AIBU to think that both husband and wife can make good money, do fulfilling work and take part in family life

[CalpolOnToast]

We are both self-employed.

My husband thinks that to bring in very good money as a family you need one partner working all the time and the other to be a SAHP or very flexible. He is willing to be the SAHP.

I think that it ought to be possible for us both to work part time, probably in our own business, and earn the same as one of us would but still have a decent amount of time with DS.

DH says he's never heard of anyone doing it and that I'm dreaming.

Has anyone reading this run a family business, earnt lots of money (Xenia type money ) and had time to spend with their children?

[SheGotAllDaMoves]

chchch I've found people rather keen to predict disaster in many of the scenarios that our family has morphed into. Some have had the good grace to admit they were wrong, but many are still cheerfully waiting for the shit to hit the fan .

My view with regards to most opportunities, is Give It A Go.

[Enjolrass]

but earning multiples of that with PT hours are, Is I think, rarer than this thread suggests.

this is true. Dh and I work about 90 hours a week between us. Sometimes he does more, sometimes I do.

It also means working when the kids are here or in bed. As long as the other parent is around its fine, though.

[FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld]

Yes. For 100k plus roles, which I'm guessing is what's meant by 'good' money here, I'd assume even a part time role would require what I'd consider to be full time hours. Like the poster upthread who does 3 extremely long days. That doesn't surprise me at all. DH and I don't pull in anything like that even between us, and would still be well below 100k even if we were both FT, but our unpaid overtime is only a handful of hours a week tops.

The SE issue has been briefly referenced. I would argue it probably helps to be in the regions if what you're looking for is work/life balance rather than earning as much as you possibly can: 50k in a cheap area of the north likely goes further than 100k in the south east and odds are you won't have to put in as many hours for it either. Agree with tobysmum that your take home in comparison to outgoings is what's significant.

[Bodicea]

From a tax perspective it's better for a couple to be earning the money more equally between them. Also child care vouchers, child benefit etc.
Ie a couple that earns £100k split 50/50 they would pay less income tax to begin with as both using their tax allowance etc and still get child benefit and be are to claim the maximum in free childcare once child turns three. If one person earns 100k they wouldn't get child benefit, wouldn't get any free childcare under new rules and would pay more high rate tax to begin with as well as not young the partners tax allowance. They would be considered beside table worse off.

[Bodicea]

*considerably worse off!!!!

[FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld]

The tax thing depends on what bracket you're in and what your work expenses are. Obviously I can see that if one person is higher rate, particularly if they don't get a personal allowance, they're paying much more tax as 1 x 110k than 2 x 55k unless those people have really hefty working expenses. But if you're on the 20% rate and have a reasonably expensive commute, that could easily eat up the couple of grand that two personal allowances instead of one offers a household.

[blueshoes]

ProjectPerfect: "I've worked PT in a corporate type job and I felt shafted - I did all the hours for 7/10 of the pay and felt I did everything badly.

Working FT has worked much better for me and the extra 3/10 salary has meant I could hire really good childcare."

Definitely agree, having worked both pt and ft. Much better to work ft (for ft pay, progression and better perceived commitment) flexibly than to work pt. The key is to negotiate flexibility - for me, that means the occasional ability to work from home which with technological advances, should not be much of an issue.

[slightlyglitterpaned]

Not inevitable though. I work pt and when I was promoted we sat down and figured out what would fit into 3 days a week. Am not the only person to be promoted after going part time.

[NickyEds]

Clearly the most efficient way to earn "very good money" and maintain a good family life would be to both work part time with flexability for a very high salary with some family help thrown in! I would say that this situation is vanishingly rare though. Good luck if you can get it though.
I think that usually something has to give somewhere, be it one person's career, time with the kids or time together. I don't know of anyone part time whose career has progressed at the same pace as a full timer really.

It also depends on what you understand by good amount of time with your children, I know some parents who think not seeing their kids at all during the week is fine because they don't work weekends and others who only work 15 hours a week and still think they don't see their kids enough.

In general though I think your dh is probably right- maybe not so much about one partner being a SAHM but definitely the flexability part.

[ProjectPerfect]

slightlyglitter can I ask either what level or salary bracket that was at?
Because I think there are very very few senior roles where you can sit down and figure out what fits into three days. Unless your some sort of shift type worker (surgeon/pilot) and even then I would be surprised if we were talking anything like "Xenia money" - which is the rub.

[blueshoes]

I agree. I think for senior employed roles in the private sector, 4 days a week is probably the minimum pt commitment outside of the 'divisible'-type work that GPs, dentists do. Perhaps consultant and non-executive board roles but that pre-supposes a certain level of experience and seniority in order to be eligible for consideration.

I imagine pt and flexi working promotion is easier for public sector roles but they don't come with the same level of remuneration generally.

[slightlyglitterpaned]

Project - true, this wasn't in the 100k plus bracket, occurred to me after posting that it didn't count in the context of this thread.

To get close to that at my current level I'd need to go contracting, though I have seen contractors on 3 day weeks. Usually because their rate is high enough that the client can't afford a full week, plus it allows the contractor to keep time free for other clients.

Contracting's a different ball game though to a permanent contract. IME the women I've met who went contracting because they wanted flexibility were working full time, and taking breaks between contracts in the summer to spend time with kids.

[slightlyglitterpaned]

In terms of role, it was a report into C level management role. We cut down the hours by giving me responsibility for strategy but no direct reports.

[M48294Y]

I'm sure there are many Mumsnetters who comfortably out-earn Xenia, but on the whole they prefer to keep quiet about it .

I would say that it is do-able when your children are young, but that old cliche that they need you more as they get older is absolutely true imo.

Dh and I are self empoloyed (different jobs, not a business together). I work 20 hours per week, he works more but mostly weekends and evenings. We earn about £100,000 - £120,000 pa and consider ourselves to be extremely lucky and fortunate and comfortable. And we live in London.

[shebird]

It depends on the nature of the business and your support network, but it is easier if at least one of you has a degree of flexibility in your working hours especially with school holidays etc. I think this applies to both employed and self employed work.

[Tamponlady]

It's not possible unless your minted most people either work and someone else paid or otherwise rises their child or they sat at home the part in family life and miss out on a career


My mother gave me very good advice

You can work and have childre but you can't have a career and have children

And no having someone else nanny , granny , childminder ,nursery look after your child 30-45 hours a week is not looking after your child

[Suzietwo]

What about having their father look after them?

[CalpolOnToast]

Tamponlady, DS having a parent with him the vast majority of the time is non-negotiable as we will home ed, but I don't agree that it will mean that one of us can only do dead end work.

I'd be happy with a situation where I work 2 days and DH 5, just not having him work 7 which is what would happen with one of the businesses we could go in to.

[Ellypoo]

DH is self-employed and works 4 days, one of which is a Sat, so he has 2 days/wk looking after DD(2) - I work full-time but with ability to WFH & flexi-time so I think we have a pretty good balance between us, Sun is dedicated family day, and I finish early on 1 wkday that DH is with DD so we have 'family time' then too. I think we have a pretty good balance and we both earn a comfortable amount - sharing the responsibilities of home, looking after DD & earning is important to us both and works really well for us.

[FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld]

It's not possible unless your minted most people either work and someone else paid or otherwise rises their child or they sat at home the part in family life and miss out on a career

Not true at all tamponlady. DH and I are comfortable but not minted, our household income should be about 46k this year. There will be 19 hours of the week when neither of us is at home, less if you factor in annual leave and bank holidays. And both of us have careers. Neither of us is exactly Bill Gates, but we have decent level professional roles. You can get plenty done in twentysomething hours a week if you're in the right field, and you don't necessarily have to be a superstar either. Just have reasonably in demand skills. I don't say this to brag, because I'm aware we're really lucky. I'd just hate for anyone to read all that negativity in your post and actually believe it.

[HappyGirlNow]

Does he just not want to work?

[EssexMummy1234]

Interesting OP that your OH is kindly willing to allow you to work your socks off whilst he 'imagines' staying home and kicking back with the kids - how nice of him.

Anyway I don't think Xenia has posted on here yet under whatever her current pseudonym is but I believe that her former husband was a teacher not a SAHP and her idea of good earnings probably starts at £250k and yes she is real.

[blueshoes]

Tampon, I dare say you (and your mother) lack imagination.

[BuggersMuddle]

I don't have DC, so I can't contribute fully to this thread, however we have been considering (and this is part of it) and I also have many colleagues in my line who work for me, so I can comment on what I know.

I do have one of these mythical higher rate tax paying flexible mid-senior management level roles. It's true that if I had kids (and indeed even without) I can flex my hours as a programme manager. At a more junior level you are somewhat at the mercy of your manager (e.g. me) and whilst I tend towards 'however the job is done', not everyone does. I have worked for some fabulous people, some with deep misconceptions (early starters good / late finishers good regardless of hours) and some assholes.

Friends in the industry who have family often do flex their hours and PT / compressed is possible, but I know very few who flex their hours entirely i.e. most either have partners in equally flexible or part time roles or significant help from family. You'd have to be very good to get a promotion on a non-standard working pattern, but it does happen. Also senior jobs tend to involve travel - even if only a couple of times a month. (For example a friend of mine had real problems because her asshole DH wouldn't step up at all even though she was earning twice his wage - either DM / DMIL stepped in or friend couldn't make her work commitments. His rather charming argument was that they bought a house in the commuter belt when they were both earning the same, so she could give up her work any time.).

I would say for us, we're on the border of being well enough off to afford a nanny, despite earning a fair bit. We have no family nearby, so would need to make sacrifices or try to pay for (elusive round here) childcare. In practice, I know from experience that DP will reference my 'flexible' job at every opportunity rather than flex his own (I earn 1/3 again on his salary so find this attitude...odd). That works for now when I'm dealing with heating services, deliveries etc. It wouldn't wash with childcare drop-off / pick up or sick kids etc.

[Picturesofmatchstickmen]

Can't help but at some if the figures not bitter at all how the other half live eh?