anyone give up a career to stay at home and regret it?

[mostlymay]

I'm in a real dilemma as to what to do. I have a great job but its long hours and very very stressful and was planning on returning to work when all of a sudden its hit me HOW much I love my baby and how much I want to stay at home with her for as long as possible. DH says we can just about cope financially as long as roof doesn't collapse and he doesn't lose his job etc even though I'd have to pay back maternity money so if I want to I can which is amazing as so many women DON'T have this choice.. But has anyone been in this situation, then regretted it.. I feel a bit weird about being financially reliant on DH and giving up a career I've spent so long working at establishing.. but I love spending time with my baby.. Any experiences please?

You won't get the right answer for you from the thread because we all have such different views. All I can say is we have all as a family benefited hugely in all manner of ways by my working full time since the first child was born 23 years ago. It's been very good for everyone. But each person man and woman (and many men want to be at home too and there's a bit of argument over who gets that chance sometimes) has to take their own decisions where they have a choice.

I went back to work part-time after DDs were born, but found the juggling childcare and keeping up with the fast-changing technology too dispiriting in the end. I left last year.

If you love your job then maybe think about p/t, but if it's just to keep a job that you worked hard for you may find that it's not worth it.

I'm starting my own business, which does not have to be super-profitable at first to equal the amount I was taking home after travel and childcare came out. I can do it in the evenings or when DD2 is at nursery p/t, and I'm very optimistic about it.

Redadmiral, I really hope that works out for you, I know a couple of women who've really made a success of their own businesses and don't regret it at all.
I think actually Xenia is right, no one can make the decision for you because, after all, everyone is different, has different needs, differing boredom thresholds etc. You have to weigh up the pros and cons and make the decision that you think would be right for you.

I sort of gave up career and was home for 5 years, then working p/t. Now my dh has been made redundant I am rediscovering the world of work. My qualifications and experience all still count so i am not having to scrub floors.

Is there any way you can stay home but keep your hand in? Some firms do career breaks where you put in a fortnight once a year or something.

I disagree that your children (if you SAH) will get the example that woman are simply unpaid servants to men. Plenty of men stay home these days so your children will see that around them. Will they also think that the man is a (maybe exploited) wage slave to an employer or that we are all just cogs in a big profit making machine? They may also see that they were worth sacrificing a career for a few years. They will see lots of variety and make their own choices when they are older, this is good isn't it? Life is short, do what makes you happy. There is lots of opportunity to change your mind later on.

Definately agree with Blueshoes. I gave up after my third child, but regretted it and returned after 8 months.

Without my salary, I couldn't afford to pay for cleaners etc and I seemed to spend most of my time doing house work.

I felt unable to treat myself or the children as I was so worried about the money.

My husband worried constantly as he was now the sole breadwinner. I worried constantly about what would happen if he lost his job.

I felt I'd lost a large part of my identity.

Longer term I worried that the family unit would suffer by my decision to 'reward' myself with time with the children. As my kids get older, they want more time from me (not less) and I want to treat them to the things they want. I realised that I needed to find a solution that was sustainable for the long term.

Consequently I went back part time, with a flexible contract that allows me to increase and decrease my hours to fit in with family commitments and school holidays.

I miss some time with the children but I feel that I can sustain this until they have left home rather than no work now and then low paid full time work later.

Obviously I agree with SmileyM. Also this original poster she really values her career an the level she's reached on it and worked very hard to get there. Why throw that away when children do as well if parents work if not better, often it's hard to get back to work after and if you like the work too (as I do) it's heaps better than all the housework and childcare you relentless have to do as housewife in most families anyway. I thik if women stay home it should be for themselves, in a sense a selfish choice because you can certainly do as well for your children b yworking therefore the decision to stay home must be because that's for you, not for them. If you're at home as some sort of martyr, don't like it and think it's for the good of the children - that's when you're better off at work.

If you never have much of a job anyway and hated it then may be better to stay home although even then you take huge risks in case a husband dies or runs off with someone abroad 20 years younger and leaves you with no money. That's a risk to your children too putting all your eggs in the basket of the male earnings.

I agree with Xenia that work is loads better than housework - I hate cleaning and all that, but love the childcare, so for me working 2.5 days was the choice that made me happy. I was lucky in that my employer offers career breaks for upto 5 years; I took 2.5 years off then dh left his job to go freelance, so I grabbed the chance to go back PT partly so we know there is enough money coming in from my salary each month to pay the bills while he is building up his business and partly for the variety in my life that I get from PT work and spending time with the children the other 4.5 days a week.

DH works at home and also does childcare and school runs while I am working, he often works in the evenings. But if he starts getting contracts that demand time working away from home during the day then the dcs will go to nursery while I am working (dd already goes to pre-school, only ds2 aged 16 months stays at home FT at the mo) and I might get a cleaner so I can really enjoy my time with the dcs.

For me it is about making the most of each part of my life. I work as an administrator so no career really to speak of but I have contact with adults and a good laugh at work and a lunch break. I won't rise any further up the ladder on 2.5 days but am not bothered about that since having children.

Something I've always wondered: if you SAH and save money by dropping 2nd car, if your DH uses the only car to get to work how do you get around and about with the dcs to toddler groups, shops, parks and soft play, visit people etc? I've always had a car to do all this (DH walked to work before). We don't live in the sticks, everything is spread out all over the place and hardly any of it is within walking distance.

I suppose in some areas the wife drops the husband at the station each morning, has the car in the day and collects him when he's back in the evening but not all parts of the country have public transport and some people's work involves a lot of driving. Some people can afford 2 cars I suppose.

Agree that access to transport is crucial for SAHMs - it doesn't matter what form that transport takes (car, bus, taxi, walking... only the underground is a complete no-no IMO with small children) but it needs to be there, on tap. Not being able to get around is a killer

In answer to your other question, I think the dynamic can change a little if all the money is earned by your husband, but it's worth discussing how you both feel about that. I know my partner would hate to look after the children all day, so I only have to point out the value of that, and whether he would like me to go out and earn the money instead, for him to get a different perspective on things.

He is, however very easygoing about money, and some people's partners are more difficult.

The flip side is how supportive he would be, or be able to be, if you do go back to work. I found that a huge problem for me was that I was really responsible for all the childcare arrangements, and I had to cover for nearly every problem or day off. (DP is freelance and childcare problems would be career suicide.)

I wouldn't worry too much about the role-model aspect of working. My mother was the archetypal SAHM, and my sister and I never thought for a minute that we wouldn't get a professional job. Perhaps it's only a concern if you think your children won't be very independent of thought...

(In fact, from reading through comments on MN, it seems just as likely that people will choose the opposite course of action from their mothers in this respect!)

Whereas my ed husband was stuck in there interviewing nannies, being first home to let the nanny go home, covering if she was sick. There was never any assumption just because I happened to be female childcare was something I did and more importantly never would I have let it be so.

More men now expect their wives to contribute financially I think and expect they as men to be involved fathers than used to be the case so can be a problem if the wife wants to stay at home and the husband expects and wants her to work. Just depends on individual people I suppose.

We share a car and when DH is at work (he works shifts so is often around in the day) he has the car and we walk to places. Everything is within half a mile luckily and it does us all good. I also like only having to maintain one car as we have had bills of up to £900 in the last year for repairs. There are also 6 of us so it isn't really worth having 2 great big cars and having one sat on the driveway half the time.

Someone mentioned SAH is risky if the DH clears off with another women etc. That is true but surely they can go out to work and they are used to living on one wage. Won't people relying on two wages be just as screwed (most people I know who have split have had to sell the house as the mortgage was too big for one). Unless you are truly financially dependent (and could pay for it all on your own) then you are also dependent on your DH and on both wages. Most women I know who work say they HAVE to work so they NEED both wages. If the man cleared off they would not be able to afford to keep the house etc.

No Xenia. I take full responsibility for taking it all on. Was a combination of wanting to retain control of what was happening re childcarer (not good, I know) and feeling that part-time work was somehow an easier option than F/T, hence still feeling responsible for child-related things.

Also depends on how much partner earns, how flexible their job is, etc. DP2 helped where he could, but had little room for manoevre. It's still worth thinking about now though, before the decision is made.

May be worth mentioning that I have known mothers who found it very hard to put their child into childcare, but once they'd done it found that it was ok for them - hormones are still running very high when the baby is young.

I also know I would never have wanted to work F/T afer having children, and have no regrets about working P/T and ultimately leaving my profession.

jellybeans: "Won't people relying on two wages be just as screwed (most people I know who have split have had to sell the house as the mortgage was too big for one)."

I do feel for women who have to go to work so that they can afford to keep any form of roof over their heads at all. They don't have a choice not to work (at least if they did not want to go on benefits). In other cases (including mine), my going to work means that we can afford a bigger property and have a higher standard of living than if we had to rely on just dh's income. To a certain extent, I do not Have to Work, because we can downscale our lifestyle and live on one income. But I do it because I want to - for all the reasons I mentioned below, financial security being an important one.

If dh were to lose his job or leave us or whatever, it might mean we have to sell the house. But that is not such a disaster, because with the capital built up from dual incomes, we at least have something decent to downsize to, rather than go on social benefits. I would have to stop the savings and concentrate on paying for living expenses. I work pt and only need to increase my hours to earn more, rather than trying to get my foot on the work ladder after a long hiatus with the ensuing loss of confidence and marketability. I might have to rely on my mother for childcare. At some point, the children will not need childcare.

Yes, going from two to one income requires an adjustment and in most cases, lowering of living standards. I don't think we ill necessarily be screwed. My being employed merely gives more options and some continuance of stability for the children, even if we disregard maintenance and child support or insurance payments.

Not read the whole thread but just wanted to say that I gave up work to be a SAHM and whilst I admit I have days where I wonder whether I did the right thing (mainly because of financial worries), I worked with a LOT of people who regretted going back to work full time and felt really guilty about it and felt they had missed out on those first few important years of their child's life.

No one can tell you what's best for your family, and you shouldn't feel pressured to go back just because that's the norm these days. Neither should you feel guilty about returning to work if that's really what you want to do, provided you are happy about the childcare arrangements you've made.

Xenia and others.. don't you still have to do housework when you get in from work?? Personally I find I have more time to myself nowadays because before I would be trying to do all the washing/cleaning/cooking etc in the evenings after work whereas now I can fit it into my day and put my feet up in the evenings.

Blueshoes covered this very eloquently.

I debated long and hard about going back to work. I wanted to, but wanted to do 3 days a week, my employers weren't prepared to offer this so in the end I went back 4 days.

On the second day after I returned to work, my DH was made redundant, completely out of the blue.

Now in the end it turned out fine because he managed to get another job fairly quickly, but the pressure was much less intense because at least my income was coming in.

It is very much down to individual choice and I don't think I'm well suited to be a SAHM but do think through the long term financial implications seriously, as whilst I am all for putting children first I selfishly don't want to live in penury when I am a pensioner so thats affected my choice somewhat.

I certainly did when I was 26 with 3 chidlren under 4 and no chance of employing a cleaner but I was never in a sexist marriage and my ex husband did more cleaning than I did. We had 3 children in cloth nappies in those days (our oldest child is now 23) and it was their father who took complete charge of that task for example whereas I did school bag and we divided things up fairly as we both worked full time. Now we have somenoe who cleans and it's easier but the reason it's easier is we had those few hard years in my early 20s when my career continued on track. I do think what you earn has an impact too. I earn 10x what my ex husband did and if you're on that kind of money it's not quite as simple as I will stay home. Staying home means a very very different kind of life. Working means ability to afford cleaners, skiing holidays, big houses and in a sense time with the children and my earnings buy that time. Anyway I agree it's a decision for all mean and women (and of course not just for women - some men want to say home too although how anyone can enjoy 12 hour days with under 5s I will never understand - perhaps we're all built differently and enjoy different tasks).

I think, also, a lot depends on whether you are prone to regretting past decisions. Some people are more inclined to think: "I made the right decision at the time and this is where it led to" and others get caught up in what might have been and so on. You can't know in advance what you'll feel about your decision.

Xenia, I don't blame you at all for staying at work with that kind of earning power. I'm sure it's made a huge difference to your life and that of your children. Any clues as to what area of law you are in (curious as also a lawyer who was earning less than her teacher best friend when we were both working!)

Yes AliciaJohns, of course we still do have the housework etc. to do when we get home (I have a cleaner 3 hrs a week but you still have to cook dinner, clean up afterwards, wash up, load dishwasher, do washing and ironing etc.)

It is certainly not an easy option to work full-time but sometimes it can be better for everyone's sanity. I would hate to spend my time resenting my kids because I'd left a job I like. Also kids are selfish enough anyway without feeling that one person has given up "everything" to be with them.

But as s/o else said (Xenia?) if you do it, don't kid yourself you are doing it for the children (or don't do it for that martyrish reason - you'll resent it). If you think it's what will make everyone (and that means YOU first) happy, then fine. If not, don't bother, no-one will turn around and thank you for it.

Thank you, rookie. We sound very similar in outlook. Glad you got over the blip of your dh's redundancy.

On the issue of putting children first, I don't think that by working, I am not putting children first. So like Haven'tSlept a bit further down, I don't believe that it is necessary or even desirable in all cases to sacrifice one income to have one parent SAHP as the only way to put children first. Parents decide how best to secure the emotional and financial security of their children, in the short, medium and long term. And that could include going back to work and using childcare.

Clearly, if the children thrive in childcare, then the arrangement works. But if one child has a hard time adapting, then the parents can and should rethink the childcare arrangements and if necessary, work arrangements. At all times, the children's interests are being taken into account.

redadmiral: "May be worth mentioning that I have known mothers who found it very hard to put their child into childcare, but once they'd done it found that it was ok for them - hormones are still running very high when the baby is young." I totally agree. I was that attachment-parenting born again mother. I thought my clingy bf dd would never settle into the nursery. How wrong I was. It was the making of her. And I never looked back. Ds settled in really well too - second time round, I had no doubts. You might be surprised.

I attended a most enlightening career comeback program organised by an investment bank. there were 50 returners mainly women who had been out of work for more than two years. A couple had been out of work for more than 10 years. Most regretted this decision one way or another. some attendees

• lady had been out of work for 11years in which time her dh had upped and left and pays peanuts towards the upbringing of his four kids. she speaks to him but doesn't know where he lives and can't continue to rely on him as he defaults from time to time. Her colleagues now earn about 350k before bonuses.

• high flying lady who believes that her work identity is a big part of who she is and she doesn't want to stay at home to look after kids. She absolutely loves work and deadlines. Wants to be CEO. hates homeworking. loves travelling

• lady who had worked and spent lots of money sending her kids to private school and didn't find out in time that her son was severley dislexic. teachers just thot he was lazy and never finished his homework so they held him back a year.

• lady who has discovered that she has other passions and would rather work with charities and start a social enterprise because.

• few ladies who believe they should be able to walk in and ask for PT at the interview and still be on the fast track. One asked if the pay could fulltime pay as she would deliver all results in three days.

Advice we were given:

• Aviod head hunters and recruitment agencies. they can only help the regular types with no gaps in cv

-keep your networks alive and options open. attend company events or parties if you can. keep up with changes in the industry or your technical skills will be out of date in no time. On of the advisers had no intention of going back to work but her husband got fired and they needed the money. She still knew people and was able to return in a different capacity.

-both parties need to be flexible. you as a returner and the company. A lady returner had been offered a job in New York but insisted that she be allowed to start at 9.30 every day and would not entertain any chance of attending to clients or meetings before that. Such instances might cause employers to think of returners as not being focused. she could attend work at 9.30 and work her but off but availablility was crucial to the job. We need to evaluate the requirements of a job before jumping to conclusions.

• the blackberry age means that you may not be physically present but you are in less control of your time esp if it's a US company. You will get phonecalls and emails at anytime and must repond. You will be required to attend some conference calls during the school run.

• If you manage people, serve clients or run premises and only attend work three days a week, you are not able to do the work as effectively. There are cases of employees waiting for the days when you don't work to attempt fraud, cause trouble. It leaves the mangement and supervision to someone else so pay will be PT. If you can't be contacted by clients in a 24/7 society or on a workday in an emergency every week, then you may not have as many opportunities to be seem as dedicated or capable. This does not mean that you are not. It just makes it harder to prove. PT staff some companies will do 35hrs on the mummy track and others will do 60hours.

• We had MBTI thingy in which soome 'types' will be unhappy with the stay at home decision. They will be equally unhappy when they are not in leadership positions at work and are very tricky to manage. Some types are suited to staying at home and when they are at work will not be very ambitious either.

• The ease of returning especially where there's no network depends on the economy and the outlook for the industry. There's a hiring freeze in some companies and a lot of downsizing in financial services right now. There was a time manufacturing was having a very bad time too. You need to keep an eye on the industry and speak confidently whether or not you feel confident.

• There's predicted shortage of professional workers in the future and companies will be tapping into the pool of hidden talent called returners. Soon they could be able to work freelance and dictate thier consitions too. Doesn't look like this year coz they're suffering on a global scale.

sorry 'bout the errors

nkf, you have a point there. I do my agonising before the decision, but once the decision has been made, I rarely revisit the what-ifs, if things are going reasonably well.

For mostlymay who is on the cusp of going back to work or jacking it in, I would say because you can never know for sure what is the right decision before you have made it, choose the option that burns the least bridges. For me, that means keeping at least a toe in the workplace. If you go back to work and still feel unhappy about not seeing your baby enough or your baby does not settle in childcare, you are always tweak it. But it is far more difficult the other way round.

For me, because I really wanted flexible working, I negotiated something with my same company - not easy. If I left my company, even for a few months, I would have been stuffed. Before I became pregnant, the headhunters were ringing me all the time. The minute I mentioned I was only interested in a pt role, they melted away and never got back. The few roles they had that were pt were very poorly thoughtout and badly paid.

I don't buy it that dcs need you more when young. My dd 4.7 is starting to ask that I collect her from school (at 3 pm), rather than our aupair. She was really upset I did not watch her lunchtime ballet class. My ds 1.7 could not care less who picks him up from nursery. I understand that as children get older, more and more, only mummy (or daddy) will do.

If I really have to reduce my hours later on or give work up, at least I have that flexibility because our financial position is very strong due to dual incomes for a long time. This only came about because I took that initial risk and put my children in ft childcare to go back to work and the gamble paid off.

If I bought the line that children can only thrive in mother's care in the early years, I would never had taken that risk and possibly found myself pushed deeper into debt if I wanted to continue to stay at home when my dcs were schoolage.

Hmm it depends.

I went back pt, though in actual fact it's almost ft but I needed work to know that I would be scaling back my hours to my paid ones rather than all the extra I used to do.

It depends somewhat on what you do and what you earn. I'm not well paid (public sector) but I have a job that I could not step in and out of. I like my job most of the time and I worked very hard to achieve my position. These are all factors that you need to consider.

I have a liberated partner who shares most of the work. We have always had joint finances so I knew that I would have an equal share in whatever we had. We could could just about manage now without one of our wages. I would worry about the long term with no pension for one of us and what would happen if the roof fell in.

Still if you are comfortable it is less of a problem.