Should both the wife and husband work?

[ThriftoRama]

If both people are working when they get married, there is no reason they both shouldn't continue to work after marriage.It's not 1950. What's the point of sitting at home all day?

When kids come along, every couple has to figure out what works for them. For us, I freelance for the same company where I worked full time when I had the baby. I get to keep my career going while being flexible to deal with the kids. It works for us.

[disneysteve]

If both people are working when they get married, there is no reason they both shouldn't continue to work after marriage.It's not 1950. What's the point of sitting at home all day?

Again, there is no right answer here. Just because it is not 1950 doesn't mean there aren't many women who enjoy being moms and are very happy and fulfilled doing it full time. My wife is certainly one of them. I assure you she doesn't sit around twiddling her thumbs all day.

[Reggie]

Obviously this is a very personal decision. I'm wondering about all of the questions from the poster as well. We can't tell you who should work, if you should combine your debt, etc.

For me, I would feel guilty if my husband were the only one going to work everyday, especially if my child was in school. We are choosing to live well below our means and retire early. I think that is the best case for all involved, but again it's my personal opinion. Why shouldn't both people stay home and live off of the wealth that they established?

I am 39. I could retire today but I'm choosing to work for another 5.5 years.

I would feel guilty if I stayed home. I would feel a little resentful if I went to work and my spouse stayed home. When both contribute equally, you can save a bunch and retire after working just a few years.

[Snydley]

This topic has been on my mind a lot lately. I have a 6yo and since she has been born I've spent time working full time, home full time, and working part-time.

Anyone with interest in this subject- I recommend reading The Feminine Mystique and The Price of Motherhood.

Hamchan is 100% right - all women need to financially protect themselves as there is NO value accredited to being a caregiver of young children in this country. Divorce law does not protect women who have reduced/eliminated working hours to stay home with their child. No one ever thinks they are going to get divorced, but nearly 50% of us do. Since our child care system sucks in this country (how about some government support? how about more decent, affordable options?) one parent usually slows down/stops their career when a child comes, and if/when the 2nd one arrives both parents working often doesn't make any sense at all, financially or otherwise (due to child care costs, our longer than ever work week, and lack of part-time work options).

Since I've moved to part-time my DH and I both feel the home is more balanced - he appreciates not feeling the pressure of being the sole breadwinner (in a profession where layoffs abound) and he does more house duties which I really appreciate.

I think the ideal is exactly what Betty Friedan stated maybe a decade ago - both parents ultimately working 30 hours (maybe one works less when I child is young, but has the opportunity to ramp up hours when he/she is ready).

[Snydley]

For me, I would feel guilty if my husband were the only one going to work everyday, especially if my child was in school.

I have one child in school and I can tell you I am plenty busy on the days I don't go to work; in fact, I can see one being busy all the time, all week when their child is grade school age even if they didn't work at all. School's out by 2:30 and it seems like they have 1/2days, days off, weeks off a lot. Also, they get sick/have Dr. appts, etc more than you would expect. Then add cooking, cleaning, house management (a bill is wrong, something breaks in the house, make reservations for upcoming vacation, pay bills, RSVP party, get new snow boots for DD, etc etc). I always have a list of a least 10+ house/kid things to deal with and it always amazes me. This is with only 1 kid! And my DH does all the laundry!

[disneysteve]

No one ever thinks they are going to get divorced, but nearly 50% of us do.

Not to stray too much OT but I really wish people would stop throwing out this supposed fact. The divorce rate in this country is not 50%. Never has been. That figure is a much-perpetuated myth. As with many sound bites, it's based on faulty data and doesn't take into account the whole story. For example, people who marry under the age of 20 have a much higher divorce rate. People without a college education have a higher divorce rate. People in lower socioeconomic groups have a higher divorce rate. But the overall rate nationwide still isn't 50%. And for folks who marry later, are at least of average income, and have a good education, the divorce rate is actually far lower than 50%. Some studies have put it in the 10-15% range.

Sorry for the rant. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

I don't think I've ever heard/read that, DisneySteve. Wow. That would change my perceptions.

[disneysteve]

I don't think I've ever heard/read that, DisneySteve. Wow. That would change my perceptions.

I think it was in the early 80s where one year the number of divorces happened to be about 50% of the number of marriages in that year. That's where the supposed 50% divorce rate came from. But it doesn't work that way. Just because there were 2 million marriages and 1 million divorces in 1982 (or whenever it was) doesn't mean the divorce rate is 50%. It wasn't those marriages that were ending. It was a cumulative 1 million marriages that had happened in many prior years that ended. But somehow the 50% figure caught on and became gospel. It's just plain wrong though.

[Joe Moore]

One thing to understand is that if the decision made that one of the parents will stay home to look after children, that parent would be giving up a lot in terms of carrier. After 10 years of raising children it is difficult to come to any profession.

[disneysteve]

One thing to understand is that if the decision made that one of the parents will stay home to look after children, that parent would be giving up a lot in terms of carrier. After 10 years of raising children it is difficult to come to any profession.

Really? My wife was home for 10 years. She then got a good job as an administrative assistant with a non-profit, good pay, good benefits, 403b, etc. From there, someone who belonged to the organization hired her to come work for her at a large hospital system. Even better pay. Even better benefits, doing something that she had absolutely no experience doing but she's a fast learner. She was there for over 6 years before we made the decision for her to go back to being a full-time mom and wife last year but I'm sure she could get a good job anytime she chooses to return to the workforce.

Of course, there are careers where that would be far more difficult but my point is that it isn't accurate to make a blanket statement that it would be hard to work in "any profession" after time away as a SAHM.

[BuckyBadger]

I won't say "any profession," but there are certain professions where it's harder to get back into the workforce.

To bring up an example mentioned in this thread, administrative assistant is one of those that would be easier to jump back in, because apart from some company-specific details, a good administrative assistant at one place would be a good assistant at another place. I suppose the introduction of computers would have made it difficult to get back into the work force if you had been out of it for those pivotal introductory years. Those are very transferable skills. Like most retail and service industry jobs - if you can sell clothes at the Gap today, you can sell them at Macys in 5 years. If you can serve at Applebees today, you can serve at Chilis tomorrow.

Technical and specialized and very skill-and-education-based fields are much less so. My field, for example, changes drastically every 5-10 years - as in, much of it would be practically unrecognizable to someone who hasn't been in it for 10 years.

So the exact job that you're leaving has to do with your decision, as well. Some jobs/professions are easier to jump back into after a big gap that others are.

[disneysteve]

I won't say "any profession," but there are certain professions where it's harder to get back into the workforce.

Technical and specialized and very skill-and-education-based fields are much less so.

Definitely.

In my wife's case, her last 3 jobs were really rather different.
1. Retail receiving manager for a national sporting goods chain.
2. Administrative assistant for a religious non-profit.
3. Surgical scheduler for a large hospital system.
But none of those require specialized training outside of what she could learn on the job.

[hamchan]

Divorce isn't the only thing you have to worry about. My husband has changed a lot since becoming ill. He is no longer able to.be an equal partner. He is still earning an income, but as more and more of it goes toward paying for his healthcare, I have to earn enough to cover all the other bills. I love him, and I am committed to him, but in all honesty he is a burden more than an asset. Even if I did leave there would be negative financial.consequences. You can't just assume things will always stay the same.

[Snydley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snydley
No one ever thinks they are going to get divorced, but nearly 50% of us do.

Not to stray too much OT but I really wish people would stop throwing out this supposed fact. The divorce rate in this country is not 50%. Never has been. That figure is a much-perpetuated myth. As with many sound bites, it's based on faulty data and doesn't take into account the whole story. For example, people who marry under the age of 20 have a much higher divorce rate. People without a college education have a higher divorce rate. People in lower socioeconomic groups have a higher divorce rate. But the overall rate nationwide still isn't 50%. And for folks who marry later, are at least of average income, and have a good education, the divorce rate is actually far lower than 50%. Some studies have put it in the 10-15% range.

Sorry for the rant. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

I was speaking for all marriages. I see your point and did find evidence on the internet to support it; however, it seems statements like this one, "A young couple marrying for the first time today has a lifetime divorce risk of 40 percent, unless current trends change significantly." are supported by the data and seem consistent with my own anecdotal knowledge (of middle class in the Northeast). Maybe it's not 50% lifetime risk, maybe even a bit lower than 40%- but in my opinion, no way is it 15%. In my life of all the couples I know I'd say ~1/2 of marriages made it (or are making it) for the duration.

My only point by mentioning it is that divorce is a real risk to women and if can send them below the poverty line.

Joan Williams, a law Professor an American University, said, "a man can over-invest in in his career with the secure social knowledge that if his marriage fails, he can walk away with his wallet and enter the secondary marriage market largely unimpaired. Women, on the other hand, invest heavily in their children but have nothing like the same security."

[cschin4]

I have a very good professional career. My job is great. But there have been times I have been full time, part time, etc. I look at life in " Seasons". For a time I greatly cut back to stay home more. There were seasons where I worked a lot. There were seasons when DH was unemployed or vice versa. The point is not about keeping score but about working together for the good of your family. And it is simply nicer in my opinion to have someone home more to take care of a lot of details
. When I am home more I cook more and that makes everyone happy.