To be shocked at how many of my (public) school friends are now SAHM

[TrophyCat]

Went to a baby shower last week. The mum to be is an old school friend and there were 8 others from our school there.

We all went to a well known public school, we all have degrees (3 from the bunch went to Oxbridge), and yet 5 of us are stay at home mums, 2 of the women that work don't have dc. So only 1 woman with DC has continued to work.

Most of us had careers before dc, but quit work after marriage and having children.

Interestingly, although a couple of us send our DC to private school absolutely no one has any plans to send their DC away to board ever.

@Monkeynuts18

If you’re in London, a FT nanny will probably be 40k + employer’s NI on top, fee for sb to sort out pay and payslips, a kitty + some other costs compared to a nursery (money for classes, food and all-day house heating). So all in, you are looking at 80-90k out of your gross income.

@Karmachameleon - netting >£1k is fantastic after childcare costs are taken out, but also please don't perpetuate the notion that all childcare costs should come out of your salary.

Childcare is a JOINT cost. It maddens and saddens me when senior people like you post about it as a women's issue.

@dontalltalkatonce

Lol ‘high powered jobs’ generally entail working 50-60h+ a week. With a commute on top, it’s impossible to have time for children too.

Maybe this shows that given the financial choice, a lot of people would prefer to stay at home rather than leave very young children in childcare. However gender pay gap does widen significantly after first child and also after working part time, indicating choice to leave work to look after children even for a short time, has a permanent impact on wage progression and pensions, something perhaps women don't take into account when taking that decision.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10358

I earn a low six figure income and I have to earn £90k to just cover the cost of a nanny, which is the only realistic childcare option

So you are a lone parent with no contact with the other parent? Why is it your sole remit to pay for childcare?

If they have good jobs/careers to go back to I think they'll soon go running back. Although some DO seem to love it! (those with high earning DPs!)

Being a SAHM is the hardest job I've ever done, and I've done it for the last 8 years, suffered so much isolation, financial loss and practically lost my mind. I can't wait to get back into the adult world!

Lol ‘high powered jobs’ generally entail working 50-60h+ a week. With a commute on top, it’s impossible to have time for children too.

LOL plenty of men seem to manage it just fine .

Do you have any friends who aren't "(public) school friends"?

How are they doing - are they bucking the trend?

It’s easier if one person is home more but both out of the house for long hours can be too much of a cost especially if one is earning a lot

LOL plenty of men seem to manage it just fine

Because they’re married to sb whose workload isn’t as bad.

I am very happy to become a SAHM. And DH is very happy to have a career and provide for the family.

And re money coming out of the woman’s pay: for couples with joined finances is the same difference whether both parents take home 2k less or one of them takes home 4k less...

Probably because their husbands earn enough for them to be SAHMs. Who wouldn't want to be given the choice.

Probably because their husbands earn enough for them to be SAHMs. Who wouldn't want to be given the choice

Me, I love my job, did 3 years a SAHP, plenty thanks! Also know really high earners who choose to work/partner to work, they tend to have interesting jobs (doctor, academic) which they don't want to lose for a decade or more as it's not just a money thing, you would essentially be unemployable after and these type of jobs gain prestige as you go so being more senior/higher up when you jump off is better. If you never want to work again or would be happy to start again later in life, it may be different.

Probably because their husbands earn enough for them to be SAHMs. Who wouldn't want to be given the choice

Me. It has never occurred to me and I would hate it. Both of us earn enough that we don't both need to work.

The men who married these high earning women presumably also didn't want to SAH either

Probably because their husbands earn enough for them to be SAHMs. Who wouldn't want to be given the choice

Me. We could have made it work if we had to. But I wanted to go back part time. I was happy to go back to work at the end of my year maternity leave, the full time SAHM life is NOT for me.

I wonder if their parents think it was worth the expensive education and time to get the career to then give it up?

Some will return to the workforce in time I suppose but not all industries make this possible

People with top notch educations and Well
Paid careers marry other people with top notch educations and well paid careers. Together they realize that they can lead a much happier, easier life with one of them staying home or working part time. They still remain well up the economic ladder, but give extremely high household income for happiness.

At least that is what my husband and I did. And pretty much every other family in our neighborhood. We lead quite nice lives this way.

What's annoying is that the chosen few who get into Oxbridge go off and work in the City making wads of money rather than doing something more beneficial for mankind.

Some people may have high earning spouses for sure.However many parents who choose to have a SAHP ,may be cutting down on holidays ,new clothes etc ,and accepting a lower standard of living but less stress with Nursery Drop Offs and so on . I am a SAHP with older children ,had a reasonable job with a good education ,but wanted to be at home with them .Conversely my DM had to work and I went to friends house after School ,sometimes just wanted to go home .

I was a SAHM as it wasn’t possible for us both to work demanding jobs and look after our child.
When you have a demanding job, they won’t let you work part time usually.
In answer to the “ you are fucked if you divorce argument” not really I walked away with a 600k house, no mortgage and huge maintenance for over ten years. Still no need to work.
It can be ok.

Nearly all the women I know who have not taken a career break have had very supportive parents to help with child care.

After paying tax, childcare and commuting costs I bring home about £1k a month.

When the DC were small DH and I both worked PT and I was earning about £36K and I took home a similar amount after childcare (3DC at nursery/in wrap around) so I'm surprised someone on 3 to 4 times that salary is taking home a similar amount. The benefit is of course as soon as the youngest started school we upped our hours (but both still PT) and did 9/10 drop off and pick ups so our childcare costs are now trivial and our salaries are much better.

I wouldn't have had children if I had had to give up work and most of my (oxbridge educated) friends are similar, several of us earn more than our DHs and most of my workmates talk about being desperate to return to work after maternity leave so this idea that you get all sentimental and can't bear to leave your child is quite alien to me.

Trying to think of the parents at school, there is a SAHD who does loads of voluntary work (like the kind of SAHM of my parent's generation who ran everything and held communities together), a couple of SAHM then everyone else works. Very naice middle class state school.

Yes I was going to say that too, those that are financially free not to work, have the security that should the marriage go to the wall they can simply walk away with half of everything and will still not need to work if they don't want to. I am sure they are intelligent enough to work out exactly how it will work in every scenario.

I don't know many families that would choose be working 40-60 hours a week, never seeing their children and permanently exhausted at the weekends if they don't have to.
Many have made their mark already, and are quite happy to raise their children in comfort without the stress.

Its only a problem if you are not married, or do not have the means to get divorced and still continue a similar/same free lifestyle.

It’s tricky for two people to have high powered careers. Yes it’s frustrating that it’s often the woman that steps back. It’s not right but it’s down to many,many different factors.

I think for those women that have not had to give up a high powered job, maybe you had more family help? Maybe your husbands were back before 10 at night and didn’t travel lots. Maybe your job was flexible and allowed WFH. Maybe you didn’t have a long commute etc etc.

Now I could have made my high powered career work but I would have needed a live in nanny. And I still wouldn’t have seen my children all week as I didn’t get home until. 7.30.

Are we all so short-sighted that we can’t see everyone has different circumstances.

I do work part time now but don’t earn nearly as much.

I don’t think I’d be stuffed if we divorced.’My name is on two houses which have lots of equity in them (and yes I contributed to the deposits etc) Not a boast but I hate this ‘All women are stuffed if they divorce and don’t earn much’ mentality. Anyway I’d hate to run myself in to the ground never see my children just in case my marriage broke down.

Others can make it work I’m sure.

If the reality is not seeing your dc during the week but not needing to stay at work for the money how many do do it? I do know a few but many who choose not to.