Is it easier being a SAHP, working PT or working FT?

[Bumpitybumper]

I am currently a SAHM to a baby and preschooler and have lots of friends that also SAH, work PT or work FT. We often have debates about which option is the easiest for the parent.

So theoretically if you had the option of being a SAHP, working PT and working FT and all options had the same financial renumeration and career opportunities afterwards which one would you pick? Also, which one would your say would be easiest even if you don't want to pick that option for whatever reason?

Just for ease, let's say the job in question is average in terms of responsibility etc. I know no such thing exists, but of course this kind of exercise would have different responses if we were talking about being a brain surgeon or doing a relatively easy role. Also if you opt for the SAH role you are at home with a toddler and baby of average temprament.

It all comes down to who does the housework. Working FT, coming home and having an evening to relax (put kids to bed as soon as you get in) compared to working FT and then putting in a second shift doing chores in the evening are two very different things.

Same as being SAHM, but having the kids off your hands for a couple of days a week is worlds apart from SAH and doing everything for everyone all of the time ‘as you don’t work’.

You get my point. I found working FT with one DC very different to working FT with two. With three, even PT was extremely awkward re. asking time off for appts, Doctors, school plays, they are ill at different times etc etc etc With no support to pick up the slack for you, and three DCs to look after, SAH was the least nightmarish option. I wouldn’t call it the best for me as I prefer to WOH for all the well-being reasons mentioned above. Sadly, nobody is there to take care of life’s stuff for me while I am at work. And I absolutely flatly refuse to do two shifts, one at work and one at home every single day.

So, for me, the easiest option is working FT and having a SAH ‘wife’ who takes care of everything else non-work related.

As others have said, it depends on all sorts of factors. I have school age children, so clearly SAHM would be the easiest, but it wouldn't be my choice as I like my job. Working PT, so the DC don't have to go to after-school childcare every day and I get some time off in the week, is the best balance IMO (and incidentally it is what I do).

So many variables. How many children, stage of parenting, how much you earn (meaning you can buy in help such as cleaning etc).

I've done all of them,

FT WOHM with DC1 & 2 at preschool age was lovely, a rush in the morning but I loved being a working parent, loved my job, had lovely weekends with the kids visiting friends, days out etc. DC very happy at nursery. All good.

FT WOHM with school age kids. Much Much Much Harder. Constant juggling. DC exhausted with after school care. So much to remember and organise. They need particular clothes and pe kits etc, not whatever you can find, finding time to do reading, homework. Weekends start to be taken over by swimming lessons which we couldn't fit in during the week, parties, gymnastics, football etc. Fitting in assemblies, sports days, playdates. Constant negotiations between DH & I. Always chasing our tail. Was always frazzled.

PT - fine but by then had DC3 & 4 (twins) so everything was hard, Being SAHM would have been hard at that stage too!

SAHM - found maternity leave pure drudgery with little ones tbh but 18 months ago decided to become SAHM which I never thought I'd do. DT2 has SEN and needs much more attention that the others who started to lose out. Its been great for the family, as everyone has what they need. Relationship with DH is relaxed again. The kids are all at school so I have time to stay on top of everything. But what a life change for me. I'm very happy day to day and have become great friends with some lovely people but I never planned not to work and have this constant nagging feeling that I've taken a very wrong turn, despite being relaxed, happy and healthy and having a relaxed, happy family! I think this is because at late 40s I feel it will be so hard to find work again when DTs are older.

With a preschooler and a baby I would choose PT work. If it was just the DS I actually have then I would pick SAHM.

Easiest being a SAHP.
Hardest of all is what I did: FT work from home with no childcare. What an idiot.

Thanks will try and do another count at the end of the day to see what the results look like.

I think this is an interesting question as I think society at large often assumes that women would opt to be SAHMs if finances allowed. Removing the financial element and the impact it has on careers highlights that actually a lot of women prefer to work and some find it easier than being at home.

I’ve tried them all. Being a SAHM is massively easier - for me. Everyone is different though and the things I might find easier might be the exact things others hate!

I think working FT with the other parent being a SAHP is the easiest. But the hardest is both working FT; too little time to do anything, constant stress, childcare/illness stress just when work is super critical as well. So yes all depends on the balance at home.

I think it depends on lots of things it's not black and white.
In all scenarios how many children you have and their ages, how stressful your job is, how good the childcare is, support network etc.

I'm a sahm to 3, my DH works ft. I have absolutely no help or support network, 2 kids have additional needs. The days are long, lonely and stressful. DH usually walks in from work fresh as a daisy while I'm hanging by a thread most days. He's knackered after a weekend with us. That kind of answers your question in our case.
But I imagine someone with a stressful job versus staying home with one child and a good support network would find the opposite.

Also just to remind people, the question is specifically SAHM of a baby and preschooler so no kids of school age. i agree with all those who say SAHM of kids at school is almost definitely easier.

It's not about easiest, who just chooses the easiest option in all things? it's a lot easier to chill out at home than do most other things but that's not to say lounging around at home all day would be a satisfying life.

I choose working p/t. I do about 30hours. I find this the right amount of time to be able to get into my work/career and make it satisfying and productive, and also the right amount of time to be away from my children/home.

Working less or not at all (mat leave) I found unsatisfying for my sense of self and creativity (my work is creative), working more I would find exhausting and stressful.

Part time definitely. Best of both worlds. A bit of time and intellectual actiivty and high heel wearing for me, more time with my kid and less rushed at the weekend.

museumum I agree that very few people would just go with the easiest option and it's often a complex decision based on a variety of factors.

It's just interesting to see how the answers have varied on what people regard as "easiest". I think what's clear is that there isn't a definitive answer.

I currently work p/t and feel like I've found a really good work-life balance for me.

I do 3 days a week commuting into London, then 1 day a week working from home. We have one school-aged child and one toddler.

4 days working means I feel like I'm pulling my weight fully at work (former f/t job with hours negotiated down) but the 1 day at home does make an enormous difference as I'm not stressing about the commute home and the sodding trains. DC are very happy with their childcare, and because I'm only commuting 3 days a week, on the rare days I have to pick them up after 6pm I don't feel too bad about it as it's a rarity.

It does help that DP does f/t shift work so his hours can be really good for picking up the kids at a decent time. Though the downside is I do a lot of weekends on my own with both children.

I wasn't sure how this would work when I first requested it but I do feel like I've hit a sweet spot at the moment. I get three days a week with the children to spend time, go to classes and activities etc, and I also get to spend enough time in work for me to feel personally happy (I didn't enormously enjoy maternity leave and being at home with the children all the time).

I'm lucky though that I work for a very family-friendly firm who, despite the odd niggles about fixed working hours, are supportive and allow flexible working like this.

FT work with a SAHP who is fully responsible for all household and child reated tasks, including washing and ironing your working clothes; remembering DC's dentist appointments and their friends' birthdays; sending your mum flowers on mothers day from 'all of us', etc.
If you take the kids to park on the weekend so the SAHP can tidy and scrub the house in peace, you are admired as a 'hands on parent' and asked if you're babysitting to give the other parent a break. Other parent will tell their envious friends that you sometimes even help them to do the dishes!

Basically, I find it's easiest to be FT working. If you have a wife.

I think it’s a bit of a “piece of string” question, but for me what makes or breaks it is your (collective/combined) earning power, support of DP, flexibility of work available and availability of grandparents/hired help/whoever else to provide additional support.

Fwiw I’m a mum to one 8 month old. I wfh when she naps/evenings/a few hours on the weekend. I also have other money coming in. DH works ft, earns a high salary. I’m knackered but broadly happy. Was previously a “high flier” in the City.

@KatharinaRosalie exactly right.

It might be "easiest" to work FT and have a SAHP but i would be so so envious of my partner's relationship with the children if that was me. I'd feel left out :(

I'd be a SAHM if money were no object. I found life easier and more fun on mat leave (I have two children less that 2 years apart).

In reality I work 3 days a week on a reasonable salary (not £40k pro rata like a pp suggested is needed to make it worth it). My salary covers the mortgage and our childcare so financially it is worth it.

SAHP is easier IME (no childcare headaches, loads of time to do chores, no work stress) but less enjoyable and rewarding - for me anyway.

Now I'm self employed I work part time from home. It's the perfect set up for us.

PT, 2-3 days of work with/without long commute.

Tried all & this one worked best.

Tried PT 4 days and that was the worst. You end up working 40 hours+, have a pay cut, the world thinks you have such leisure, you don't know what you are focussing on! Worst!!

I'm a sahm to school age children.

I've been a full time working mum too.

If I could choose between staying at home with a baby and a pre schooler or working full time, I'd choose to work full time... providing you have good, reliable childcare it is by far the easiest option.

I'm about to go back to work FT after being on mat leave for 10 months. I am fully expecting full time work to be much, much easier. I do have family doing childcare 4 out of 5 days though and I will be working a 10 minute drive from my DS so feel like I will still see him a fair bit (at lunchtime etc)

I have done all 3 - first FT, then SAH, now part time. For me SAH was definitely the easiest (but we were skint) and FT was awful. PT is the best balance bw financoal security and my sanity.

I'm a SAHP to a toddler and baby and would love to go back to work PT as I was with only 1 LO. The endless chores, nappies and trying to find something to entertain them both is so tedious at times. I dread days when the weather is so bad we can't go out.

I'm looking forward to when the free hours kick in so I can enjoy a better balance between my kids and some grown up time. I also hate relying entirely on DH for money, and I know he feels the pressure of being the sole provider for us.