Thanks. A friend of mine at work said something similar.

Exactly!

Right, of course not. I didn't mean to imply there was a direct correlation. Statistically, a higher percentage of the criminal population and drug users were raised by broken homes or households where both parents worked, when compared to the general population. If we know that children raised by a stay-at-home parent have a better chance of turning out to be well-adjusted, contributing members of society - even if that advantage is only slight - why wouldn't you choose that path?

Lots of women drink alcohol during pregnancy, and the kids almost always turn out fine. But I think we can all agree that the ideal situation is to abstain from drinking during pregancy. The only benefit to taking such a risk is temporary self-indulgence. I think this situation is analogous. We're talking about taking an increased risk with the child's future, in exchange for surplus money.

I guess maybe I'm reacting to the comment that the reason bel chose daycare is because being a parent makes her "grumpy." I have to wonder what she thought being a parent was going to be like. Is it possible the money is just a rationalization, covering for bel's unexpected reaction to parenthood? Maybe she thought it would be easier, and is using the money as an excuse to get away from all the crying and smelly diapers nobody warned her about? If that's the case, is it healthy for us to blindly support her choice, or should we instead be encouraging her to step up and work through the difficult times? Aren't parents often claiming that all the suffering is worth it? What if you avoid the suffering - isn't that cheating yourself out of the full experience of being a parent?

In defense of Bel (and also being a working mom) I think all this has to do with balance. Yes there are workaholic moms, but there are also moms who go the other direction and completely lose their identity into the mom role and neglect other aspects of their well-being (psychological, physical, interpersonal) for the sake of their kids, and I don't think that's healthy either. Let's face it, being a mom is also being the defacto housekeeper, cook, errand runner, paperwork filler-outer, homework helper as well. It's easy to let those immediate concerns take over, and other things that may be important for that person to slip to the back. I am the primary breadwinner and I don't see that changing. But in addition to that I want to be a role model for my daughters not just what I do at home, but what I do out in the world. Anyways there are good full time moms and there are bad full time moms. There are good working moms and bad working moms. Regardless of the role, if momma aint happy, nobody's happy.

I guess I want to point out, in the criticism of Bel, that there are two parents here. Both parents should share the responsibility in raising the children.

Did I write a misleading post again? Maybe I did. Yes, I said that working part-time means harder to hit the goal. That's a fact. But that's not the reason why I've been spending time thinking about the idea of of working part-time. I like thinking through things before jumping in. I'm still trying to find a good balance. I don't really care much about the loss in income, I just need balance.

Thanks partgypsy. Love it.

By the way, I don't think we are well off although I'm not sure what qualifies one to be well off. The main reason we can invest 6 figures (that does not include savings for wants) is not having a house payment/mortgage.

I was just crunching in the numbers and it looks like we will only total $84k by the end of the year. With upcoming year-end expenses (like property taxes), we won't be able to direct any more of our income to investments. I guess $84k is not bad. If we didn't buy a brand new car this year, we could easily hit the goal. But we wanted the new car.

Well, I think you're well off. Of course, it's all relative. I imagine there are a number of folks who read my journal and consider me well off so no worries. You are what you are, I always say.

Regardless, $84k in one year? I think that's a damn fine number and you should be proud of it. I know I'll never hit anything close to that.

So your home is paid off? I assume so because you mentioned having to pay property taxes while previously mentioning not having a house payment / mortgage.

If that's the case (you own your home outright, you just bought a new car, your husband supports your decision - whatever it might be) and you want to stop working, I'm guessing it's entirely feasible, financially.

Whether it's something you want to do or not is, of course, entirely up to you. My wife occasionally brings up the idea of her not working and I wonder if the kids might indeed, "drive her crazy."

At a get together recently, one of her good friends who quit working right after her first was born around ten years ago is now itching to get back to work, but I imagine she'll find it very tough to do so after 10 years of being a mom. Her kids appear no more well-adjusted than ours, either.

Please don't take the above comment as a criticism (AT ALL) of those heroic mothers who wish to be full time parents (I salute their bravery, believe me) - just the reality of our economic times.

Yours does not seem to be any sort of a "broken home" and I imagine neither of you are "absentee parents" so if you can find caregivers you're happy with, and you enjoy working and suchlike, there's nothing wrong with playing the (miniscule) odds.

We cannot live our lives around what-ifs and studies of pop psychologists who want to sell books (ala Oliver James).

Besides, it's all in the genes.

Here's a tip, the people who are not well-off not only don't get to invest 6 figures in a year, they don't even earn 6 figures

I guess you're right. It's all relative. I definitely don't feel well off though. I still eat my instant ramen at lunchtime. LOL! I like it and see nothing wrong with ramen. Plus I don't see why I should upgrade to cafeteria food that costs $7-10 just because.



Yes, our house is paid off; bought the car in cash; no debt at all. So yes, it's feasible financially for me to be a stay at home mom. But no, I don't want to stop working (I prefer to be a working mom, whether it's fulltime or parttime).



Good to hear.



Awesome! I hope so.

Update:

$10,000 = IRA
$ 8,000 = 529
$23,625 = 401k
$30,000 = Regular Investment

$71,625 = TOTAL

$28,375 more to go.

"A child who goes to day care spends less time with his or her parents than a child who does not" is a tautology. (more or less - there are exceptions, caveats, etc. But I think we could construct a version of the statement that is a tautology.)

"A child who goes to day care is being raised by strangers" is not a tautology.

When a child

• Spends the majority of their waking hours with Person A
• Is obtaining the majority of their education from Person A
• Achieves the majority of his/her milestones (first words/steps/potty/etc.) with Person A
• Learns their habits, skills, and morals from Person A

Then Person A is effectively raising that child. If Person A is an indifferent, paid professional, of no relation to the child, then that person is, for all intents and purposes, a "stranger."

Person B cannot pick the child up from daycare, spend a mere couple of hours with him/her in front of a TV (lest Person B become too "stressed"), put the child to bed, then claim to be "raising" the child.