Would you leave a £250,000pa job to be a SAHM?

[misosoup]

Ok, I've changed my name for this, not quite sure why....

I really enjoy my job and it is pretty well paid but since I returned to work after having DD2 I have been thinking a lot about this.

I can afford not to work, dh's income is nothing like mine but still above average although it will clearly be a huge drop in our standard of living.

And I miss the kids do much during the day... I spend 2 hours per day with them plus weekends. There is no way I can cut my hours any more and part-time is out of the question.

But I have worked so hard to get here, against all odds. I don't want to throw it all away.

Motherinferior, for what it's worth, I don't think that that makes you a bad person.
Yesterday night I thought about things I wanted to say in this thread, but I find that GQM's posts have expressed some of my views in a much better way than I could ever do...

Obviously with slal... These huge income drops are siginficant. You're completely changing the life and future life of the children, obviously not in terms of love and care but in terms some other things which for most people in the UK do matter.

I have no problems with poppet's postings either. It's good to hear views. I just don't agree with them. I don't agree it's always better for a child to have a mother at home and therefore I don't think it's a selfish choice to work.

I do believe breastfeeding is better than bottle feeding and should be marketed as such. So it just shows how people's views differ but there is nothing wrong with debates about what is right and wrong. I think there is some evidence that nurseries with lots of childcarers changing all the time (i.e. not most nurseries) are not such a good idea for under 1s compared with a nanny or parent at home. but so is the way a lot of stay at home mothers scream and shout at their children all the time because they're tired and fed up and resentful which I suspect is a bigger problem for small children than those hurt by a bad nursery. Of course most SAHM aren't like that but a good number are.

""For any mums out there who say they choose to work, do any of you think that if you recieved finnancial insentive to stay at home as well as perhaps some kind of assurance that your carreer wouldn't suffer (say- laws preventing employers to penalise mothers) would you try it?"

No, that's the thing. I just don't enjoy it and I don't see benefits to the children from it so I can't see the point in it.

So the real issue on the thread is probably whether it is better for a child to have a parent or parents caring for it 24/7 (not even abotu stay at home or work because some stay at home mothers have child care or 100 years ago had servants and still saw the children 1 hour a day) and others are so busy with housework and neglecting the child around them they might as well not be there.

Interesting thoughts Xenia.
On what do you base your musings about sahms?

handlemecarefully -how very amusing!

(I once got really wound up by a mn'er and tried really hard to avoid her, it turns out she went on to give me some really good advice on something totally different.)

Hi poppet, re the 'financial incentive for staying at home' thing, I'm a 'no' on that, and so is my dh. No financial incentive is worth putting ourselves and our children through the experience of being together all the time - yes, I know it works for lots of people, but I love my job and am satisfied with the way my ds (and soon my dd when I return to work after this second mat. leave) is cared for when I am there. FWIW, dh does not love his job, but doesn't want to be a SAHD.

HO, which of my thoughts on SAHMs? I hope I haven't generalised about them because they differ too much. Some are home because if they worked they would earn so little it's not worth working financially. Others are there for cultural, religious or what they regard as psychological reasons to benefit the child. Others because of pressure from a husband and others again because they couldn't get a job even if they tried and others because they love it and couldn't imagine being parted from under 3s. I felt some think they have a moral high ground because staying at home is "better" in their view and I don't agree it is better. Just like some working mothers work because they have to for money (or feel they do) and others because they love it and financially don't have to. Others like me would pay (work at a loss) not to be with under 3 24/7.

Ooooh who was that Poppet? Was it me

"handlemecarefully -how very amusing!"

You see I'm funny even when I'm not trying [Catherine Tate wannabe emoticon]

Yes, go on poppet, name names. we're all friends here.

couldn't possibly say!

she hasn't been on this thread so far though...

Poppet:
"we are fortunate enough to not have to survive on benefits but would if we had to."
If I was honestly skint then I would apply for benefits but my own moral stance won't allow me to sponge off the state on benefits for 2-5 years when i am capable of working. (and I am quoting my grandad here whose views on supporting yourself and not relying on other people or the state to hlep you out have been a strong guiding principle for me)

"From a childs point of view it is always going to be better for them to have their mother/father as the main carer."
Why? I disagree with this blanket generalisation but would like to know what reasoning you have to back it up as you obviuosly beleive it.

"We really don't know the full long term effect of the attatchment/emotional issues that will arise as a result of a 3/4/5 whatever month old being taken to a daycare center for the majority of it's waking life or the kids sent to a childminders home, where you really don't know what happens there, same with a nanny."
I think you've weakened your argument here by focusing on the very emotive aspects of day care. Citing babies under 6 months and babies in care for long hours is an easy way to get people to agree with you. In actuality very few people use daycare 10 hrs a day for babies of any age. The reality is much more mixed, but then it wouldn't make such a strong statement to say.
"we're not sure about the long term effects of the mixed choices of partial day care, looked after 1 day by grandma, childminder 9-1pm then picked up by dad who works early shifts, nanny share 3 days a week while mum works from home, etc etc.

But to a lot of people, including me, it should not be seen as an equal option to staying at home
Equal option? so are you saying that women and men SHOULDN'T have an open choice?

the mum happy=kids happy theory, I don't get that one at all!
I think you've misunderstood this 'theory' most people who talk about this believe (as I do) that a depressed miserable parent who resents being at home or at work won't be putting in their best effort and has a high probability of making those around them unhappy too. Whilst a happy mum may not equal a happy baby, an unhappy mum usually does increase the chances of an unhappy baby.
Let me put it another way to hlep you understand, if you HAD to go and wokr in a job you hated, how would that make you feel? tired, depressed, grumpy, cross?
Now imagine your kids have to live with you on a daily basis feeling like this.....

But where the hell is the encouragement and insentinve to stay at home and do the job we were all designed to do?
the job I was designed to do? ah well you see thats why we're likely to continue to disagree here. I don't believe in god so i don't belive I have any moral duty to have babies until I die or to care for them til they wear me out. Whilst I'll admit that even evolution has 'designed' us to procreate, (read the selfish gene) I also belive very strongly that I am not a monkey aI am a thinking human being and therefore I can make choices. I was also 'designed' to have babies about a year after I got my period, I was deisgned to have babies about every two years until I physically couldn't get pregnant again, I was 'designed to have a strong 'fight or flight' reaction to threat resulting in whacking people on the head or running away madly.

doing what I was designed to do is one of the least convincing arguments I have come across!

and in answer to the question, NO. Regardless of what government financial initiatives there were i wouldn't automatically commit to being a SAHP. Partly because that would just be another way of sponging of the state, but mainly because like Xenia and others me being a SAHP is NOT the best option for my family.

hear hear, riab.

Most SAHM have not had poppet's views. But those are the easiest to challenge. Women give birth, although science now allows a host mother to be used for your eggs if you choose if you want your genetic children without pregnancy and can afford it. But I don't think women were designed to do nothing else. I read the 2 volume history of women last summer and if you look back women haev always worked. In fact often it was men who lazed around pretending to hunt whilst the family lived on grains women collected or farmed. Even in the 1600s in England women were often economically active because they want to be. We were made fit and strong and capable of earning a living, perhaps designed to work even.

I am certainly not very happy that a lot of taxes go on ensuring single mothers can choose not to take a job until their child is 16. I know the Government is trying to work on getting them back to work when the children go go school as most women in marriages have to.

Having a similar dilemma too, just gone back to work when DS was 4 months old, have always worked full time, my DDs are aged 12 and 9, but am definitely finding that they need my time more now than they did when they were pre school. When i was off on maternity leave the girls loved having me at home, and were asking me to give up work to be a SAHM. But when i ask if they are prepared to move to a smaller house, not have holidays, clothes, social life etc they don't seem so keen! I would love to be at home with DS full time, but as i am self emp i can "tweak" my hours a bit, so i am home when they get in from school, but i am always playing catch up, feeling like nobody gets enough of me! However my earnings are nowhere near £250K, but giving up work for me would half our income, and kids just get more expensive as they get older! I would agree that someone that has acheived that level of success would have plenty to offer in another field of work that could be tailored more around your family, large companies (like banks) are very good at making you feel that there is no alternative but working for them. There are many new businesses set up by women that have been very high acheivers, but wanted more balance in their lives... just a thought. Good luck with your decision.

We all do what we perceive is the best for our kids. But for some of us there simply is no choice. I have to leave my son in nursery 4 days a week to work for an underpaid job because dh's job simply is not secure. He works for a digger company, he's only been there 6 weeks, they can lay off staff during the winter months. I feel bad putting ds in the nursery as I never did this with dd. But if I was not working and dh was laid off, we'd only get unemployment benefit, whereas with me working we get working families tax credit which is much higher.

The basic argument this thread has turned into, about sahms and working mums is fine enough, but I do feel that many mums are presuming that we all have a choice of whether to work or not, and this is simply not true. I believe that my ds would be better off at home with me, I feel that by putting him in a nursery 4 days a week at such a young age is bad for him, no matter how good the nursery is. But I have chosen for us to have financial stability, for us to be able to afford the rent and bills. This is equally important for all the family.

I also think it is very vulgar for high earners to boast about their incomes when others on here are struggling. It reminds me of my colleague telling me how her ambition was to earn £50k before she turned 30, knowing full well that I was past that age and earning under £7k. It was thoughtless.

That's true, not always a choice either to work or to stay at home. I think because it was a high sum it was relevant because the change in life style and future family life is so different. Anyone with teenagers will know the issues. Babies gurgle as contentedly in a cardboard box in a secondhand babygro as long as they have your love and breastmilk whereas. Teenagers unless you're particularly good at indoctrination, ensure you're a TV free home, hav them in church most of the weekend and live on Isle of Lewis or something are sadly going to be fairly materialistic, not that it's wrong to deny them things (it does them good) but it's nice to have the choice to deny them rather than the necessity of it.

Rhubarb, I don't think anyone was boasting. People earn vastly different amounts for variuos reasons and I think the OP honestly wanted some opinions and possibly some shared stories from people to help her make a big decision.

I have stayed away from this thread as a WOHM. I couldn't give a rooty toot what anyone thinks about my decision to work. I love being back, I love my job, the money is great and my kids and I cope just fine. When they are both full time in school (only one of them is now) I will be working and not fretting about getting back into my job which would have been a nightmare to do after a large gap. I had 2 years off and any longer would have meant re-training.

Just wanted to say I agree with Rhubarb, I think its pretty vulgar too.

Poppet, I don't acknowledge that I have a choice. I don't think going onto benefits should be viewed as a lifestyle choice, and to treat it as such is trivialising the genuine hardship that makes them necessary in our society. You say you would if you needed to, but you can't really know what you would do unless you were actually in that situation.

If people like us who can afford to survive without them decide to opt in, then there will be less to go round for those who through no fault of their own do need help.

But I do feel happy with the fact that I work, because it is a more complex long term strategy than just money in each month compared to money out.

hear hear bosscat (& Rhubarb on the vulgar bit). I enjoy my work, I also enjoy being a mum. Not too sure why they need to be mutually exclusive if that's what you want to do?

I haven't read all this but I would like to say that being a sahm may sound wonderful but I have found it really hard and I was only on maternity leave. I have suffered with pnd which probably hasn't helped but I went back to work last week (pt 3days pw) against advice of dr and hv, although time alone will tell I already feel brighter. Having said that my job is nothing whatsoever like yours, being just that- a job, not a career that I have worked hard for. If you really feel that you would be happier being poorer but seeing more of your children then go for it, I don't know how old you are but even if you stayed at home until they were at school you would surely have time to build up a successful career again later on. It depends on how you feel in relation to your career and your children. I have chosen to have less money and work pt which I feel gives me a bit of balance. Is there any way you could do a less pressurised job in the same field on a pt basis to keep your hand in?

Floating, they do - "a lot of taxes go on ensuring single mothers can choose not to take a job until their child is 16" . Most single mothers live in benefits in the UK. They can get caught in poverty trap of course which isn't very nice and fault of the system but the Labour Government is so concerned they introduced compulsory interviews for them once their children are at school to try to get them back into work.

I'm not saying it's at all easy to live on benefits but a lot of people do.

On the getting back in later in some jobs like there broker type jobs of that kind of financial order you can't leave and go back to adn there are age limits in practice during which you can earn. So it's an irrevocable decision. That is not the case for many other interesting careers.

"Regardless of what government financial initiatives there were i wouldn't automatically commit to being a SAHP. Partly because that would just be another way of sponging of the state"

Misinformed crap.

I'm a SAHM and not sponging off the state dearie. We are probably supporting however given dh's 6 figure tax bill