Being a SAHM is not because partner earns loads, it is because childcare means it is unaffordable to work

[Yesitismeagain]

Why do people think SAHMs a lifestyle choice? Most people I know are SAHMs because they can't afford the childcare to make working worthwhile! With only 1 income coming in, the 'lifestyle' is one of watching every bloody penny.

Most of my well educated friends who had decent jobs - not top earners in the City, but earning over £30k each year. Had children, and then found they couldn't afford to go back to work as the childcare (+ commute and parking) would make no financial sense.

Their husbands salary means any tax credits on the wife's wages are minimal or zero.

I am fed up of being thought of as loaded as a family just because I don't work. I don't work because I can't afford to!!

Being a SAHP isn't a lifestyle choice for me, nor is it due to not being able to afford to work.
I am a SAHP because we have a disabled child whose needs are so complex that no suitable childcare exists.
I could work nights but I need to sleep at night so I am alert enough to care for disabled DC during the day (and during the night as he requires care at night too).
DP considered being a SAHP instead of me but his job was more flexible and family friendly than my previous career.

what has struck me while reading all the replies is that the well-being of the pre-school children does not get any mention, as if being in a professional nursery setting is the same as being looked after by a loving parent. Well, from my experience, it is nowhere near. When talking about choices it is not only the career opportunities, present and future, which mothers consider, but what kind of lives their little children will have in the meantime. Only one poster so far commented about kids being ferried around all the time "like cattle". This is certainly what happened for me, kids spent a loooong time every day strapped in a car seat, they did not have the opportunity for all the activities we would have done if I were at home. They did not have proper meals at proper times and generally, their well-being suffered because I me trying to keep in a job.

Surely, when faced with little or no financial reward for 5 or more years and compromised well-being of the children and the mother during that time (fathers tend to escape unscathed) - a lot of women ask themselves, is it worth it? While it is possible to rebuild a career (although hard), nobody and nothing will give you a chance again to put all those shortcomings right during your children's very important first years. But this does not get half a mention on here. It does make me wonder

Summerworld I think the majority of women do think that. And it's a problem as it is only women that do and then make the sacrifice in the workplace. This is why women earn less and have fewer top jobs and jobs with power.

Well, it depends on what you think about the EVILS OF NURSERY (channeling my nemesis Oliver James there). I personally don't think I've short-changed my children at all by working when they were pre-school age, actually (nor did I think my mother short-changed me). They don't/didn't spend all day strapped in a car seat, and they have/had proper meals at reasonable times. We use a lovely small nursery that's just down the road from us where all the local kids go. Though I'm sure I appreciate your hand-wringing about how damaged and miserable they are and how I "can't get those years back".

summer, if the wellbeing of my daughter had been at all at risk, I would not have worked. I'm sorry you feel that your children suffered as a result of you going out to work, but please don't assume that everyone feels the same.

Personally, my own childhood would have been a lot better if my mother had gone out to work. Being looked after my a depressed and frustrated parent is not exactly a barrel of laughs...

Oh deep joy. Yet another thread about SAHM/SAHP/SAHD/SAHW/SAHWFHM

I am fed up of being thought of as loaded as a family just because I don't work. I don't work because I can't afford to!!

Why in the name of fuck does it actually matter what others think.
Why are you so bent out of shape about this?
Just do what works for you family whether that means working or staying at home.

Leedy, it is great that there was no difference for your children's wellbeing as to whether you were at work or not. For mine, there was. My son was perpertually ill because, as it turned out, the nursery staff did not bother putting a winter jacket on him for outdoor play and he himself could not do it at age 2. This is just one example. When we shared childcare between me and DH with the second DC, as I say, the children spent most of their free time being ferried about which was not great for them. And it was not great for me as I knew what their life was like while I was at work. What is it all for? for a career? well, as I said, you can change that, but you cannot rewind and replay the children's first years.

To be honest, though, that just sounds like you had rubbish childcare (eg not putting coats on children for going outside) rather than that "a loving parent at home is always best".

Lots of children don't suit or enjoy childcare.It is not the best option for all children or families( far from it) and this should be acknowledged.

Summer if that had been my child, I'd have changed child care providers. I think the reason why most people have concentrated on the finances of childcare without specifically mentioning the wellbeing of the child, is that the well being of the child is at the foremost of every parent's decision.

But the finances (in the long term) are an important consideration too.

If I earned £200 a week with little prospect of a pay rise / promotion, and could probably go back into a £200 a week job in 5 years when the children were at school, and nursery was going to cost be £400 a week, then of course, that's a very different decision than if I earned £1000 a week (just plucking figures out of the air) and am unlikely to be able to return to that kind of position if he or she takes 5 years off to be a SAHM.

Unless you have very strong views one way or the other about home-based care / importance of a career, the financial implications of that decision are crucial.

I do get annoyed at the assumption that ALL sahm's are sahm's because they can afford to stay at home.
My partner earns £18000. £200+ a month goes on travel to work. Our outgoings were more than his wage alone. I was made redundant when I was first preg. The best I can hope to achieve is around the minimum wage mark. Our 'choice' was made for us- we could no way afford childcare if I was to get a job so instead we made a LOT of cut backs, we moved to a cheaper flat, started shopping at Lidls, we have no social life, clothes shopping and holidays are a distant memory.
Sometimes it gets me down- when my brand new Audi driving, business owner sister constantly invites us to do things we cannot afford and makes us feel like a charity case if we say no. Or around Christmas when there are hoards of people going into actual shops and buying actual things instead of obsessively checking their bank accounts and working out outgoings. When my two babies ask why we haven't got a garden. The gratitude on their faces when we buy them something from a charity shop because they are too young to know any different.
I love being a SAHM and I wouldn't have it any different, when it gets hard is when I hear "you are so lucky you can afford to stay at home." Or when pressure is put on us to do things we cannot afford because it's that or the old "don't be silly, I'LL pay for you" degradation.
People don't know other people's circumstances, they don't know their childhood or the events in their life that lead to their situation and assumptions about things don't do any good x

"Full time child carer" could work if someone is home looking after preschoolers.

not that long ago it was not a lifestyle choice .it was the only choice .most mothers stayed at home .my mum worked in the early 70,s full time and that was strange .she worked from i was a toddler.my parents divorced so she had no choice .my granparents looked after me until she come home .but i missed her terribly and when i had my children i was determined to be there full time .everyone does what they think is best .my mum thought one way i another .you can only do your best

littlemiss

toffee that's a good one for home carers of preschoolers

I think that when children go to school it gets harder for people who stay at home to "name" or describe themselves

But I do agree that it shouldn't matter to you, if someone is commenting in real life ignore them...If it's on here...ignore them

Littlemissinvisible do you claim tax credits?

Yes a small amount which we are very grateful for and keeps a roof over our head. Our bills are more than OH earns x

Not really - childcare is a short term cost. While you're paying that short term cost you're continuing to pay into your pension, continuing to see salary increases and continuing in your career. Once you've stopped paying childcare you're ahead financially compared to someone who have left the workplace altogether, even for just a few years.

I would love to see how you can live on £30k a year with 2 kids and have only one parent working in the SE. I earn over that and DP cannot afford to not work!

In my case yanbu. I was on maybe 14 to 15k before going on maternity leave. 3 dc later and childcare in the holiday would mean I was paying to go to work and I would only just break even after paying for a childminder for 1 and before and afterschool club for 2. Instead I am self employed very part time and will look at going back when youngest at school.

It makes financial sense in the long term, even if it doesn't seem worth it at first. Keeping a foothold in your career can be extremely valuable.

Having a SAHP was certainly a lifestyle choice for us. In fact, it was the higher earner (my DH) in our family who became the SAHP. Our friends pay around £10-15k a year for childcare. Counting this and DH's commuting costs, that would still have given us an extra £12k a year if he still worked. But we decided that it would be better for our family if he stayed at home, otherwise he would never have seen DD during the week. We also think it benefits her having a SAHP.

I think it depends a lot on the area. Most sahms I know have made the choice without taking finances into account, but just thought about whether they want to use childcare or would rather be a sahm. House prices are high around here, so although I don't know all the details of their finances, their DHs are mostly in well-paid professions and they'd need a decent income to afford to live here.

DH doesn't earn loads, but we decided we wanted me to be a sahm because it seemed easier for the dc and DH's work pattern. We never really did any calculations for childcare as it wasn't a factor, but we have made a conscious decision to stop at one because we couldn't afford to upsize if we had another dc. I haven't really come across the attitude that DH must be loaded if I'm a sahm, but I don't think I'd feel insulted by it - more bemused, as we are really quite frugal and we have to be really. We definitely feel like the poor ones in this area (we can only afford to live here due to inheriting the property and it's only a small flat).

sleeping

My friend lives on a household income of just under £30k (he may be just over following a recent payrise)

But our eldest children are 16, I think even those extra 10 years have made a huge difference