To have a seriously high family income, is it better to stick to 'traditional roles'?

[Gameboy]

Was just thinking about the various ?250k income threads...

Before kids DH & I both had ?100k+ jobs so the family income was about that I guess. However we both wanted less corporate B*llcks and more 'freedom' so over the last 5 years have both set up our own businesses.

We earn less, cope with childcare better, have more flexibility (but tend not to use it well..) and I'm not sure we're any happier really - we always seem to be arguing about who is responsible for what around the home and kids - probably because we regard ourselves as sharing the workload.

I remember the top exec of the company I used to work for being asked what the secret of his success was, and he replied, "a wife who has always supported me, followed me around the children, raised our children and ironed my shirts".. Shame he was later discovered to have cheated on her with a colleague .

If either DH or I had stayed in our jobs we could probably have reached the ?200k level, but ONLY if the other one had taken COMPLETE responsibility for house & kids. But neither of us wanted to do that.

Sometimes I wonder if we made the right choice though - everything is so manic.

Isn't it just easier if there are traditional i.e. one parent at home, roles?

It depends on if a 'seriously high' family income is what makes you happiest and if you'd be happy in a traditional role, or whoever is in that role, that is, is happy.

I think on the whole, many people over-analyse things and think too much.

That's usually a certain cause of much unhappiness, IMO.

Your boss is absolutely right.
I'm a SAHM and when our kids were tiny we were hard up,but it was our choice and we thought it was worth it.
However a few years further down the line we are pretty comfortable.Dh earns way more than the rest of his team.And the reason is that he is super reliable.He has never had a day off to look after sick kids,never had to leave a meeting because it was his turn to pick up from nursery etc.He can always work late if ther is a flap on.

It has done wonders for his career and we both share the rewards.

I suppose the only problem with our strategy is that the sole provider does have to earn just enough initially to get you started.

I do think it is easier in a lot of ways to stick to those traditional roles.

DP and I have been cobbling together shared childcare and working arrangements for over six years now and we have both scaled back our work to enable us to be with the children as much as possible. So we have both taken the career 'hit' generally taken by the mother (given that it is generally the mother who goes part-time or gives up work completely after children). We have both missed out on career advancement at work.

But I think the advantages have been that we share a similar life experience in that we are equally involved in work and home life. I would find it hard to be at home with the kids full time while dp worked, or vice versa. But we both know how hard it is the change into child-gear when you get in from work and also why you fall on your partner with relief when they come through the door when you've been with the kids all day.

FWIW, my dad was the big earner and my mum was the SAHM.

With staff.

Worked for them!

They're still happily married - and retired! - after 42 years.

I think earning enough to have help improves just about any relationship.

Puddle - that's exactly what I mean.

It's one of those questions that parents-to-be should ask themselves before having kids - "who will look after the children in the future - what will your life look like?"

Basically I think DH & I both wanted a 'wife' at home, but neither of us wanted to be it! Nor did I want a stream of childcare/housekeeper 'staff' either - hence how we ended up where we are.

Financially we're probably no worse off than our friends where the wife has gone back to work full-time but then ends up spending a sizeable % of her income on childcare & cleaning.

Gameboy I think you have asked a very interesting question.

When DH and I met three years ago we both earned equal amounts, now he earns 33% more than my f/t salary or once I am p/t 50% more.

We made choices as a family. My secure income allowed DH to go for contracting which seriously bumped up his income and meant he got offered a good permie role. Meanwhile I moved sideways to a role with less travelling and by going p/t have probably ruined any promotion or serious raise prospects for the next 5 years.

I'm currently off work at the minute, but I have a real fear about going back, not just for seeing less of DS, but mainly I must admit because of who is going to end up doing the bulk of the housework. We are lucky so we can afford to throw some money at it by getting a cleaner and gardener, but that will still leave quite a lot to do.

I have chosen to go back to work so we can stay in our current house and maintain our lifestyle, but I must say I am a bit disillusioned by the choices that our so called emancipation have given us.

Xenia ( don't agree with everything she says but does make some interesting points) made a good point in the other thread when she said that we now have the right to go out to work and do the bulk of the housework & childcare and right now that doesn't seem like much of a victory to me. We could just about manage on DHs income but would have to move house & change our lifestyle completely and tbh I don't feel I am cut out to be a SAHM probably because I have expectations that can't be fulfilled solely by that.

Maybe I am just bitter because I couldn't get the 2.5 days at work I wanted, but I have to say I am really questioning our whole modern family model.

I don't have any answers, the people I know have a variety of working arrangements from p/t mums, both parents working reduced hours and one SAHD and they all seem to be work ok. I have one friend who got divorced and this was where they both had taxing jobs and she went back almost f/t, does this mean that only one partner should be a main breadwinner, I don't know ?

Sorry this has rambled on a bit.

I agree that traditional roles may prove 'easier' but if one parent is working all the time what sort of a relationship do they have with the children?

I am very happy to be working 4 days with dh doing the morning school runs and we effectively have equal time with the children.

I feel it is better for them to have time with both parents ratehr than 15 mins with Dad when he gts home from an important meeting before he goes out to an evening function!!

It also teaches them a lot of the realities of life - that you need to work to get what you have and families have to pull together.

no I don't think so - it doesn't necessarily have to be the dad that works all hours and the mum that runs the home and family, could work either way.

Also couldn't the roles be provided by hiring people to do say washing, ironing, cooking, cleaning and PA work? YOu have to earn a lot to start with though.

Prefer to have lower income and more time with family personally.

I realised in my previous ramble I hadn't actually answered the OP question.

It would depend very much on the earnings of the couple. If either partner drops out completely of the work force then this will have a negative future impact as the person would have to effectively restart their career.

In my own circumstances, if I took a 5 year career break I would probably end up going back on 40% of my current salary which would mean I would have to work my way back up, which I would imagine would be much more difficult as a mum in her 40s than it was as a single 20 something.

If one parent is going to be the seriously high earner, I hope that the other insists on some serious and transparent financial planning in the case of a split.

I think it can be easier, basiclaly what you get is if one person can concentrate SOLELY ont heir career whilst someone else cooks, irons shirts, handles the washing machine breakdown, acts as a PA, does the expenses claims, cleans the house, prepares dinner parties, helps write reports, etc etc (and thats without kids in the mix)

then yes the person who is 'earning' has a much better chance of shimmying up the dizzying heights. It doesn't however have to be the man!

It isn't in my parents house and in a few years time i hope it won't be for us as I fully intend to apply for th efast track to headship orgramme in teaching, at which point i'll dammed well need DH at home, managing DS, cooking and irongin (all of which he does far better than me!)

I do think so yes. The only reason dh is able to do his job and earn what he does is because I am at home doing everything else. And I am fortunate that this set-up was something that we chose jointly and that he completely appreciates the work I do in the home.
It doesn't mean that he never sees his children though - he is lucky in that he is able to be home for 6:45 4 nights a week, so gets 45 minutes at bedtime - of course he then has to work in the evenings so I rarely get to spend time with him, or get any assistance with things around the house. (Actually that's not true - he always puts the rubbish out and makes the fire). And weekend daytimes are non work zones unless the kids are out at parties/asleep.

So it is easier - on a practical level But on an emotional level I sometimes wonder if we made the right choice for me - the transition to SAHMdom, even with the help I could afford to pay for - was v. difficult for me, and the lack of emotional support from dh is equally hard. But I am settling into my role more now, and his life is certainly easier than when we were both juggling jobs and childcare before our second child was born.

Oh and Tinker - Yes I have - in fact I manage all teh family finances and investements, and all our savings are in my name for tax purposes. If dh and I ever did divorce, he'd have to ask me to complete his financial disclosure forms..

The dynamics in my and dh'srelationship have changed drastically over the years. We both had the potential to be high earners but once childrencame along the strain of juggling work and childcare/running the house became too much for me as it was almost 100% down to me. DH's job requires long unpredicable hours and frequent (and often short notice) trips abroad. In order for him to be as sucessful as possible in his career, he needs to be able to devote himself pretty heavily. Therefore we decided I would become a SHM and he would bring in the money. TBH he is much more ambitious than me and I was getting pretty fed up with my job so it has worked out well.

This is a question dh and I have been asking ourselves alot recently.
We live in W. Berks, both dh and I work full-time with two littlies. I am lucky in that my work is very flexible. Dh worked a mile from the childrens nursery and he would bring them in and drop them off. However, recently dh's work has moved to London. Now I don't have any help from dh in the morning and I have to do all the driving to and fro nursery, a 20 mile round trip.
Both of us are aware that this is unsustainable because even though my work is flexible, I still have a full workload.
So we are asking ourselves, how are we going to deal with the fact that when both of us are in our places of work we are more than 40 miles away from the children?

And I haven't asked the OP's question either?

I don't know, I'm wondering that myself?

well, we are far from the high income bracket, but,with me staying at home, DH doesnt have to worry about anything other than work. If he gets loads of overtime, he can come in, go straight to bed, and go the next morning without batting an eyelid. If I worked, we would be worse off - my wages would just about cover the childcare and all the extras expenses, and DH couldnt do as much work. Besides, I love being a SAHM, I really wouldnt want it any other way.

I don't agree. But the dual career couples I know with those incomes on both sides pay for a lot of help, daily housekeeper, nanny and au pair perhaps too. It does make it easier because then you're not fighting over who does what at home because it's delegated. It can also sustain a relationship better if you both have really interesting jobs at a similar level.

We both worked full time always, although I did earn more.

It depends on the job - for a multi-natioanl corporate type role (or as a consulatna/adviser to the same), then you need to be able to drop everything at times and allow work to be first. That doesn't automatically translate to needing a SAHP, but it is pretty close. I'm not sure that even with a lot of support staff you can delegate everything. And don't forget that actually managing domestic staff is quite a chore in its own right (sorry if that sounds totoaly spoilt, but you only have to read some of the nanny/cleaner/au pair threads to pick it up).

As it happens my job would be the one requiring a fuller commitment from dh at this point in time. My next job would either be overseas (in Europe so I could commute say Mon am to Thurs pm and work from home on Friday, or we all move), or will involve up to 1/3 of the time travelling. I'm just not sure that dh would manage to remember all of the things that need following up during the week if he was working. Dh is City based, and although we have to cope with occasional long hours, it is not so bad - if I could cope with working part-time it would be achievable. I just can't seem to manage part-time myself.

I am sure he would cope. People just have to if they're put in that position and trusted. YOu can email each other lists of what's needed for school the next day, when the bins got out etc. For example I make sure the food shopping arrives when the cleaner is here so I don't even have to see it. I have often ordered it from abroad on line. But you're right someone has to remember what are the things to be done. My better nannies have done those kinds of things though, taken on the responsibility, thought of and arranged the hair cuts etc without my even having to think they need hair cutting.

Also children can help out. One of my 8 yeear olds is brilliant and making sure his twin has recorder because it's X day and swimming kit because it's Y day and if I'm not around they just have to do that themselves. Obviously I try to leave out what they might need for the day concerned. It can make the children more responsible too than those of mothers who fuss at home.

I think it is probably 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

I have been a SAHM for 4 years. I used to have a pretty high paying career and it looks like I could again. My husband also has a high demand high pay career. I am just looking at the childcare arrangement and household help arrangements and seeing how much it will all cost and where the boundaries are going to be and while my DH is great, I know it will fall to me to be the one who manages the childcare and the household stuff plus works plus plus plus. I have been a bit itchy to get some more adult company and mental stimulation and I do think it would be good for my self esteem to go back to the workforce, and the money certainly wouldn't go astray, but I fear that I would be just swapping one kind of stress for another kind of stress and that the children will suffer. DS1 is nearly 4 and DS2 is 18mths.

It is such a big decision and I am going to have to make it within the next couple of weeks. Meanwhile my DH is just seeing the dollar signs and saying if it doesn't work we will just stop it, but that would be terrible for my reputation and for any future attempt to regain my career. I hate to hijack the thread but ...

AS, why ever should it fall to you? That's what I never understand with other women. Why would I never counterance that childcaer is a woman's issue and meet men who think the same and yet virtually all the rest of you are married to men who think it is? Do I dwell on another planet where men and women see children as a joint responsiblity and men interview nannies and rush home 3 days a week because it's their day to get to the nursery first? Even men I meet on business have those commitments in their lives, day by day but not the husbands of so many mumsnetters? Weird.