Yet another article re: why mothers should return to work

[boogiewoogie]

Just snatching a couple of minutes during a coffee break, will come back. What do you think of this?

I think it's interesting and that she makes some very good points. I think that if you are going to make the choice of being a SAHM then the long-term possible financial implications should not be overlooked.

TBH though I think that a huge crux of the debate related to how much you like your job and how rewarded you feel by it, not just in monetary terms but in consideration of how you feel valued in your role. I love my job therefore fulltime work is good for me, if I hated my job or spent all day doing menial tasks then I would probably rather be a SAHM.

I think that when she talks about health I wonder if this relates to the general socioeconomic status of the women rather than their specific work status as she potrays it.

I also found it a pretty good article, but then I share a lot of her opinions, so I would!

Financial independence is hugely important to me. If I mention this to other mothers their response is often "I trust my husband, so that isn't an issue". What I liked about the article was that it made it clear that this is not a trust issue.

Having said that, I have a very challenging and stimulating job, so it is an easy decision for me to make.

And where do the children feature in that article. My working patterns are dictated by my children's needs- particularly by ds1 (try getting childcare for a nonverbal severely autistic almost 8 year old boy). If I was that worried about our financial circumstances I wouldn't have had children. Then we could have both worked full time, happily.

It dawned on me that this is one of the reasons why I need to work even though our family doesn't need me to financially at the moment.

It was weird seeing an unxpressed, back of the mind, thought set out in print. I really don't think many SAHP'S consider it gambling with their family's financial security but perhaps they should.

Perhaps a hormonal pregnant woman is not in the best state to think about long term earning capacity and financial responsibilities in just the same way that some couples throw caution to the wind in planning and paying for their wedding day regardless of the financial impact but 2 years later when they still have no savings to speak of, they kind of regret that they focused no further than the wedding/honeymoon.

I do think that one of the taboo subjects at the time of having small children is how hard it may be to earn a good salary after taking several years out of the workplace. Let's face it, it's just not employer friendly to have jobs with term-time only working hours. I'd be elbowing my way to the front of the queue if such jobs existed in my profession.

yes, financial independance is important to me too. i like to know i have my own pension ticking along for example, no worries if dh were ever to leave. i am in a position where i enjoy my job, i chose to work somewhere family friendly where i can do hours to suit me and my family.

dh has always had a very unstable job, so i returned to work for the security, not the day by day money. i am now hoping to cut my hours slightly (approx 3 hours per week) wo that i can pick dd up when she starts school. however, i've done this in the full knowledge that retirement will come later. a pretty well balanced argument, not trying to prove a point, but opene some eyes to hard facts - nowadays, you have to work for about 50 years if you want to retire, pensions are less supportive than they used to be, and you can easily end up on your own with very little money. it's scary just how much money you need to guarantee securit - and very few of us have it!
wouldn't it be nice if it was easier to return to work after a break? there are so few jobs where it isn't a lifetime decision, and surely a woman (or man) with 10 years' experience, a few years off, and wanting to return to work, should be welcomed into the workplace. unfortunately that isn't the case, and i would have to start my career again & build up my reputation from scracth, and i'm in a moderately parent friendly industry (teaaching)
perhaps there could be some way of encouraging employers to see trained, experienced & successful adults as an asset to their company, instead of being suspicious of a few years doing alternative employment? it seems to me that a single male taking a couple of years out to travel is given more opportunites to return to work thatn a mum who stayed home for a while?

Well I fell into the category where I would have been working for nothing and I am sorry but I was not prepared for the hassle of commuting and stress of juggling work and family to receive no financial reward by the time childcare had been paid for.

I do have a plan after I have baby no 2 (hopefully next year) I plan to study for a masters and to work freelance once the youngest is at nursery. I am determined and I know it won't be easy but I am sure I will succeed.

I think most SAHM's are fully aware of the sacrafices they have made in order to stay at home and either have a career plan or are happy to step of the career ladder completely. I found her article patronising.

"Well I fell into the category where I would have been working for nothing and I am sorry but I was not prepared for the hassle of commuting and stress of juggling work and family to receive no financial reward by the time childcare had been paid for"

Me too, completely agree with your entire post, nogoes. I worked for 6 weeks after having dd, left to be a sahm. I earnt nothing in those 6 weeks. All went on childcare & travelling. No worth gettng up at 5.45am each morning for literally nothing!

it's great if you do have a plan, and i agree that for most people it's true that you bring home precious little after paying for childcare, but what would happen if you no longer had dp's income? we've had several months when he's been paid nothing, so my income was necessary, if i hadn't worked we'd have had to sell the house. compared to the stress of those times, being tired from working seems a minor problem. it's up to each person to make their own decisions, ( and I DO NOT advocate either sahm or wohm) but i think a lot of families make the decision based on the next few years or so, and don't think about how it will affect them in 50 years time.
sadly, working ft & paying into a pension no longer guarantees you a pension, so and i think a lot of people haven't realised that yet. certainly, the people i know who are sahm mums are saying they'll worry about a pension later, but they're 40, what age are they expecting to retire at?

I'd love to get a job......

.....If someone else could pay for my two to be looked after.

If anyone can help me with this conundrum, please send your answers on a postcard to the usual address.

I decided to bite the bullet and continue working, albeit part time, when I had 2 lots of childcare to pay for, but we only had to cope with that for 6 months. I was bringing home precious little for that time, but because I could see that it would ease once DD went to school, we put up with it.

Realistically, we need my salary anyway. When I took August off as unpaid leave last year, it really did us in financially (though it was lovely at the time).

Fascinating article - has made me think.

incidently, this article made me think, yes, but it isn't all about the money, is it? because of my situation, i'd have carried on working even if i came home with £0. as a) i'd have been getting pension & possible oay rises/promotions etc and b) when dh didn't work he could be a sahd and THEN i would have been earning.

what i like about the article, is it doesn't seem to take any moral ground on the sahm/wohm thing, just a financial analysis, what i don't like about it is that it implies we should all make the best financial decisions in life - if we did that, NONE of us would have kids - they are certainly NOT good for the bank balance!

Tis all very well if you actuallu have a career though.

I'm only good for cleaning bogs, unfortunately

Sorry - meant to add, I suspect I might have seriously considered giving it all up had I actually been working for nothing at all, including the 5.45am starts described by sandcastles, and if the situation had been going to go on for years instead of months.

walrus, you're not just good for that, and that's kind of what the article also says, that you can be 'good for' a range of things. yes, i am lucky that i had a job 'worth' going to, but a little less lucky in having no choice about it, and management who have NO parent friendly attitutudes amongst them. i've hit my head on the glass ceiling so hard & so often that i've gone numb about it BUT i have to keep on working as i'm scared of the financial implications if i don't. i'm hoping that my years of hard work will be rewarde by a long and relaxing retirement, with dh, but who knows what will happen?

squeaky- it just depends how you plan things, if you can of course. i chose to work somewhere that i can have a decent career, with a good wage, and i work evenings. it just depends what your priorities are. for lots of women their main goal in life is to have children, planning a career is secondary. for me, i planned the two together way in advance.

Absolutley agree with kickingeasterangel when she made the observation that employers should be encouraged to see skilled women who may have stayed at home to look after children for a little while as potential assets to their company - and not be afraid to employ them. The article put no onus of responsibility on employers to change their perception of SAHMs or on governments to create real opportunities for them when they want to re-enter the workforce.

I am currently a SAHM, a decision I made largely on an emotional basis, and partly because I came across a lot of recent evidence that suggested that children under 2 fare better when they have one-to-one care, whether from a parent, grandparent, or nanny. The article just skips quickly over this stuff. I am not judging anyone, as I don't think the differences in outcomes for children are that great, and everyone's circumstances are different, but they were enough to sway the argument for me.

I moved to a different area when I was pregnant with ds1. I was a secondary school teacher then I became a temp administrator before ds1 was born. It was difficult to find a job after that, particularly when I didn't want to stay in teaching and thought about retraining to do something in the financial services. Sadly that didn't materialise but on the other hand, I did manage to find a part time teaching job when ds was 18 months. To me, it's about keeping my foot in the career door. I don't love my job at the moment, it's just a job. I am currently doing nightclasses with a view of one day doing something that I do enjoy and where I can choose my hours to get the right balance.
The article does have some good points and dh and I have not really discussed what we would do if he or myself get knocked by a bus tommorow leaving one of us widowed.

i know people who have returned to work at a loss because they knew that long term it makes sense. not sure i would have the determination to do that. personally, i think the emotional argument for being a sahm is the strongest - if i REALLY wanted to be one, then we could have moved to a smaller house or dh worked all day then one of us worked eve to cover the mortgage - if you are REALLY determined about things, it's often possible to work things out. however, in RL the majority of people i know made their decisions based on this year/nest year finances, this article takes a much longer look at things, & it's probably good to be reminded of them, how many of us make our decisions based on our life's finances? (not even sure we should tbh)

I agree KEA- the article was entirely about finances. If I took a financial view of my life and made decisions based on that I would not have any children at all. But I don't, I never have. Good job too because one severely disabled child later all "plans" were scuppered. Had I been planning my life out years in advance I'm not sure how I would have coped.

I thought reading the article that she just lived on a totally different planet to me.

You are right gess. From a financial point having a child in my case was total madness.

i found it patronising too. And no mention of children's needs whatsoever. and oblivious to the problem of how expensive childcare is for so many.

I agree the tone is patronising and somwwhat scaremongering re the divorce / partner dying aspect, but I do agree about teh career break / returning to work issue.

I chose to return to work when DS was 2 having taking vountary redundnacy while on mat leave, for several reasons, but one was our lonmg term financial situation.

The reality was that if I decided to be a SAHm forever, we would have to downsize, and neither of us wanted that. I also felt that if I wanted to return to work at some point, it was better to keep my hand in, particulalry from an IT point of view.

I found the amount of prejudice out there against a returner after a 2 year career break (bearing in mind 1 year could have been on MAT leave) was bad enough, i wouldn;t have fancied my chances at all afer 5+ years.