is staying at home a real luxury??

[btfly2]

and why many women feel the obligation to justify that they are stay at home mums. Im sorry, just feel very curious about your opinions and if aibu? Thank you!

I'm a SAHM. My wages vs child care didn't stack up 16 years ago, so I quit.

DH now in a high pressured but well paid job, away a lot of the time.

When people ask me what job I do - because everyone works, don't they...? - I struggle to answer. I do volunteering locally, and attend an adult ed. class but that's about it. I run the house, garden, do general admin...

I think DH sees it as a "I'm earning so much my DW doesn't need to work" but I see it as a stigma.

I'm making a plan. When DH retires, it'll be me that goes out to work!

Of course not,how ridiculous.

It involves great expense in the forfeit of a salary but the alternative which is childcare involves expense too.Is that a luxury?

Luxury is a life of great comfort,don't remember that when I was one.

Being a sahp was a necessity for us and is for many.Our children would have been miserable in childcare,wouldn't have been cared for as well as we cared for them and having a sahp saved them,us and our family from a huge amount of stress and misery.

So not a luxury at all,how offensive.

I really think lots of couples don't earn enough to have £1000+ spare each month to pay for nursery. I don't think it's a luxury particularly- historically wealthy woman always paid someone else to look after their children whilst poorer woman did it themselves.

However a situation of true choice probably is a luxury, as it is for any situation

I have a choice to work so for me it is a luxury choosing not to.

Although Dh is giving me the choice, and would be supportive either way. He earns enough for me not to work financially. I worry that if I did actually need to earn money to put into the household I would struggle to find a job having been out of the workplace for 16 years. It niggles a bit, because I loved working up until ds2 was born at which point it would have cost me more in childcare.

16 years ago I thought giving up work would be temporary as I did enjoy it and retiring in effect at 35 wasnt in my life plan, but the practicalities of working were more difficult than staying at home, which I love too.

It's not always a choice though, and honestly its not necessarily a luxury.

Childcare is so expensive that wages don't cover the cost of Childcare, so working would mean finding money from somewhere else to pay for it, and while there are some that will say there are tax credits by me working its tips us just into the Magic box of not being entitled to help.

And yes I feel like I have to justify it because we have no fucking Money and people always recommended I get a job!

Sometimes it is a choice. Sometimes it is the only way.
For some parent stay at home it is a burden.

If someone tells me that they are a sahp i assume that they have good reasons since it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Op in which situations do you feel women have to justify it?

Yanbu to ask but as has been said unless there is one very high earner it cannot be a luxury but a necessity. For me it's the fact no family living near enough to help out, can't bear thought of sending children off when they aren't well and trying to concentrate on work, having to say to work colleagues at last minute that I can't work or have to leave suddenly or have a day off again on an inconvenient day because we are short staffed so others have to fill in for me, etc, etc. staying at home means I do lots of voluntary work so it makes me get on with the housework and am amazed how many things would not be available if there were no/fewer volunteers.

In a way though it is a luxury for both parties. wohm knows they have childcare on tap. They get away with doing less housework, laundry etc. Have someone to sort out prescriptions, car services, repairs etc.

Childcare on tap - no (it's a constant juggle to keep paid childcare to a minimum)
Less housework - no (why? I like a clean house - the destruction the children can cause when granddad is in charge has to be seen to be believed!)
Less laundry - no (again why - our children aren't in dirty rags because I work)
Someone to sort out prescriptions - no
Someone sort car services and repairs - no

Lots of comments about ineligibility for tax credits. If that is the case the higher earner has enough for childcare-it is precisely because of no tax credits I HAVE to work. Can't afforf to stay at home. This meant working at a loss for a while to increase earning potential. Why can some afford not to work and others in the same situation have to work? What fish with bicycle says is true. Choice and the lack of perceived value in your SAHMdom is the problem. Must drive the hour to work now. DH is away for work atm-works long hours. Doesn't change need for me to work which saddens me.

Unfortunately it was not possible for me to go back to work after children due to long commute, (1.5 hrs each way), long working hours and very poor pay (i was in academia on £20,000).
I took a min wage weekend job to make ends meet but we lived hand to mouth for 7 years. No holidays, overdrafts, very few days out, never eating out. Never ending domestic drudgery and small children to entertain on a shoestring budget. Not a very luxurious lifestyle but it would have been very difficult for me to find a job paying enough to cover childcare costs where I live (south east). I am not complaining and looking back, I am glad that I had those years with my kids but luxury it wasn't.
Now kids are at school and I work 25 hrs a week with minimal chilcare costs, life is great. Still crap pay though

It is a luxury for those that don't work but are able to. Not wanting to pay for childcare doesn't make it less of a luxury as the choice was still there. Likewise no man needs a woman to stay home so they can work as seems to be quoted so often.

Not having to work whilst some body else pays for that choice can't be seen as anything other than that.

No, not a luxury.

SAHPing is drudgery, I hated it. I chose to go back to work as soon as I could. We now have two equally good salaries coming in, and therefore have far more disposable income than we would, on half that.

SAHPing is only a 'luxury' if you think looking after small children is idyllic, and quite frankly, it is not.

Snow white, that sounded a lot judgmental and bitter.

I think people who view it as a luxury just don't realise the costs of childcare - either because they don't have dcs or they have access to free childcare from family.

I live in a commuter town outside London. The costs of 2 dcs in full time childcare plus railcard would have been a £50 a month loss, when dc1 started school it would only have been a £80 profit a month. This is on a salary of £38k - so way above average, DH earns too much to get any help with childcare costs, and we pool finances so the ridiculous argument that "remember your DH should pay half" doesn't apply.

It was a choice because we could afford to make a loss for 6 months then with a tiny profit, I could have worked or not, but it make little difference, so it was just down to personal choice, I chose to SAH.

Interestingly, it's given that I am "lucky" and I don't work, have loads of time to do all the housework and family admin. If I hired a nanny to do just the childcare element of what I do all day, I would be looking at paying around £30k, it would be seen as a profession and unreasonable to ask the nanny to clean or cook for the family or sort out any household tasks not child related.

Being a sahm is a job, it's just not a paid one.

Haha I love the idea that if you work outside the home there is some magic dairy to take care of appointments, repairs, 'house admin', cleaning etc!

Fairy not dairy!

Even if I had wanted to go back to work after having DD1 it wouldn't have happened because my wages would have covered the childcare fees and my bus pass and that's it. No extra money whatsoever. As it happened I was a temp with no job to go back to anyway.

It's not a luxury for us I don't think. My DH is in the merchant navy so spends 8 weeks at sea and then 8 weeks at home.

When I worked we had less money as we got no tax credits, also no childcare provider would do the 8 weeks DH was away and then let DH look after the dc for the 8 weeks he was home.

It made financial sense for me to stop working.

Unless your pregnancies were unplanned a sahp is a luxury. We couldn't afford to have another child until ds is receiving his free 15 hours.

Quitting work to not pay for 2 lots of childcare also isn't an option for us so it's a luxury. We need 2 incomes.

and we pool finances so the ridiculous argument that "remember your DH should pay half" doesn't apply.

Shh. Don't give anyone ideas. That line of 'reasoning' drives me bonkers

It has been a luxury for both of us. My OH has the benefit of a well organised home, children who are cared for in a loving, nurturing environment, have all his washing and a lot of the housework done, have great home cooked food for him and his children.
It has been a luxury for me to have the pleasure of nurturing my kids so closely, being able to attend so many baby/toddler & school groups and meetings, be able to train as a breastfeeding counsellor, and have the time and space to set up my own business which now 14 years later generates more income than my OH.

You can be a higher earner and not be able to afford childcare - it depends on where you live, travel costs,number of dc you have etc.

Also many high earning jobs require travel away from home and have no definite routine to them, which can make childcare tricky. A lot of extra responsibility falls to whoever earns less so that person ends up working and doing most of the other stuff too. I would have struggled with that as my job was quite hard and ate significantly into my home time. So for me, although sah came about accidentally (put on bed rest by dr during 2nd pg) continuing to sah was a choice in that I didn't want to end up doing everything, so we just split the load this way.

I was able to choose which makes me fortunate (although when the dc were younger the chilcare costs would have been more than I would be happy paying, given what I and dh were earning then. Would have been a huge chunk of our income), I don't consider it a luxury because it cones with other drawbacks. I do consider it a lifestyle choice in my case.

I wish I could work. I'd love nothing better than to work but I would never earn enough to cover two lots of child care. As soon as DC1 starts school in September, I'll be looking for a job.

I think for many people though, working at a loss isn't possible. That can only happen if the other parent earns enough to subsidise the childcare of the loss making parent AND meet all household bills and expenses.

For most people working at a loss wouldn't be an option . That's no choice at all, that's being trapped. I do have to say I feel lucky that I'm
Not trapped like that although it's obviously taken a lot of hard work etc

Why did you have 2 kids then? Did you not do your sums and know how it would work out?