money v quality of life?

shell_girl

I gave up work to be a SAHM. I was the main wage earner.

We live on a very small budget and are also paying off some debts we built up when we were earning three times what we earn now.

We have had to make changes to our longterm plans (we will not be able to buy a house in a nicer area any time soon) and when our car breaks down it's a disaster not a mild inconvenience!

We're happy. Our little boy is happy and thriving and has everything he needs and more.

We've learned that lots of what we used to think of as 'needs' were actually 'wants', and some of our old 'wants' we just don't want anymore!

maman

This may not be a popular opinion with the 'quality of life' people but I really think you have to take a long term view of a career. I'm delighted that OP is making small tweaks to spend more time with family and having help from GP. Also DH working from home a few days a week is good (for him and family) and should make things easier for OP.


If you've worked and trained hard to reach a good point in your career, get fulfilment from it and want to progress in the future then IMO it's not as simple as just going for an easier life. If you're satisfied with just any job to cover the bills then that's a different matter but I know I wouldn't be.

Anatidaephobia

ska_lover wrote: »

Most people are going to say quality of life - but that is a dream for many.

Many of us dream of working less hours, or in a less stressful job - but cannot afford to quit and have responsibilities.

Many people actually could afford to work fewer hours or a less stressful job but they have been accustomed to so many 'luxuries' that they are not willing to cut down on.

People tend to spend what they have; whether they earn £12,000 a year or £32,000 a year, most people will spend it all and much of the 'extra' money gets spent unnecessarily (as an example, my friend makes no attempt to save money when buying something, whether it's groceries in a supermarket or a renewal quote for car insurance, because she says "she can afford it" and "life's too short to waste time comparing prices" yet I know for a fact that she's unable to pay off her credit card bill and her monthly outgoings are often higher than her earnings).

Of course, this is MSE so much of what I've said won't apply to posters here

Anatidaephobia

Just a little story that I was reminded of by reading this thread

The businessman was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The businessman complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied only a little while.

The businessman then asked why he didn't stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. The businessman then asked, but what do you do with the rest of your time? The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos; I have a full and busy life, señor."

The businessman scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and I could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats; eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor and eventually open your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City where you would run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But señor, how long will this all take?" To which the businessman replied, "15-20 years." "But what then, señor?" The businessman laughed and said, "That's the best part! When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions." "Millions, señor? Then what?" The businessman said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "Isn't that what I'm doing right now?"

tooldle

I'm all for quality of life etc, but this decision shouldn't be all about the here and now. I have an assistant who took the quality of life option and now finds themselves very close to retirement with no savings to finance that retirement. Yes, I agree you should consider your kids, but the other side of that argument is to consider yourself and your future needs.

pukkamum

I had a conversation with my mum the other day about my going back to work when the little one is at school.
She was horrified when i said I didn't have any intention of going back unless financially necessary, i.e can't pay the bills.
But money makes things so much better she cried.
Really mum, so it would be better for my husband and I not to see each other for weeks at a time, given his shift pattern, it would be better for him to work from 4.30am and then come home and help with the housework and childcare because I am work?
For what, a newer car, more holidays, more stuff?
No thanks, we live a simple life and I like it like that, I don't need half the stuff we already have, why would I put myself and my family through the stress of me working for more of it?

pollypenny

A cleaner is essential. When my two were small I had one twice a week, not once a fortnight!

It meant that the day before she was due, the kids would put things away in their rooms and she actually kept the house clean.

You don't mention cooking . If your OH is home first I assume he makes the main meal.

FBaby

I'm surprised at the level of seeming bitterness coming out of some of the posts here. Not everyone who earns well waste their money far from it. The view of those doing well spending all their money on materialist things not caring to get the best deals, spoiling their kids etc... is not my experience. I don't need to look for best deals but will always do as a principle. I shop for clothes mainly in charity shops or in the sales. I do buy items of food that I want and I consider it a luxury thanks to my income but I will still look for best deals. I don't spoil my kids and they often have to make compromises. They don't get to go to all the school trips on offer and those over £500 are definitely not an option. This is the case for most of my friends who do well. I have actually found that it is those in lower income who seem less concerned about where their money goes.

lostinrates

Anatidaephobia wrote: »

Just a little story that I was reminded of by reading this thread

The thing is, most of us don't live or work in picturesque fishing villages / rural situations/ low paid jobs others might do for a hobby. When making choices to pare down we may be choosing TIME over money, but often not lifestyle like fishing on the beach. Sometimes not even time, because some ways to save money and maintain quality are rather time consuming.

maman

tooldle wrote: »

I'm all for quality of life etc, but this decision shouldn't be all about the here and now. I have an assistant who took the quality of life option and now finds themselves very close to retirement with no savings to finance that retirement. Yes, I agree you should consider your kids, but the other side of that argument is to consider yourself and your future needs.

pukkamum wrote: »

I had a conversation with my mum the other day about my going back to work when the little one is at school.
She was horrified when i said I didn't have any intention of going back unless financially necessary, i.e can't pay the bills.
But money makes things so much better she cried.
Really mum, so it would be better for my husband and I not to see each other for weeks at a time, given his shift pattern, it would be better for him to work from 4.30am and then come home and help with the housework and childcare because I am work?
For what, a newer car, more holidays, more stuff?
No thanks, we live a simple life and I like it like that, I don't need half the stuff we already have, why would I put myself and my family through the stress of me working for more of it?

It's interesting to read the two opposing positions. It doesn't bother me whether people like pukkamum choose to go back to work or not. That's their choice although not one I would make.


What I do care about is that people who make that choice genuinely have enough money to pay their way both now and in the future. Although I'm really not a right wing person, I feel very strongly that benefits aren't there as a lifestyle choice. As tooldle points out there'll be people who haven't made proper provision for retirement looking to pension credits so the taxpayer is funding their earlier lifestyle choice.