes a loss.

Since most men don't take mat leave they would be stopping work rather than not going back and I suppose that feels a different decision. Perhaps it will change when more shared mat leave is used.

It would be a valid choice for a family to make for a woman to go back to work even at 'a loss' if that is what she wanted ( just as it would be a valid choice for her to SAH at a loss if she were the main wage earner) and I wish we had more equal choices.

Spacing of children is also a consideration. We waited until DC1 was at school before having DC2 because we knew we couldn't afford 2xchildcare.

minifingers, I didn't mean freedom in terms of free time in my day-to-day life, I meant freedom in the sense of having more options in my life. If only the realistic financial option of being on my own, should I ever want or need to.

Again, I accept that not everyone needs to feel they have this safety net. But I do.

Mamadoc I'm not sure about men going out to work even if it costs the family money overall. I think it is far more likely that in most families it is still the man who is the main earner. When I take a look around me, at the people I know, from the lowest earners to the highest, I can only think of about two families I know where the woman has ever been the higher earner. The families I know where the partners have more or less got equal earning power are in jobs like teaching, or they are doctors, or social workers - public service jobs where there is a fairly easily defined salary level.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, when I look at families where both have left school at age 16 with a handful of GCSEs, I usually see a man doing a skilled job such as joinery or plumbing, which pays quite well, against a woman doing something like admin or care work, neither of which do. 'Male' work is valued more in monetary terms.

Mamadoc I cross posted with your second post.

Mamadoc - to be fair to DH, he did make it entirely my choice. He offered us to 'take the hit' of losing approx £100 a month until DC1 started school then making approx £90 a month (once we'd factored in the cost of holiday care) - it would also mean he'd have to do half of pick ups, so would have to turn down overtime, meaning we'd have even less coming in.

We would have a much lower standard of living all round for me to work, but he'd said if it was important for me to work, he'd support that. The final decision for me became easy because my role was being made redundant, I was offered an equivilant role, that had similar responsibliity and pay, but just didn't interest me in the same way. So the decision was easy, going to work every day for a loss to do something I didn't feel passionate about was a no-brainer.

Maybe if I had a job which defined me I'd want an identity associated with it, but my jobs have never defined me. They are what I do, not what I am.

That's a bit snide. My work is an essential component part of my identity, not the sum-total of my identity.

Janine, it's an example of how each side portrays the other one as a caricature - in fact I specifically said that I enjoyed having a professional identity on top of of my identity as a mother. It's not either/or.

just like a sahm's identity is not solely defined by motherhood.

Gosh mini I know so many parents whose work is also part of not only their identity but also their very core.

It's not either or....