what lengths would you go to to give your child a SAHM/D?

SusanC_2

weezl74 wrote: »

I had a 'cease life assurance/mortgage protection/income protection policies' option

We got those protections because we have a child.

mrcow

Downshifting groceries

flea72 wrote: »

are you really saying its feasible for someone to maintain paying a £153k mortgage, when their income drops to £15k - £20k, once children arrive and they decide to become a sahp?

Flea

No - if you're just looking at your £15k job and are saying that that's all you're ever going to do in your life, then of course it's not going to be good enough.

Hopefully though you do have some ambition and drive though? You're not hoping to stay on the same wage by the age of 30 that you were on when you were 21? Children don't "arrive" btw. They are not something that just fall on your lap when you're not looking you know?

do_it_today!

Having a lodger

If its possible to be a sahp without having an OH on a decent wage, could you please enlighten me to how its done, because im obviously going wrong somewhere

Flea[/QUOTE]

I would like to know too please :j!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

flea72

mrcow wrote: »

No - if you're just looking at your £15k job and are saying that that's all you're ever going to do in your life, then of course it's not going to be good enough.

Hopefully though you do have some ambition and drive though? You're not hoping to stay on the same wage by the age of 30 that you were on when you were 21? Children don't "arrive" btw. They are not something that just fall on your lap when you're not looking you know?

alot of people arent looking for careers though, just a job that pays the bills. But why should that penalise them from being able to stay at home with their children. Does this mean then that anyone on a low income, shouldnt have children, unless they want to put them into childcare, or poverty. Thats why i say its a luxury to be a sahm, because its starting to become something only available to the affluent, whereas go back 20yrs, it was an option for most famillies

Alot of jobs start at min wage, and only rise inline with min wage/inflation, so your pay is always kept at the same level. Unless you have other financial resources, retraining is money you can ill afford.

its ok to say retrain, get better educated, but when that means you have to take a drop in income, to cover the time needed to devote to the coursework, its a no win situation. You cant even say that by going to Uni you will get a better paid job, we all know that there are too many graduates for very few jobs, and just adding yourself into the equation, as an older novice, means you would come bottom of the heap. im not being pessimistic, its the reality at the moment, its an employers market, and times are hard, the less you can pay staff, the better

I know children dont just arrive, but unless you are talking long term - ie save for the eventuality of kids in 5-10yrs time, there is no way you could save an amount, equal to a drop in income. As alot of couples are now settling down later in life too, having long term plans for the arrival of children just isnt possible. Perhaps adults should be encouraged to start 'child funds' at age 18, similar to pensions?

Whats wrong with staying in a job for life? if you like the work, and it suits your lifestyle, why can it not be good enough? If everyone wanted to climb the employment ladder we would have alot of managers and no ground staff. we cant all be heading in the same direction, but you would have thought in this day and age, it should be possible for a parent to be able to stay at home, if they choose

Money shouldnt have to come into it, but it does

Flea

SusanC_2

do_it_today! wrote: »

If its possible to be a sahp without having an OH on a decent wage, could you please enlighten me to how its done, because im obviously going wrong somewhere

Flea

I would like to know too please :j!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See this post for a few ideas:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23084497&postcount=186

Almo

flea72 wrote: »

Can you not choose a career now for the love of the job, or does everyone have to go for the big bucks? Not everyone can be a rocket scientist, there are people who have to do the menial jobs, that keep the rest of the county going, but thats ok, we can work for peanuts, and not see our kids, due to having to work 2, 3 or maybe 4 jobs, just so we keep a roof over our heads, as long as there are people who have a choice over whether they can be a sahp , because their OH went for the money, were all hunky dory?

Flea

You can choose to do whatever you want - go for the big bucks, the small bucks, the career, the menial job, the fun job, the stable job - whatever. But it's a choice, isn't it? You can choose to buy, rent, move counties, move countries. You can choose no kids, 1 kid, 2 kids, a whole menagerie. You cut your cloth accordingly. The menial jobs keep the country going, the high paying jobs provide tax to pay for those who can't/don't work - it's not one sided.

I do agree that there is a point below which it is unfeasible for a parent to stay at home. I don't know what that point is because I've never looked into it. I don't really see what you're arguing though - do you think the government should pay people to stay at home (genuine question by the way, I don't want it to sound 'loaded' in any way because it's not)?

Weezl, I can't answer your question about children, but if I wanted/needed to stay at home to look after a family member or whatever there is very little I wouldn't do. I don't think I would add to or extend debt unless I intended to go back to work very soon in order to pay it off. I would have a lodger, but I'd be mighty careful vetting them - for security of course, but also because if I'm going to be spending a lot of time with someone I want to like them!

I've edited this to add that I'm sorry Flea if it sounds a bit snippy (just reread it) - that's not my intention, but the written word is so difficult sometimes. I'm really enjoying the debate (don't get a lot of intelligent conversation at work) and am genuinely interested in what you are saying.

ella_ella_ella

Downshifting groceries

We are certainly not rich nor did we go to college or university, in fact the only qualifications we started with was probably school level, the rest have been picked up along the way whilst in jobs.

I dont think many people on here will have the high paying jobs you seem to think are needed to stay at home, but rather have started at the bottom with the drive to do better and slowly worked their way up. That could mean being a cleaner and becoming a cleaning supervisor for the better pay, but I really dont think anybody here has landed on their feet and just had it passed to them on a silver plate.

I have worked in a cafe, a clothes shop, packed eggs at a egg farm, cleaned, worked in a nursing home doing laundry and most recently before giving it up, a childminder - hardly big bucks. My husband has been doing the same sort of job for years but is always looking for better pay and has changed companys a few times for a 2K rise, better car etc. None of it has been easy so we are going to enjoy it.

Unless the tax credit system works for you and both parents are happy with minimum wage with no interest of a better paid job, then no, they probably couldnt stay at home but its their choice and certainly not the fault of those who are working hard every single day to have a SAHP.

milliebear00001

Downshifting groceries

flea72 wrote: »

alot of people arent looking for careers though, just a job that pays the bills. But why should that penalise them from being able to stay at home with their children. Does this mean then that anyone on a low income, shouldnt have children, unless they want to put them into childcare, or poverty. Thats why i say its a luxury to be a sahm, because its starting to become something only available to the affluent, whereas go back 20yrs, it was an option for most famillies

Alot of jobs start at min wage, and only rise inline with min wage/inflation, so your pay is always kept at the same level. Unless you have other financial resources, retraining is money you can ill afford.

its ok to say retrain, get better educated, but when that means you have to take a drop in income, to cover the time needed to devote to the coursework, its a no win situation. You cant even say that by going to Uni you will get a better paid job, we all know that there are too many graduates for very few jobs, and just adding yourself into the equation, as an older novice, means you would come bottom of the heap. im not being pessimistic, its the reality at the moment, its an employers market, and times are hard, the less you can pay staff, the better

I know children dont just arrive, but unless you are talking long term - ie save for the eventuality of kids in 5-10yrs time, there is no way you could save an amount, equal to a drop in income. As alot of couples are now settling down later in life too, having long term plans for the arrival of children just isnt possible. Perhaps adults should be encouraged to start 'child funds' at age 18, similar to pensions?

Whats wrong with staying in a job for life? if you like the work, and it suits your lifestyle, why can it not be good enough? If everyone wanted to climb the employment ladder we would have alot of managers and no ground staff. we cant all be heading in the same direction, but you would have thought in this day and age, it should be possible for a parent to be able to stay at home, if they choose

Money shouldnt have to come into it, but it does

Flea

It is interesting that from a social point of view, that the situation we have now where many families are financially forced to have both parents working, even when they might prefer to have one at home full-time, is actually the way things have always been. For working class families, living on lower incomes, both parents have generally always worked. This goes right back to previous centuries. These last couple of generations have seen the first time since widespread house buying that people have not been able to buy (and then live) on a single wage. Prior to this, there was a brief period in the 50s and 60s when people (even working class people) could afford to buy on a single salary because house prices were low relative to income. My own parents both had to work (in the 70s) because they were working for a menial wage - this has always been the case. Undoubtedly, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to manage on a single salary. Clearly, not everyone has the means to change their financial situation enough to allow single salary living. Whether it's possible will depend on all sorts of factors invidividual to families.

Just a point about living at the breadline in order to keep a parent at home. My OH's mum never worked, and they survived on his dad's wage. His children (although having a parent at home) really resented the lack of money (and 'stuf'') this meant they had. They living in a middle class town and really suffered at school because of their perceived lack of money - no foreign holidays, no luxuries etc. While they were small it wasn't such an isue, but as they got older they really felt hard done by. My BIL was deeply affected by it, and grew up determined he would always have money and the luxuries he didn't have back then - now he has an enormous amount of debt and has been bankrupt. I think this is an interesting example of why it might not always benefit children more to have a parent at home (even though my OH says his mum was an excellent, hands-on parent) than perhaps contributing financially to ease things at home.

weezl74

Having a lodger

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Just a point about living at the breadline in order to keep a parent at home. My OH's mum never worked, and they survived on his dad's wage. His children (although having a parent at home) really resented the lack of money (and 'stuf'') this meant they had. They living in a middle class town and really suffered at school because of their perceived lack of money - no foreign holidays, no luxuries etc. While they were small it wasn't such an isue, but as they got older they really felt hard done by. My BIL was deeply affected by it, and grew up determined he would always have money and the luxuries he didn't have back then - now he has an enormous amount of debt and has been bankrupt. I think this is an interesting example of why it might not always benefit children more to have a parent at home (even though my OH says his mum was an excellent, hands-on parent) than perhaps contributing financially to ease things at home.

Hi Millie

I think I understand your point, and I do see it's validity. I just wonder though if the way your OH and BIL were raised (financially speaking) can be held responsible for your BIL's reaction and his view on money, luxuries and bankruptcy. If it were solely responsible, then your OH would also have gone down this route, but your post implies he hasn't, and I'm glad of that. Instead it sounds like he admires her approach. Some people have thrifty parents and admire it and carry on living that way until their adulthood and beyond.

I wonder if it is more about the personality of the child and the mix between that and the way the financial choices are explained to the child? One example which might explain the difference between 2 child's reactions to thrifty parenting such as the one you've described between your OH and his BIL might be as follows:

Child 1: personality: dynamic, active, proactive likes to take control
child 2 : laid-back, easy-going, fairly passive, more allowing of life circumstances just to happen to him
Mum: also fairly passive and her explanations of things to her child are based on circumstances rather than proactive choice.

(none of these are 'Bad' personality characteristics)

Real-life scenario: Child 1: 'mum I want a new bike like Jack's!'
Mum 'oh well I'm sorry but we just can't afford it...'
C1 'why not?!'
Mum 'well you know Daddy doesn't get very much money each week and we haven't got enough to have food and to buy expensive toys...'
C1 Over time, and quite a few similar interactions, thinks 'I will never allow this to happen to me:eek::mad:' a reaction of his proactive nature to the percieved 'victim of circumstances' his mum has unwittingly portrayed...

whereas child2 may not see it this way:
C2 'can I have a bike?'
Mum 'oh well I'm sorry but we just can't afford it...'
c2 'oh...... maybe I'll play on Jack's sometime...':)

I don't think I've illustrated this very well! But my point is that I don't believe that the amount of money a family has can create a situation where a child goes into an extreme reaction to it and ends up in a difficult situation like bankruptcy. This has to be to do with a mix between the child's temperament and the parents temperament and way of explaining things to the children.

I really hope this doesn't sound like a criticism of BIL or his mum, simply that I can't see it was just because they had one wage.

weezl74

Having a lodger

Thank you to the 140 people who have completed the poll:T:T:T:T. It is great to have a large response to help me with my decision making, and this sample size feels more valid than anything I can gain by just asking a few friends.