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!!

I don't think Greengrow does seem to accept that other people's problems can set them back. The comment about 'could someone else not look after your dying grandmother' was rather dismissive. What if no one can look after granny because they're all out earning a fortune at their very demanding jobs?

I'm not jealous of Greengrow, it's not a life I aspire to. And I congratulate her on her success. But at the same time, when you have spent years and years doing everything within your power to better your lot in life and found every door slammed in your face, it becomes very hard indeed to keep believing that we can all make our own luck and carve out the career of our choice. I wish I had just been told the reality at 18 instead of spending the next 20 years hoping that my big break is just round the corner.

Ah well I am years ahead of you guys, having done my SAHM years in the 1990s . I never regretted those years but it was important to stay flexible, because everything changed when I had disabled DC.

So who was supposed to look after my terminally ill gran (who raised me like a mum whilst my mum had schizophrenia when I was very young) then green? My mentally ill mum? My dad who disappeared when I was 12? A hospice even though gran had a perfectly good relative who loved her wanting to be there for her at home? I did have help from the hospice, I had mcmillan nurses coming in. I did it for my gran because I loved her and she had had an awful life mostly - fled an abusive relationship in the 1950s with my mum to come to England from America. She had nightmares on her death bed that my grandad had come to get her. Nothing is ever straightforward. I quit my first year of my law degree whilst I was looking after her. Unsurprising I just couldn't concentrate and I wasn't enjoying it anyway. Life is very complicated for lots of families. It isn't all about choices. Some young people have families that make those choices more difficult.

I think that's set my feelings about life really. Why on earth would I spend time worrying about money and a career when for me seeing my gran die literally in front of my eyes made me realise how short life really is. Do whatever makes you happy but for me nothing makes me happier than being at home and I'd rather be absolutely broke and do that than work.

My gran worked her whole life in a very good career as a single mum in times when being a single mum was a big taboo and she enjoyed it. Good for her..good for everyone that enjoys and wants to work. But if someone doesn't and can manage not to then that's fine too.

Not everyone has the same life chances though. Most really well paid careers require a particular kind of academic intelligence. Not everyone has that, and not everyone has the interest, even if they have the ability. Some also have their life chances affected by events in their childhood.

Equally, not everyone wants to work a job with long hours and high levels of stress. I watched my dad be a virtual slave to his career - I never really knew him, as he was always either at work or working from home. I did not want that for myself, or for my family. We have less money, but my DC will know both parents well.

I'm off work for a few months as recovering from surgery. It's hard but we don't have a car anyway so one less expense. I cook from scratch now I've got the time to do it and sell stuff on eBay. Christmas will be skimpier this year but I don't care, I've had a horrible year of health problems and now things are improving.

Of course some people have difficult things. I have had two dying parents in the last few years one with pretty awful dementia and hundreds of miles away. We all coped with that as well as we could. They encouraged us all to leave home and the city for university and not to come back home and they put a lot of effort into not being a burden when they were older - so yes I was lucky I had parents like that. The choices they made - putting off children for 13 years of marriage to save money, not spending much so they had pensions that would pay for their care etc were things that meantw e did not have to abandon our children and families to nurse them day and night when they were dying although of course all of us would have had them down here to live with us and pay for day and night nursing care. All I mean by this is that again choice has come into it.

However some people no matter how hard they try get poor exam results or don't get on in their career - they start inthe supermarket check out and never get byond that or whatever. However even at 70 some women make it so don't give up. One woman writer only had her first book published aged 70. I worked with a female lawyer who was training in just about the best City firm in her 40s and had two grown up children and was divorced.

I have lots of empathy. I have had lots of things go wrong in my life. I seem able to spring back like a rubber ball. I am very positive, happy and optimistic and that causes people in a sense to make their own luck. So someone on here for example who might have messed up their A levels 20 years ago but thinks they are bright - is there anything tos top them doing night classes now to get 3 A*s to improve a CV? Women who want to get on could also make my choice - no maternity leaves, 2 weeks off work. These are choices. Not everyone wants those choices but they are available to many. Some of the women who have children too early so they are unable to support them on their wage had a choice not to have sex at all (I graduated a tee total virgin so not surprisingly I did not have 2 babies by the time I was 22). I encourage women and make them happy. I certainly don't make them feel bad because they did genuinely have some bad luck.

Greengrow have you ever considered that you would be more effective if you made your points without the weird comments? Seriously, for a senior lawyer you have an odd judgement when it comes to tone and how to make your point.

Your parents were kind enough not to get ill and die until you were all grown up. I'm sorry for your loss but I don't think it qualifies as exceptional hardship.

As for being a teetotal virgin... well I most certainly was not but I think my Oxford First was more useful than any abstinence.

So you empathise with women who've had bad luck or who aren't very clever, but not those who've made 'poor choices' in your eyes Greengrow?

Poor choices is subjective, though isn't it? I have never said choosing to become a monk on a hill in a cave or whatever life choices you make are wrong just because they are different from mine.
However I do think women do have a lot more self determination and ability to achieve than some think. I have never said some of us don't have bad luck. nor have I said anything about my parents as I drew up. They certainly had problems I don't want to write about here. It was one reason I was keen to get to university a year early when I was 17. The point is that some people actually achieve a lot more because of adversity actually if you study entrepreneurs. The interesting point is that those who have it all tend in the next generation for the children to do worse as they don't have that hunger to get on because life was a breeze. I would say I did as well (depending on how you define that) because things were hard as because they were easy actually.

I think the key word here in "achieve", as in greengrows post above " The point is that some people actually achieve a lot more because of adversity actually if you study entrepreneurs."

we all have our own personal view of what achievement it.

I spent a long time looking after my mum and my working part time helped me do this

Now she's gone, I'm so glad I did this. I'll never get my mum back, but she died feeling loved. That means the absolute world to me. Maybe this is my achievement in life, that and raising happy kids?

we are all different and different things brings achievement.

Exactly my point ssd. for your mum.

Indeed. I genuinely never post to the effect that there is only one way to live a life. I always say that what I am most pleased about is good physical and mental health. Again people can to some extent achieve, that - not get fat, only eat healthy foods, no smoking or drinking which is probably partly the reason I am never ill (touch wood....).

The achievement of flow which many women get with their work or sometimes hobbies too is happiness. Women like I am who have large families, love pregnancy, breastfeeding and working full time I would argue have lovely balanced lives rather than 100% home, and instead the balance most humans of both genders tend to want. I have also posted about engaging in survival skills on desert islands as routes to happiness.

My parents too died feeling very loved. The fact someone else might have been wiping their bottoms that day was irrelevant to their love. You can work full time as a woman, deal with dying parents and your parents still feel loved.

.... within the SAHM debate it seems futile to try and compare families. People's circumstances are just too variable - from the support we receive or provide within our families (e.g. parents), our personal circumstances, family illnesses etc etc Perhaps its too emotive for people to be completely open and honest either.

....so whats the point in being competitive ? Until you've walked in mile in someone else's shoes etc etc.....

Similar situation here with respect to 50% of the income, it should make things easier if you are both high earners but you're still loosing 50% of your lifestyle and that takes some getting used to. I've gone back part time after both children so I can do some SAHing. This time around we totted up our month budget and saved like crazy so I could have a full year off with no pressure. To be a full time SAHM we would have to start cutting our cloth quite a bit.

Mulberry did the the maths and made a choice to work part time. Sounds like there have been some sacrifices but not too many. As she says, she would have to be cutting out other things far more to be a full time SAHM. They have decided that sacrifice is too great. But other people might decide it is worth it and be willing to go the lengths of moving to a cheaper area/living in a much smaller house etc.
At the end of the day, I think that most people actually do have more choice than they say. Many more people could be SAHMs if they REALLY wanted to and were prepared to make the sacrifices to make it happen. It is just that for many people the level of sacrifice seems too great or seems so Unappealing, as to not seem like a real option......but in actual fact, it is an option.
In the end, we weigh up all the things in our life and try to achieve the optimum overall. So like for Mulberry, for many people that involves working part time, because then at least some of the old lifestyle can be maintained and the sacrifices, whilst there seem bearable. Our decisions just depend on the level of sacrifice both now (and longer term possibly, in terms of later career options) we are willing to bear.

But you wrote it way better than me Chocolate :)

Chocolate, I agree. People think they need things they don't need like eating out and junk food from coffee shops and the like when they don't at all. When we had our first children and the childcare cost was more than one of our identical salaries for a year even things like hair conditioner and deoderant were too expensive and off the list. 30 years on (child 1 is almost 30) I think we forget how few things which are now seen as essentials actually are essential. When I was born there was no central heating (or at least we did not have it) in most houses. Things have changed a lot - much of it for the better.

Both parents can stay home in the UK and get benefits if the parents think 24/7 of children with 2 parents co sleeping is the ideal. Or both can work full time or whatever they can afford and think is right.

I would simply suggest that if a couple earn about the same and one person has to sacrifice their life's work and shoot their career to pieces and never be able easily to pick up the pieces given the propensity of men to run off with someone 20 years younger in their 40s leaving you without a penny let that muggins who stays home and gets no credit and financially loses out not be the woman. Let it be the man for a change.

Deodorant is essential for everyone I should have said. Eeeeew to having that "off the list"

The point is that most of us might think deodorant is essential,but some people are prepared to live without it if it means they can have the lifestyle they want.
Most people will decide they cannot live with a family in a one-bedroom flat....ie having 2 or more bedrooms is essential. The end to pay for those 2 bedrooms will mean many people decide they cannot afford to SAHM although they would like to be. Others will decide the loss of a bedroom and being cramped is worth it,to be a SAHM. It is a question of what we value at different points in our lives and how far we are prepared to go to achieve it.

And I'm not saying being a SAHM is more worthy than working full time or part time. They are just different choices. And I think most of us actually have more choices open to us, than we think.......we discount many of the ways to achieve them, but the ways may well be available.

greengrow, I'm sure your mum felt loved too, I'm not suggesting if you work full time your parents won't feel like that rather than if you worked part time. Its all down to how much thought you put in, just as much as how much time and effort.

but I don't agree with you saying people don't need junk food and things from coffee shops, I hardly ever go to a coffee shop, but I think if thats your thing, then paying for a coffee and a bit of cake sometimes makes all the difference to a dull day.

First things first: I respect others for their decisions.

But after much thinking, I myself could never make the decision to be a SAHM unless I suddenly came into lots and lots of money (seven figures at least… although even a million won’t do). How I get to that figure? I look at my salary now, and project my salary going forward another 30 years. I also take into account my pension plan – which many people seem to completely forget. You can’t rely on state pension forever. That definitely results in at least seven figures without adjusting for inflation.

I think it’s easier for a family where the dad earns 40k and the mum earns 15k to say that having the mum not work is "OK". However, that sort of wage disparity between husband and wife is becoming a lot rarer these days, with many people 'choosing' spouses who earn a similar amount - in other words, assortative mating. DFiL and DMiL, for example, had a huge gap in education and salary expectations when they got married in the 70s. Looking around my married friends now, most of the girls are just as educated as their husbands and earn the same amount, i.e. doctors married to lawyers, finance types married to very hip software developers, etc. After all, ‘assortative mating’ is one of the reasons given as to why the gap between the rich and the poor is ever widening.

DH and I are in our 30s. Both of us earn similar amounts that give us a total household income in the lower six digits. Hence, were I to stop work, our lifestyle would completely change… and I don’t think it would be for the better. I’d rather work, have a good life and offer my children plenty of opportunities than scrimp and save. We all have days, where you just want to give up work, and live a simple life somewhere. Whilst that may be what I want, I'm not sure that's good for my family - and for the following reasons:

1. DH would be completely stressed out being the sole breadwinner. And I like him to keep his hair . By both of us working, responsibility is shared. I have male colleagues just a couple of years older whose wives have decided to be a SAHM. I don't think their wives notice it at home, but I can see how stressed their husbands are at work, while keeping their wives happy at home.

1. DH and I agreed that we’d only have children if we could actually offer them a good life – e.g. healthy food, good education and plenty of hobbies. That costs money.

1. I prefer my kids to have seen the world outside of the UK and Europe, too. This mirrors my experience as a child, and helps me a LOT now that I’m an adult – particularly career-wise.

1. My mum was a SAHM, but my dad earned very, very well (think 5 week holidays in far-flung places every single year). I don’t think I benefitted much from my mum being a SAHM compared to classmates whose mothers worked. Seriously, I don’t.

1. Some people DO get divorced. You can't ask ex-DH for alimony for the rest of your life!

1. If I gave up my career now, I’d never get the same position a decade later. It’s freakin’ competitive as it is.

1. Last but not least - I think I’d be completely bored.

These decisions should always be made together as a couple. I find no sypathy for people who make the decision without consulting their spouses (and then claim alimony if they do get divorced one day)...

I SAH because DH works shifts, days and nights, a different pattern each week. The shift work means that we cannot rely on him being off on set days to drop DC off at childminders on a regular basis. Life is more straightforward by one of us being at home consistently until they're of high school age.

If we could afford a nanny however, I'd be back to work like a shot.

Fair points Snow. Just shows how we all value different things and reach different decisions about our lives.
Your analysis of your situation sounds perfectly reasonable. However,someone else in a similar financial position to your family, and with similar jobs and current lifestyles, may conclude that the significant change in lifestyle required to be a SAHM is worth it. I totally see what you mean, about it being an easier decision possibly, when the woman is the lower earner and the loss of earnings a smaller percentage of household income. However, even with 2 high earners, being a SAHM is probably possible, even if not the choice of most. Perhaps it is harder for people who have had an affluent lifestyle funded by 2 large incomes to downgrade to what can be afforded with just one. I can see that it might mean less holidays, a smaller house, fewer career options later and ultimately a smaller pension and poorer retirement. None of that looks very attractive, when laid out. And it is important to consider the full significance of being a SAHM, both in the short and long term. If that is fully considered, and a couple decide it it worth it (and Snow is absolutely right that it needs to be a joint decision,with both parents being fully ware of both the long and short term implications) then fair enough. Ultimately, although 2 high earners might see a bigger relative drop in living standards from the choice to become a SAHM, they DO have more choices than people with 2 lower incomes, just because the remaining income gives more options than a remaining low income. However, although this is true, I suspect that for many high earners, the cost of being a SAHM, in terms of the downgraded lifestyle seem too great to bear and fewer choose it. Again, no judgement.....I don't think being a SAHM is a better option.