Small life or big life?

[Pufferthemagicjacket]

Two quite different options are available to me right now:

A: Continue to be SAHM. Plenty of time to exercise, keep house, go to appointments, have coffees with friends etc. Some days I feel very lucky, other days feel like I’m aimlessly drifting a bit. Can afford a few “nice to have’s” but lifestyle fairly basic.

B: Accept FT job. Enjoy “sense of purpose” and extra money, but this would be intermingled with quite a bit of stress and general feeling of overwhelm (have done before). Also, childcare issues. But financial security would be a plus. I would also pay for cleaner etc, so would get a break from some menial tasks that have been my job for a number of years.

AIBU to have no idea which option is best?! WWYD?

Love this, it depends on why you are going back to work full time , I did it to pursue my dream career so it was a wonderful experience in that sense but came at alot of other costs and stress. I now work quite part time (fortunately still in dream career so going full time to establish that was worth it) and gives all of us a far better life than when I was full time

Take the job - easy to go back to being a SAHM if it doesn’t work out for you, harder to get offered another decent full time job.

I’ve seen that happen too and think people have to be honest with themselves as to what they want and not be a martyr, if they have a dream to pursue a certain career and don’t much like being a SAHM then they should go for it, often is is confidence which stops them then they say they sacrificed everything for the DH and kids

I would take the job if it’s like for like. That’s unusual most people have to take (several) steps backwards….

Even if they would be homeless as a result?

Yes he is dependent on you for childcare and housework and yes you're a team right now but if that was ever to change and he divorced you then there is only one member of the team (you) who would be at a significant and potentially lasting disadvantage financially because of the time you've taken off. I'm not bashing SAHM because I was one and I still only work part time but a woman's work as a SAHM enables a man's career whilst potentially ending her own if its for a long period. My husband and I had a rocky patch a few months ago where we seriously considered divorce. It suddenly became very clear to me how buggered I would be financially: not only could I not have supported myself or my children in anything like the life we have now, I would be the one scrambling to find a job which would inevitably pay me far less than he earns now. He would be able to outsource childcare and cleaning (the stuff I had done) but I wouldn't have been able to outsource the stuff he did (bringing in the money). And yes pensions are an asset but in a divorce it would form part of the negotiation. For example, the man may argue he should keep his entire pension if the woman keeps more equity in the house. Or they may agree to split his pension in half but the non-working person would still need to go out and find a way to plug the gap all the way until retirement.

Take the job. Build some savings and a stronger cv that would let you step back if the stress gets too much.

or if you don’t take the job, take on a real voluntary role - the kind where you make a decent contribution to a local organisation. That can also give you purpose and friendships

I do get your point about the potential financial disadvantage in the long term between a single woman having a high paying career or minimum wage job, however it can come at such a cost that means she’s worse off financially and in so many other ways than if she had found a happy medium. I also think any man or woman who thinks they can maintain the same lifestyle divorcing and separating into 2 separate households is deluded. It makes me laugh when I read recently separated women on here complaining that they can’t maintain the same lifestyle for themselves and their children i.e. house in London, cinema every week, holidays etc. Although at the same
time I think you underestimate the support available if you are a single parent on a low income (say that as someone having been there). You also perhaps overestimate how far a man’s income stretches once tax, maintenance etc is paid and when he’s also maintaining a home and time to facilitate shared care, your DH would have to be on an exceptionally high income to pay for cleaners etc on top of all that. The assets are usually split on a fairly even basis so getting to keep the equity in the house in exchange for the equivalent in pension assets is usually not a bad deal at all and such women are usually far better than the total assets they would have built up as a single woman who had children ( even if theoretically they had done 50% shared care and child related expenses with a non resident co parent from birth)

What are SAHM parents contributing? All parents are bringing kids up whether they're working or not so what else are they contributing? And it's not derogatory, it's just fact. At her kids' age they're at school for the majority of the day so if you're at home and not parenting then you're not working. And if you're not parenting, not working, at home and doing housework, you're a housewife. Not sure why that's derogatory, it's just a description.

Argh, I feel for you. I've been looking for a pt job for several months and it's impossible. I've resigned myself to looking for ft and just dealing with it, but not yet, as it's pointless accepting a job now that will expect me to start just as the 6 week holiday starts.

Seriously well done! That sounds like a great opportunity to be going back at the same level after 7 years off. Even if you did it for a year and decided it isn’t for you it would put some recent experience on your CV.

Definitely not my dream job. Although, hard to say what is, ha!

For this role, most work has to be done on-site, although there is some potentially some flexibility to work one or two afternoons from home, for example.

i have been offered the role because my old
boss is connected to another organisation where they have someone retiring and my old boss recommended me (knowing that I am looking for work).

It was the use of the word “just” that is derogatory.
They contribute to society by not relying on taxpayers to fund their childcare therefore not burdening the state, . Some, like I did, may also do voluntary work.

Remember we’re talking about school aged kids.

I'd take option 1. There will always be more money but never enough time. Life's too short to be stressed and overwhelmed all the time.

Yes we are, but they will still need looking after during school holidays, and in some instances before & after school. I may not agree with children spending hours in childcare or having to go to breakfast clubs or after school clubs but it’s personal choice. I don’t vindicate working parents but it seems on here STAM get a raw deal on here.

I pick 2 with the aim long term to reduce your hours. Get your foot in the door, work bloody hard for a year and then look at working 4 days etc.

But it’s good after all these years you’re not still chippy about it eh.

Take the job. Being able to get back into your old career at the same level is amazing. It will be easier to stick it out for a while and then see if you can negotiate compressed hours, fewer hours or buying extra annual leave in the future than it will be to get back into it in 4-5 years,

Working will give you a pension, financial independence, remove the financial weight from your DH etc. I had 8 years out altogether and I was stir crazy by the end. I mostly had a wonderful time and it was great for the kids and us as a family but more and more of my friends went back to work and I started to feel out of place.

Rude to call raising children and running a home a “small life”. I’d choose that life a million times over. But finances require me to work.

When my kids were the ages of yours, I went back to work after a while being a SAHM.

I resigned after a year for a number of reasons, some to do with family (DD1 has SN and wasn’t doing well, DH was useless at taking on any domestic load) and some to do with the job. I’m pleased I gave it a go, if only to stop the “what ifs”.

I think you should give it a go. You also have financial reasons (there weren’t many financial benefits in my case). It may also be a good stepping stone to a better/more flexible job.

I wonder - genuinely, I’m not being facetious - what’s the best in these circumstances though? I have a relative who works a lot, in the way that you describe, and her husband does the same. They have a very full time nanny. I used to feel a bit sorry for the children (I know it’s judgemental), but I now often wonder whether they get the better deal as the family are loaded and the kids have the benefit of a professional looking after them, whereas my kids certainly don’t! I suppose there are pros and cons to both.

Nearly everyone on here will say option 2 so not much point asking.

I'd go for option 1 which would be better for your health and sanity.

I was a SAHM for 8 years and went back part time when my youngest started school. The extra money is nice but it was a huge adjustment at first. I am able to do all drop offs and DH works from home and does all pick ups. It is a hell of a lot easier being a SAHM and I do miss those relaxed care free days when we would have the whole day ahead of us on no one’s schedule but mine and DCs. I’m extremely grateful for those years and tbh am very tempted to jack the job in again some weeks! It’s a lot of juggling and a hell of a mental load. The grass is always greener I guess.

Even if the family are getting benefits because they are a SAHM?