would you give up 2.5K a month just to raise your kids? - UPDATED POST #91! - Page 3

[PassionateWriter]

I give up way more than that to stay home. It doesnt sound like you need the job to keep up w/ a career that is really important to you..and its just money. a family of 4 (or more) can live on a 6 figure income if they are frugal (i just add this b/c i know that perhaps it woudl be difficult in San Francisco or NYC....but even then, i think my family could do that easily).

[hempmama]

How is the onsite daycare? I would also worry very much over how your performance will affect your DH.

I gave up more than that to SAH, but am going back in the fall to WOH after the new baby is born. I like to work- that's why I am doing it- but in your case I think the fear of not having any marketable skills would drive me to take the job to at least get some skills.

[cammiekim]

What a great offer. Nice to know that's out there!

That said, if you can afford to pass, I definitely definitely would.

I work p/t from home, and I'm working on a dissertation, too (um, well, I'm supposed to be, that is!). It was really hard to do and take care of DS, too. But this year DH was sort of between jobs and he was starting to feel resentful about not having more time to be with ds, who is 39 months and developing/growing so wonderfully, fast, and all that stuff that we love but we forget when we're with them day in and day out. So, we decided that we would spend our savings (were saving up for a down payment on a new house) this year so that DH could stay home. That means it is costing us A LOT--his income was substantial, and now we are not only without that, but we're eating our savings. The $ I make p/t isn't much, but it helps... And we figured it was the only way I could actually get my dissertation done (though frankly, that's not happening). Basically, DH is awesome and all, but his version of full-time SAHD is not quite as comprehensive, domestic responsibilities-wise, as SAHM was... So, I don't have as much time to get to my work as I had hoped. But I digress!!! Basically, though, my point is this: DH and DS have bonded SO, SO much this year. They always had a great relationship, but I swear, it is WAY WAY deeper now. That seems invaluable to dh and to me. It has cost us a ton financially, but it truly seems worth it to both of us. Because we were able to see a change when he started being at home full time, it really made clear how big a difference being with your kid during that huge chunk of the day can have on your relationship.

If you love being home with your kids and you can afford it, I'd say stick around for sure. You won't regret it. If you don't exactly LOVE it, which is okay, you shouldn't feel guilty at all about taking the job... Assuming the day care is high quality, it sounds like a pretty good set up.

My two cents!

[Autumn Breeze]

Originally Posted by Rigama

, if my dh made six figures I sure as heck wouldn't even consider going back to work.

I feel you there!!!



OP - you answered your own question. You only get this time with them once. If you can manage it, and you want to, stay home. If you need the money, take the work. that would be my ideal working situation!!!

You just need to follow your heart here, no one can tell you what you should do, we can only offer up what we would do.

[LotusBirthMama]

I personally would take a situation like that and go for it. But, I prefer to WOH...(and I'm still raising my kids)

You sound like you know what you want to do, so don't stress about it.

[Amys1st]

Originally Posted by JustKiya

I don't even have children yet, and I plan on giving up 4K a month to stay home with them.
Yes. If your family can afford it, it's more than worth it.

And I did the same. and yes you can afford. I did it 6 years ago.

[Maddy123]

Only you could really say whether it would be a good choice for you or not.

Staying home and working in a daycare are 2 totally different lifestyle choices. It depends on how satisfying each routine would be for you. Do you want to get up and out each day with your kids and be away from your home? Or would you rather care for your kids at home? Your and your children's daily lives will vary a lot depending on which option you choose. If you need the financial boost, that is important. But I would look at daily life. Maybe you would enjoy being out of the house? On the other side, it's great to enjoy time at home without having to have a busy morning routine and get everyone moving.

What happens when one of your children is ill? (Kids get ill at home and in daycare...but when my kids were in daycare, they did catch things more frequently). My kids also enjoyed daycare, so I am not saying it is a bad thing. But it is very different than being at home with your kids, day in and day out.

I have enjoyed having a calmer life, so that is why for us the sahm lifestyle worked better. But that is not true for everyone. Only you can say for sure.

[kittywitty]

Just to raise my kids? Yes. But that sounds a little condescending like it's no big task.

[That Is Nice]

Originally Posted by kittywitty

Just to raise my kids? Yes. But that sounds a little condescending like it's no big task.

I, too, was actually going to post my distaste for the word "just" as in "just to raise children." It seemed to imply a diminished importance. However, I figured the OP used that term inadvertently, or else she wouldn't have been asking the question.

[mamamelia]

thankyou so much for the helpful replies - there are good points to both sides. i am still in the process of making a decision and have asked for a job in the daycare instead as that will enable me to keep an eye on the kids the entire time. even though there will be minimal one on one contact as i must attend to other children, i at least have the priviledge of knowing they are ok and them knowing that mama is right there in the same room should they ever need me.

now, regarding the use of the word "just to raise your kids"... what can i say? i am genuinely sorry that some mamas were offended or felt belittled etc but i can honestly say that i do not regret my choice of words and there are two reasons why.

first - i am a stay at home mother myself.
if i was out to insult all the mothers that "just" raise thier kids (and thereby assuming that the SAHM role is not much to consider), then i would be insulting MYSELF. why would i insult myself and downgrade the role that i play in my children's lives everyday? it seems not many have actually thought about that part of the equation.

secondly, lets consider the definition of raising. it is "helping someone grow up to be an accepted member of the community;" and technically if another person is spending X amount of time with your child and helping them to flourish, then YES they are raising them for that X amount of time. what is so wrong with admitting that? does it make your job as mother or father less important or your role less influential on the childs life? NO. the only thing it means is that your child has spent X amount of time under the care of someone else other than you - someone that you've entrusted to help your child flourish physically and mentally (i.e raising) and that's pretty much it.

when i am considering swapping 50% of MY time with the kids for a job whether it is out of necessity or not, then i am handing over 50% of time spent in RAISING them over to someone else... that is a fact that i cannot escape.

admitting that someone else has had a hand in raising your child does not belittle your role, is nothing to be ashamed of and is nothing to be offended by if someone should state the obvious. perhaps i am just much more relaxed and comfortable with my choices but i most certainly would not be offended by the wording i've used. i have no qualms in saying that "sarah" and "jane" *helped* to raise you during the day time while mummy and daddy worked hard to provide for the family financially. i just don't see the issue in using those words to describe part of my child's upbringing.

re the sperm donor comment.. my husband is home and awake from the hours of 6:30pm till 12am and he is not a sperm donor or providor of financial security only thanks. i laughed out aloud when i read that comment as at first it seemed quite silly. i'd have to say that his best role yet is being a providor of many hugs, laughs and tickles during the hours he is home. oh, he is also a pretty good buttwasher too. he helps me to raise the kids physically and emotionally when he is here at home (and that entails many different things).. and when he is not at home, he is *still* helping to raise them by providing for us financially. we also call him up at work and the girls chat to him. i hope that through disclosing this info, that you can see that i do not think that raising kids is a black and white affair. the political correctness in here sometimes gets a little mad and i am a little annoyed that everything has to be dissected, delegated and justified before we can feel comfortable with our decisions as parents.

anyway, this response is not intended to add fuel to the endless SAHM/WOHM fire. i just wanted to offer a different perspective on the notion of "raising a child" and to also explain my choice of words as there was some question about the use of them.

please, if there are any more opinions/perspectives on what you would do in this scenario as a SAHM, do share your thoughts. thanks.

[sbgrace]

Yes, I'd give up $$ to be a SAHM. I left a $45,000 per year teaching job (with raises each year). It was at that time half of our family income.

I've been recently offered a position to come back. I won't take it. It is for us better for me to be home.

I think this is such a personal decision. Some moms are better moms when they are working outside of also raising the kiddos and I get that. Some moms (me) just can't balance both or don't want to balance both. I'm really, sincerely impressed with my friends who do that balance so well. Some financially need to work. If we needed me to work for insurance or to afford food or to just live I would. And there are I am positive people out there who couldn't be comfortable living on our single earner income. Perhaps the finanaces would be so stressful the family life would suffer. We could save more for our children's educations if I were working and we could give more to others too. But for us the benefits of me being home outweigh the financial benefits of me working.

So in your situation but with my personality and family dynamics I would pass up the position. But you're not me!

There isn't one "right" or "good" decision here. I don't see how what anyone else does or would do helps with your decision. It's just so personal and has a lot to do with family dynamics, finances, kids needs, personality, etc.

[mamamelia]

thanks rachelle i guess i am after opinions because i am sure there are many different ways of looking at it and i know i haven't thought of all of them yet.. i am one of those people who has a really hard time making a decision. i usually need to consider absolutely everything (right down to the finer details) before i can make one. going shopping with me for anything is an extremely painful experience i've been told.

i apologise if this is too personal, but do you believe its the best decision for you because andrew has SN? i mean, if he didn't, would you still feel strongly about staying at home? i ask as melia has some SN too (not sure if you remember me from the SN forum) and so i do wonder if i'm doing her a disservice in general even though she would be in front of me pretty much all the time (assuming i get the daycare job). she seemed to really enjoy going to pre-school some 2 months ago but her behaivour towards us was shocking the entire time (and i highly doubt she was picking up bad behaivour, i am worried that it may have been the sensory stuff acting out)... and i didn't know what to make of it. i'm really confused as i can see that there are good points to being at home and good points to taking up the offer and i want to make the right decision (or what seems like the right decision). i think i need to write out a pro and con list and include everything i can possibly think of.

[sbgrace]

I too have problems with decisions a lot of times. A pro/con list might help you. Do you have a gut feeling about the decision? When you sink into the idea is your over-all feeling excited/anticipating/good or is it a negative?

Special needs. That's so hard. When the boys were younger I didn't know Andrew had significant special needs and I was able to go back and decided not to do so. When they were young it didn't play in and I still made the decision not to work. As they get older the special needs thing is more of a factor. In all, I do think it has some play in my mind because I feel he needs me more that a typical child would and that he benefits more from my individualized attention. I also feel his issues make it harder for him to do well outside of my care. His issues are such a part of us that I really can't imagine it different to say if it would make a difference enough that I would work. Especially as we approach preschool age it might. Or school age. But that is part of what I meant when I said family dynamics. Part of the aspects that make it so hard for anyone else's decisions to apply to another person in a significant way.

[mamasaurus]

mamamelia -

Thinking more on your dilemma today...

Whether or not to work, and why you want to work, and how the finances affect your family is such a personal issue.

You've said you don't *need* the money. But, think of the possibilities that can happen. People lose jobs, they get hurt and can't work (I have friends who went through that - Dad suddenly disabled and Mom having to go back to work, 4 kids - very rough times), appliances need replacing, roof starts leaking, car need replacing, grandparents need help, you name it.

I'm not trying to be negative - I'm just saying that if a job came along where you could make some good money that could be socked away, and you were able to work with your kids - like in the daycare you talked about - then maybe, just maybe it's a good idea. There are Moms who try to come up with WAH jobs so they can be with their kids - and it usually seems to be incredibly stressful. Because they have a hard time making time for the kids while they are supposed to be working, and the kids sometimes get stuck in the house all day because Mommy has to work, etc. Just read some threads on in the Working Moms forum and you'll see what I'm talking about. I personally WAH and I have found that having a nanny is the best situation for us. I couldn't put my kids in a situation where I needed to focus on work so much, that they were left all to themselves to play or be stuck in front of the TV, etc.

What you are describing is the best of both worlds - for a person wants to work, but have their kids around. Because you are not your own boss, you are working for someone else, and the pressure is not on you to meet deadlines while looking after your children! Big difference. In fact, working in a daycare while your children are with you may give them fun things to do, too. Other kids to be with, activities to do, etc. But I would look at the daycare facility and ask myself - is this where I want my kids to spend the day? Like I mentioned in a PP, if it were just a "room", I'd say no way. If it were a nice, happy space with an outdoors area and plenty of room to play and other nice adults and kids there, then I'd be more likely to consider it.

You know, you might want to post again in Working Moms to find out if anyone else works in a daycare environment and brings their kids, and ask them to list pros/cons.

You have to look at the job itself, the hours, how it affects your family, how it meets your needs (being in the same room with your kids sounds ideal), etc. I wouldn't look at the MONEY necessarily, though. Try and take that out of the picture - because money is not everything.

Think about this - would you marry someone just for their money? Of course not.

Would you take a job just for the money? Of course not.

You have to look at the *whole package* and see if it is right for you.

[DariusMom]

Originally Posted by mamamelia

re the sperm donor comment.. my husband is home and awake from the hours of 6:30pm till 12am and he is not a sperm donor or providor of financial security only thanks. i laughed out aloud when i read that comment as at first it seemed quite silly. i'd have to say that his best role yet is being a providor of many hugs, laughs and tickles during the hours he is home. oh, he is also a pretty good buttwasher too. he helps me to raise the kids physically and emotionally when he is here at home (and that entails many different things).. and when he is not at home, he is *still* helping to raise them by providing for us financially. we also call him up at work and the girls chat to him. i hope that through disclosing this info, that you can see that i do not think that raising kids is a black and white affair. the political correctness in here sometimes gets a little mad and i am a little annoyed that everything has to be dissected, delegated and justified before we can feel comfortable with our decisions as parents.

hmmm . .. think you missed my point entirely. i wasn't talking about *your* DH or anyone's DH. I was taking on the whole hypocrisy of only using the "raising your kids" (or not!) terminology in regard to *moms* and not dads. You clearly see your DH as "raising" your kids, and that's great. My DH is gone from 8-6:30 and he's doing a great job of raising our DS.

However, when the terminology is used, it is almost always in regard to whether or not a mom is "raising" her kids or not. The criteria for "raising" it seems (at least on MDC) is how many hours per day a parent spends with the children. But, strangely enough, most MDC mamas who are quick to judge another mama for not spending X amount of hours a day with her kids and, therefore, not "raising" them, don't apply the same criteria to their own partners, many of whom seem to work 60 hours a weeks so she can SAH and home-school (or whatever). I find that hypocritical and, as I said, I think it reduces the man to a sperm donor and a paycheck because, after all, you can't really be "raising" your kids if you're not with them X number of hours a day.

I'm glad that you, OP, don't share this view. However, it is very prevalent on MDC and hackles tend to rise when the terminology "raising" is used.

[GranoLLLy-girl]

Originally Posted by JustKiya

Yes. If your family can afford it, it's more than worth it.

this. I gave up a large salary to be with my children and I wouldn't change a single minute--I know that this may end up as a mommy war post, but the thing is--I can't replace that time with any amount of money...ever. No one can--time isn't for sale.

[momof_3_boys]

If I were offered a job like that, I would take because we need the money. (Daycare and gas costs would eat my salary if I went back to work, and I refuse to work just for the sake of working.)

However, if we didn't need the money at all and were living comfortably ono one salary, it'd be more worth it to me to stay at home with my children.

[PennyRoo]

Also chiming in to echo another poster who said if her DH made more than six figures she would pass up this offer in a heartbeat. If you can afford it and want to stay home, go for it! I'd be at home in a NY minute if our family could afford it. Alas, with DH and my incomes combined we nowhere near approach the six figure mark.

[attachedmamaof3]

Currently, my DP is allowing someone else to "raise his children" while he works a job that he hates to provide for his family. She is not the woman he married.

This person is becoming bitter, resentful, tired and angry. She is VERY loving with the children, but seems to be finding herself snapping at the children for no good reason. She doesn't get paid enough for how hard she works, she does our cooking, cleaning, laundry, diapers, snacks, activities and hugs. She drives the kids to their sports, playdates, etc. She is an invaluable member of the family. The nucleus if you will. She has done every thing possible in the best interest of the children over the past 10 yrs of her life.

Oh, wait! This person is me!

I'd take the job, thank heaven I wasn't paying upwards of $1600 a month in daycare and love every minute of it.

I SAH because I think it's best for my kids to have their mother with them for as long as it's working for all parties/is financially feasible and everyone's needs are being met. I don't pee rainbows, run in meadows and play with unicorns on a daily basis...since SAHMing is so "perfectly perfect" in every way. That's not a reality for me. Some days, I literally despise my daily "stuff".

I need more. I did what I could; stayed at home for as long as possible. It is time for a change. I am okay with that. I am currently job-searching as we speak and will return to work as soon as I get an offer for a position that I'm interested in.

My children deserve a happy, healthy mother. At the moment, I am not that mother.

[DevaMajka]

Assuming we didn't really *need* the money, if I wanted to work, then I would. If I didn't want to work, then I wouldn't.

We make WAY less than your dp will be making. I hope it will be up to a third in a couple years. I doubt I'd take the job if it had to be full time. But I HATE working full time, and we are paying our bills, have no debt, and are able to buy what we need.

If it were part time, I would most definitely consider it. Maybe partially for the money, but it might be nice to have the option to spend the day with adults. hehehe. I think my ds would be quite happy to be in daycare though. If he wasn't happy in daycare, and we'd tried to work it out, I'd most likely stop working to stay home again.