Small house & stay at home, or big house & keep working?

onlyroz

Any reason why both you and your partner can't go part time, so both of you get to spend some time with the kids?

And that house seems plenty big enough.

cyantist

choille wrote: »

Bigger house and work at home renting out rooms, B&B or child minding - that way you use the property and are still working but making it suit you.

I don't think these are options that would work for many people.

We rented a room in our house before I had my baby and for a while after she was born. The lodger was (still is) lovely, adores our daughter and we still see her but it's a big ask sharing your house when you've got young children. We only managed it for a couple of months. And running a B&B is a huge job! I'd rather have a smaller house than consider either of those options.

I started training as a childminder, and completed about half of the course. The tasks weren't hard but were time consuming and there is so much involved in doing this job, for relatively little money. Now I'm back at work full time, I have such admiration for my amazing childminders and everything they do with my daughter as it's a bl**dy difficult job that I know I couldn't do as well as them.

OP - I'm not sure our house is much bigger than yours even though it's a 4-bed detached! I was expecting 'small' to be a 2 bed/1 bath house. That house is much bigger than 90% of the places my friends are raising their children in.

RainbowLaura

Thanks again for all of your thoughts and helpful suggestions

onlyroz wrote: »

Any reason why both you and your partner can't go part time, so both of you get to spend some time with the kids?

It seems more complicated to try and balance two part time jobs than just to have one person working full time. I'd imagine it could be quite difficult to pick and choose what hours we would want, especially with my husband's work, as he does rotating shifts.

It has always been my plan to get a casual job at some point for a bit of extra money, just not something like the office job I'm in at the moment. A few shifts in one of the local pubs, or something like that; something a bit flexible that I can work around my husband.

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

As you describe yourself as a low earner, if you do decide to give up employment, why not use some of the time you have at home to improve your qualifications and skills so that you can return to work in a better job when the time comes?

I do like the suggestion about using the time to develop my skills, thank you Tabby. My main problems are actually related to anxiety and self-confidence (I'm significantly overqualified in my current job, but absolutely terrified of putting my skills to use and taking on actual responsibilities in the workplace). I am very keen to address that And then possibly re-train in a field that suits me better.

svain

conradmum wrote: »

I've lived in small houses and large houses (four bedroom, one ensuite, two receptions, sun room) and I would choose a small house every time now. Big houses are overrated imo. They cost more to furnish and heat and you pay more council tax. There's also more work involved in cleaning and maintaining them. But worst of all, the more space you have the more junk you accumulate. When we left our large house I was amazed and almost ashamed at the sheer amount of stuff we'd gathered over the years. Obviously you don't want to be cramped but as long as a house is large enough I wouldn't go larger. I'd put the extra money in savings.

I totally echo this quote ... has it totally spot on (i also have done both).

Having disposable income is king, wherever you are in life, it gives you day to day options and releases quality time.

I would/have however compromised this philosophy for garden/outside space, area, outlook and position of property .... I would pay the extra for these over size every time

pearl123

Small house. Cheaper to run. It allows you to put away money for a rainy day.

ViolaLass

Option 1, and then you can choose whether to go back to work or not, and how many hours you'd like to work (subject to the job, I know, but the principle of choice will be there).

Kynthia

onlyroz wrote: »

Any reason why both you and your partner can't go part time, so both of you get to spend some time with the kids?

And that house seems plenty big enough.

This is what we've done. Yes it requires some organisation and two bosses to deal with when needing short notice leave. However It's great that we both get those extra days with the children and get to take them to classes and other fun things. Hopefully more people will consider it as the country gets better at accepting men going part time.

fred246

When I met my wife she made it clear that if we had kids she was giving up work to look after them. I accepted that we would be poorer than families where both parents worked. Twenty years later and we seem richer. I really can't work it out. We have only ever paid for one night of baby sitting. No other childcare costs. I think we eliminate labour charges. I do DIY, car servicing etc. She cooks meals from fresh ingredients (Lidl for years ie when post people wouldn't use Lidl) and can make and adjust clothes. Every evening the family would sit together for lovely meals (wife has always loved cooking). It's funny we seem to have saved most from being old fashioned (boys do car maintenance, woodwork, girls do cooking and needlework).

TBagpuss

I'd say go with option 1 for now, once you have the child you can decide whether it would work better for you family to move, and take on the extra expense, or stay put.

and in either case, you can look at whether both of you reducing your hours and playing a role in caring for your children would work better than one of you stopping work completely.

My aunt and uncle did this - my uncle went to 4 days, my aunt to 3, and the children went to nursery 2 days a week. It meant that the children were spending more time with their parents than with anyone else, and that both parents got to maintain their careers, and financially, it worked for them.

Friends are currently doing the same - dad works 4 days, mum works 4, both have some flexitime so child only spends 1 day per week in nursery.

onlyroz

TBagpuss wrote: »

you can look at whether both of you reducing your hours and playing a role in caring for your children would work better than one of you stopping work completely.

My aunt and uncle did this - my uncle went to 4 days, my aunt to 3, and the children went to nursery 2 days a week. It meant that the children were spending more time with their parents than with anyone else, and that both parents got to maintain their careers, and financially, it worked for them.

Friends are currently doing the same - dad works 4 days, mum works 4, both have some flexitime so child only spends 1 day per week in nursery.

It has also been shown that dads who spend more time with their children when they are young generally stay more involved with household matters later on, e.g. doing their bit with the housework, helping out with kids' homework, ferrying to and from activities, the school run etc etc (so all those things that normally fall on the shoulders of an ever more exhausted mum).