Hellobee Boards

I definitely think these are things to take into account. For a lot of (but not all) professions, it's difficult to get back in once you've been gone -- I think the gap in your resume doesn't look all that great to employers.

DH is a SAHD. He's self employed (or was....long story), so had no benefits, no 401k, no expected promotions. It was an easy decision for us to make to have him stay home while I stayed at work (and honestly, he's welcome to it! I love my daughter but I need the interaction of the office to keep me sane).

We also enrolled our daughter into part time daycare two days a week after she turned one. I feel like the social interaction, getting her exposed to germs (sorry for your third cold in a row, kiddo!), the experience, are all things that expand her in ways we could never accomplish. I hope that she has a good balance.

I think this assumes a certain type of job though. My job did not provide health care or a pension or a 401k, although it did contribute a small amount to an IRA.

I am missing out on some opportunity cost because I will be out of the workforce for a bit. But there is also an "emotional cost" that I would miss out on by being with my kids if I was working. If I earned more, I probably would be fine eating that cost. But right now, the small contribution to my IRA isn't worth it.

Here is an interesting article on the cost of child care: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/rising-cost-of-child-care-may-help-explain-increase-in-stay-at-home-moms/

@jedeve: not only a certain type of job, but a certain level of experience as well. Having 2 years of
experience is different than 10 years is different than 20.

I mean, I know that by spending years out of the workforce, I'm certainly impacting my future earning potential. I didn't leave a career to be a mother, but I would have started one by now had I not had my daughter. For me, it's worth it. I think more of the opportunity cost involved in working through my daughter's first few years - to me (me!), that would have been a huge opportunity lost.

I'm lucky in that my husband is able to support our family, and that I have this choice. With that in mind, the choice to opt out of a career at this point in my life was easy.

Not sure if this holds true for others, but all the daycare cost etc arguments are things I just say to try and justify quitting my job to all the women who went back at 6-12 weeks, mostly so they don't feel bad or judged...and so I don't really have to get into the discussion of how our values differ, because it's a really sensitive topic. I say those things to avoid mommy wars.

The real reason I'm still home and probably won't go back to full time work until we're done having kids is totally unrelated to our finances. Obviously we'd have more money if I kept my job, both in the short and long term. I made more reliable and usually higher income than DH, and my job was the only one that gave us benefits, from insurance to retirement to paid vacation, since he's self employed. To us the benefit of having me full time with our son in the early years, breastfeeding on demand, nurturing him in the way no paid caregiver could, outweighs all that. And if it were all about maximizing profits we wouldn't have kids in the first place!

So yeah, maybe that's a controversial thing to say and I don't say it to offend anyone. That's why I usually make up some story about daycare costs and whatnot when it comes up in real life. I suspect others do the same.

@anandam: that's brave of you to say! In many ways I understand and agree. I can't use the "child care is no expensive" excuse because We can certainly afford it. I have to create other excuses for staying home. After studying for so long (thankfully assistantships and scholarships mean no debt) I feel immense pressure to focus on my career, particularly from my dad and a few friends. I find it awkward to say, "I want to be at home with LO because of X, Y, Z" so I say, "We're here because of DH career and there are no job openings for me here, but I'm definitely on the lookout." And then I get that icky feeling from being dishonest.

@jedeve: I do think the article makes a good point, and this is why I strongly support subsizided child care over an extended maternity leave, if I had to choose one or the other. In an ideal situation, we'd have both, but I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime.

The professional women are the ones with choices, the ones that work the jobs waitressing, in factories, etc are the ones that have a very rough road.

@Cherrybee: Not in the US, unfortunately, the mentality is that if you're out of the workforce for any extended period of time, you are out of sight, out of mind. No employer is going to keep your position waiting for you for a year, while also having to pay a temp to do the job. 6 months, more likely, but one year? Not happening, unless the government mandates it and pays for it.

@Cherrybee: They won't, because it would mean an increase in taxes, and Americans across the board favor lower taxes, even if it means less services. Which means, even subsidized childcare is a long way away too!

@Madison43: You're right, I suppose it was inaccurate to say it's "totally" unrelated to our finances. We have made certain decisions to keep our cost of living lower, but I also know women whose partners are disabled or absent or just unable to financially support the family, so it's not a choice for them. Or who feel like providing more financial stability and options for their family is more important than being the person who changes their diapers and holds their bottle (the foundation of this thread, I think). It's all valid, I agree. There's no right way to parent!