High earning mothers

[ClarissaG]

I'm interested to start a discussion group for Mums and Mums to be who are juggling (or planning to juggle) a high flying career and motherhood. I loath to use the term 'Power Mums', but those who earn enough (£100k plus) to afford a team of help, but have the kind of pressures and working hour expectations that that level of salary brings.

I read the Mumsnet Guest blog with interest (www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_blogs/1977242-Why-is-society-so-unsupportive-of-high-achieving-power-mums) but the comments less so.

Is there scope for a supportive group for such Mums with practical ideas, experiences and thoughts rather than judgement about whether we can 'have it all'?

I am mid thirties, a VC, 12 weeks pregnant and have not yet told my fellow partners. I want it all but have no idea if that is realistic or how my future is going to pan out!

It is a really interesting point. I don't think I've got a difficult baby as such, in that he doesn't cry much and is very smiley... But he won't just sit there while I do what I want - the whole day is focused on him, not me.

I have found myself utterly bored, frustrated and extremely lonely and now cannot wait to get back to work!!

I have never had a baby that just sat there. Even when they are wiggling around wanting to be constantly held there are usually loads of chores to do. I think because we had 3 close together - when the third was born the older two were 1 and 3 it was particularly harder although lovely for them now, at university at just about the same time, getting jobs at the same time etc.

It's nice when women can talk about wanting to be back at work. So many groups of women are just full of women who want not to be at work or glad they don't do it that some who want to work don't realise it is absolutely fine to want to work. In fact I would say the best balanced lives are work and children (just like men have and get and want).

In the fact biggest difference for me now having teenagers (the youngest 2) is that they don't need constant attention. I am working at home today and I've had a central heating man in and the cleaner here and I didn't even see one of them until after 12 noon. Once they are older they are just so much more independent and lovely and it's easy although I did choose to take one out when I went to do my errands and they bought some disgusting looking fish and chips.

I never had those easy babies and to top it off dc1 was bf till 2 and dc2 till she was 3. It was easier in that I could sleep and feed when she woke up. They also didn't sleep through till 2/3. And I went back to work when they were 6 months.

Also my NCT group (which I joined for dc1) - I was the only one that went back ft to work. 3 didn't go back at all, 2 went back pt. interestingly those 2 and I were the 'highest educated' (dentist, scientist and project manager).

Yes DS has only slept through perhaps 10 or 12 times and he is 14 months. Yesterday he did sleep through but then had no nap AT ALL! He has always just seemed to need less sleep than they are meant to, even in the first 48 hours after he was born he didn't flake out and instead screamed and screamed for the milk that hadn't yet come in. The nurses gave him a bottle in the end because he was disturbing everyone else! I do think the first year or so would be a v different experience if you had a good sleeper. I went back to work at 5 months so it has been a long time of working hard on not enough sleep, though DH and I divide the nights equally.

All of my NCT group (v highly qualified professionals) went back, though a couple on slightly reduced hours. But friends further on tell me the real crunch is after no. 2, that's when there's a really big drop on return to ft work, even among professional women. We are starting the process of recruiting a nanny at the moment and apparently being certain that you'll return after no 2 is a draw as so many mothers don't.

I don't really belong in this group because my income is not at the level of most of yours. But I am v ambitious and rising fast in my field. Also we are lucky that DH inherited some money so we are better off than most of our colleagues in similar jobs i.e. can afford to have a nanny if it's the best solution for us. I am also struck by how both this thread and the Grove book stressed over and over again to get as much domestic support as you can possibly afford if you both want to maintain careers. We are taking that to heart!

High earning is relative. Anyone can join the thread although some women at home might find it a bit upsetting as I have mentioned advantages to families and babies of women working which is not always the message they want to hear if they've decided to stay at home.

Yes, domestic help helped us. With the first 3 children we could not afford even a cleaner for a few hours until they were getting a bit older and even that made a huge difference.

I was always ambitious so even after the second child was quickly back at work. I found it much harder at home with two rather than one so surely that makes you more likely want to escape to the safe haven of a warm office during working hours rather than wanting even more hours of hour on hour cleaning and comforting of gorgeous but very hard work little babies and toddlers. Also if you pay a nanny then the cost is the same if you have two under 5 rather than just one so the second did not prompt a financial problem for us whereas it would if you were paying £14k pa per child nursery place and have a second baby suddenly also needing that nursery place.

I sometimes wonder if very long leaves and going part time are a result of prosperity, that most men and women fif they did not need to work would not whether they have children or not and that US women who often return full time quickly and women when I had mine 20 years ago similarly needed the money. We didn't have a choice although in my case the work is so good that was definitely not the only reason. I did join an NCT working mothers group which was better than the normal NCT classes which I was also in where a lot did not return to work often for cultural reasons - very mixed racially around here and plenty of women from cultures where women are second class, earn nothing and do what men say, marriages are arranged, where even brothers are preferred over daughters, young daughters serve their brothers at home - disgusting appalling sexist stuff one hopes will die out. However the working mothers NCT group was a local spin off which was good as suddenly I was with mothers who worked. However that was a long time ago so I am not sure if they still do those. Anyway we have the internet now which makes finding someone similar to anyone is so much easier.

There seems to be a theme here about high earning mothers having active and non sleeping babies... I wonder if it's because we have passed on our "get up and go" to our children or whether having a more demanding baby made going back to work more attractive as an easier option! Or a bit of both.

That's a very good point Laura about the impact of a second set of nursery fees. I bet that is a big reason behind the big drop off after child number 2. I wonder how much drop off there is for families who employ a nanny; I would hope it would be a lot less as the cost doesn't increase as you say. (Though, at some point we'll have to pay for nursery school/school fees AND a nanny... that will be painful). I have already told our nanny that we would like to keep her throughout next maternity leave and beyond...!

Ds1 was a great sleeper.

Ds2 was a horror.

There will be no DC3!

Yes at least in London if you are going to have two under three for at least a year (so no free nursery hours for either) then a nanny actually starts to make sense. That's partly why we are thinking of switching now - we are hoping to have a second but want to anticipate because my pregnancy is very likely to be truly horrendous so we want to put the extra help (and support for DS) in place before I am admitted to hospital as an emergency the week after I miss my period!

I'm sure the expense is the main factor in why so many women go part time or not even that between having no. 2 and when both are in nursery/school. But it's tough because if you are a professional woman these days you are probably in your thirties at that point, just at a crucial point for career development. I would hate to be out even for two or three years right now, even if you could get back in at the same level (which in my career is essentially impossible) I think you would be paying for the gap for a long time.

Yes interesting anecdata emerging about driven parents and restless babies I agree! He was restless even in the womb, I remember worrying (presciently!) while still pregnant that he appeared never to sleep.

That's true. Also a nanny gives you a bit more control. We never had one living in but she certainly could look after the children if they had colds and coughs and chicken pox.

Of course for those of us who earned 10x our other half (which I did ultimately) the fact childcare is expensive is not really a female issue at all , is it? You might give up work if you earn £20k as a man or woman as that might not easily cover child care but not if you earn £100k. Also even if you work at a loss for a year (whether male or female) if it preserves a career which will earn you a lot going forwards and you enjoy then it's worth it. It's a kind of loss leader investment.

I think most babies don't sleep very much. My brother and sister both had similar babies, none sleeping all night at under a year. One of my teenagers whom I just went up to see is still asleep (1.30pm half term).

It's not only the cost of childcare, I've seen high earning parents driven out of London by property prices once they need a bit more space. Longer commutes + two ft working parents with inflexible hours just doesn't work very well without very flexible (and expensive) childcare.

Zone 5 (us) as we wanted one of us (their father) to be 5 minutes from home in case there was a baby crisis and cheaper to be near his work than mine (in the City then). SO that was fine although I was the one on the tube.

My daughters live 5 minutes from work - one zone 1, one zone 2. It will be interesting to see if they move out when babies come.

I TOTALLY agree about the investment, laura. In fact it sometimes makes me quite cross when so many women say they couldn't afford to keep working when as you say even if you are paying out all your income, or even more for a year or two - and of course it's infuriating to be paying someone else's taxes etc out of your already-taxed income - you are still insuring your future earning power, and also things like a pension. People seem to understand this reasoning very clearly in other areas (e.g. that it may be worth incurring some debt for a good degree or professional training) but not in this respect. Of course I understand that some women prefer to be at home with their children, or were thinking of a career change anyway, so in that sense it works for them.

I actually feel more focused and professional ambitious, not less, since having DS. I think this partly because through my 20s I was (like a lot of people at that stage) quite unhappy and unsettled in my personal life so although of course marrying and starting a family and so on is very emotionally demanding being basically happy and secure has also freed up extra energy I think. Though how I'll feel after no. 2 remains to be seen!

Hi, blueshoes, sorry for not responding earlier. i found my home pa through googling . the search terms i used were "home personal assistant", "lifestyle manager", "virtual personal assistant" and "girl friday" and then went through lots and lots of websites. The fees for what i was looking for range from 25ph to 35ph.

To give you an idea of what they can do for you. Basically my PA does my to do list. So far she has helped me organise dd's birthday party (she sourced and organised the cake and found the organised the party fillers and had them directly sent to me), she's booked all our holidays for this year including weekends away, she's booked theatre tickets for us, days out with the children. We have just bought a new house and she's the one organising painter/decorators and interior designers for quotes etc, she's also helping me find a housekeeper, liaising with the agencies etc. She's also helped with birthday presents - i give her an idea of what i want to get and she will do the research and come up with a short list of suggestions. We have a call at the end of each week and i just mutter through various things i need to do and then she cracks on with it. Hope that helps.

I agree that it can be worth either parent "working for a loss" for a year or two so that they can stay in the job market and when the finances change they will be working for a profit.

I guess the question is whether there is reason to believe the finances will change in a year or two. If not, there are few families who will be able to afford to have a parent working for a loss for many years.

Good point million about the effect of moving further out from town, 2 commutes etc. I know several couples (with 2 high flying parents) who have just done/are thinking about doing this move. I think schools for dc1 is the motivator rather than space for dc2 but it's a similar timing point i.e. when older child hits 2/3. Will be interested to see whether they carry on working.

Hi there, can I join?

I fit your pen portrait (but please, let's not say power mums bleurg!) and am currently a year back at work after mat leave - DD is 20 months.

We have a nanny share and that is quite nice as it gives about 80% of the nanny benefits and 60% of the cost.

We are in zone 2 so commute isn't an issue but travelling with work is my challenge. We both do global jobs. DP HAS to be away every week and in the next 3 weeks I am travelling at home or abroad 9 nights. DP is covering 6 of these but the nanny will have to cover 3. I feel so mean for DD not seeing either parent some days. I am starting to feel it isn't sustainable.

On the plus side I have a couple of free nights (i.e. no client commitments) in hotels to catch up on stuff for me / go to the spa. Clearly it will be all chores chores chores....

Hi Think, not sure if it helps but dh and I both travel a lot so I instituted a "one of us HAS to be in the country unless totally unavoidable" rule. Our 2 PAs talk to each other before they commit to anything overseas. I am out of the country this week, and moved it to this week because dh is in NYC next week. I was very happy to do the moving of trip because dh has done it for me 3 times before and each time his colleagues who all have stay at home partners so can be selfish were gobsmacked that he has done it. Thankfully dh doesn't care.

interesting about travel. I am lucky as DH doesnt have a job which involves travel but I am really wondering how it will work out when I have to go away for a week and suddenly he will have to be home every night to relieve the nanny rather than working late at his bosses whim.... still a few months to do before I even pop the baby out but these are the logistics that keep me up at night!

Thanks novice, that sounds good and can work occassionally but I am client facing though - I don't get to say no.

And DP's job is technically based out of a different country with his team split across europe and the US. So he has to go somewhere every week.

We can just about juggle most of the time - but it gets a bit crazy.

So he is away Monday, Tuesday, weds and I am away Thursday, the nanny arrives at 5.30am on Thursday morning so I can catch an early flight and do a 2 day workshop thursday - Friday - DP arrives home for 7pm on Thursday and does bed Thursday & Friday. DD only has Thursday am without seeing either of us.

Next week I fly Monday, DP leaves after the nanny on Tuesday, nanny stays to do bed Tuesday, I will get home around 9pm. Then I am on weds and nanny does early on Thursday so I can travel, DP home thursday evening for bedtime.

Neither of us have PA's or not ones worth bothering with!

Think, your children won't be affected. Don't worry. As long as they are safe and secure at home with someone they know there's no problem. Now I see my older 3 in their 20s the things I worried about when they were under 5 seem ridiculous. At present it's more important my second could all me this morning to ask about a legal issue on a contract than how many nights which she will never remember I was home when she was 3 or how many of her nappies I changed. We are not less close because I worked but more close given may girls now do similar jobs. iti s hard at the time though. I certainly remember joining one association because it's meetings were lunch times (and there was a free lunch) not evenings like another one and I always tried to leave work on time if I could.

Even now I don't like being away. In the last 5 years I've been to Lagos, Iran, Dubai, Europe etc for work and I don't like it whether I have children or not. I constantly insist on telephone meetings and it's not even so much children issues now. It's because I think it's inefficient and you get held up and you're at awful air ports and you waste time and the food is awful and you're tired. I just hate it. That may partly be my personality of course.

I can though remember how nice it was to be in a hotel and someone else was doing the putting of the children to bed and all the hard work at home - that was nice from time to time.

We had one year when we had the first child when the nanny's cost was 100% of my wages or 100% of their father's (we both earned the same that year) so I suppose 50% of each but I was in a career where wages go up so it wasn't a problem - it was an investment. It's paid off.

I do think it's very unfair that you have to pay your own employee NI (and your employer pays your employer NI), you then pay your nanny's tax and her NI and her employer NI. It's just far too much tax all the time. I was hoping in last year's budget that the new national insurance concession ( no employer NI of up to £2k a year) might mean no employer NI to be paid by working parents employing nannies - but no such luck - only commercial companies and charities are covered by the new exemption.

Clients can be a lot more considerate than internal folks IME.

Your horrendous sounding schedule sounds exactly why our nanny is live in. Part of her contract is 2 evenings babysitting included. We rarely use it but at least it gives us flexibility on travel if needed.

Yes, I've never had a problem with a client ever over something personal or family related.

Think I reckon the biggest issue would be the risk of the nanny getting fed up tbh. I'd think about getting a live in nanny in your shoes, that way early starts and late finishes aren't so painful. Is that an option?

I think clients are considerate if it's a one off, but if you were constantly saying "I can't do this week, how about next" they'd get fed up and go elsewhere.

Wow think that is pretty intense. I would definitely also consider a live-in nanny in this situation. Do you have/could you make room? We are also in zone 2 by the way which is nice re: commute though we too will need to move after baby §2. We have not really decided yet whether to compromise on space and go out a bit but not too much, or go out further and get lots more space. We both work from home quite a bit so that is a factor - we need more space than we would otherwise do. I also think having room for e.g. an au pair in the future might be useful. DH is French so thinks the obsession with houses and gardens is very strange but I do yearn for a bigger kitchen and a back door so that I could drink my tea in the garden in the morning!!

Re: working at a loss, yes of course it's not sustainable long term, but for most families the most expensive bit is relatively short given that you get free nursery hours from three and then school at 4 or 5 (though of course you might be paying for school too). I realise you still need some wrap around care at that point but it is cheaper. I suppose it all depends though on how many children and how they are spaced. Laura is an impressive exception (like all those women in the Valerie Grove book), but at least in my career the number of senior women is small, the number of senior women with any children is even smaller, and I actually can't think of a single example of a woman with more than two. I come from a big family and in some ways would have liked a good few, but I really don't think it is career-compatible, especially with such terrible pregnancies that put me out of action for basically the entire duration.

Any tips on nanny recruitment anyone? We are just starting this process (in fact I have another thread on it).

I am also really interested in laura's point about having a career in common with your children. This is definitely a problem in my relationship to my mother: she just doesn't understand either what I do or, practically speaking, what our day to day life is like, and to be honest I think even though she is proud she is also quite threatened and a bit alienated by it all. I find it much easier to talk to my father about career stuff (even though he is long retired and wasn't ever very ambitious).

kalisada I found our nanny through a local online forum. Her previous employer was reluctantly letting her go (due to baby #2!) and advertised her as being wonderful, snap her up now, etc. Do you have anything similar? I sidestepped all the agency fees/gumtree nightmare by doing it this way and feel very lucky.

On that note... must go home so she can clock off on time!