This makes a lot of sense. In our case we have our own company and a three-month-old. If my wife chose to stay home, it would heavily impact our revenue because of what she brings to her side of the business. Happily, we have the advantage of grandparents who happily stay with the baby whenever needed.

I think this is a great line of thinking people should consider while making such decisions, especially because all of these types of choices have both long & short term impacts. But... there are some flaws.

If one has more than one child, they will likely LOOSE money part of their time working - because you'll have basically double the daycare costs while both kids are in daycare. This gets reduced once one is in school, but unless dragon training (great example!) lets you work from 9-3, there will be after-school care of some variety. So, the direct costs associated with working are significantly larger for multiple-child households than estimated here.

As an example... when I was working in a decently paying job for my area (I think it was about 60k a year), I figured that if we had a second child I'd be loosing about $200 a month until the youngest aged-up out of the infant/toddler care (more expensive since state law mandates 1 teacher per child).

Another important consideration many don't make is the INDIRECT financial impacts. You will likely save commuting money, wardrobe money, etc. There's also the impact on the still-working spouse. My husband has repeatedly said that there are flexibilities he's had that have helped his career because he knows I have the time flexibility to cover things at home in a way I couldn't when I was working.

There's the question of one's upward potential as well. Staying home often opens up opportunities to network more broadly and learn new skills (I learned a bunch of skills when I did the school phone directory).

So, there are really a bunch of unknowns going on, but I am glad people are promoting really considering the impacts.

I was newly out of college in 2008 when my daughter was born. I had not yet made a professional name for myself and the economy had tanked so there wasn't a job available anyway. So I stayed home and we never paid for childcare. However, now I have a professional presence in a career I am good at. My fiance and I are looking to have a baby in the next year and are debating me staying home vs. going back to work with flexible hours ( I realize I will make less if I am putting in less time.). To compound this issue for us is not just the cost of daycare but also that I plan on nursing for at least the first year (the cost saving benefits and health benefits cannot be denied). So we wonder if my company will even choose to expand the notion of a non traditional work hours to keep a valued employee or if they will choose like so many other companies just to simply replace me when the time comes. Thank you for the article Amy!

I think that many people simply do not look at this as a continuum, rather a YES/NO question.

PLUS!!! new and IMPROVED with more extra baggage!

There are a whole lotta questions that you ask yourselves as a couple when you get together, but you cannot possibly know the answers...

Because, Time. You see? And Tide. And people who say they want one thing and actually want something else. And people who are TOLD they NEED to want one thing, but don't and...

My ex pulled this rationalization on me, too, after deciding she wasn't going back to work after her natal leave of absence. I never talked to her bosses to see if they were more surprised she wasn't coming back, or that I was, because now suddenly... I was the sole breadwinner, and I'd need to make substantially more money to make that work.

The retrospect was grim, but it's not like I wasn't there making the decision not to have a nuclear fight over if she was going back to work.

Imagine the fun of arguing with a post-partum mom, who already had a bad temper. For domestic tranquility, I figured it best to make it all work, and then she could go back in a few years.

Only. That was NEVER part of her plan. She was planning on never working again. And somehow I "owed her that."

So the fiercely independent woman, is able to be that only if she has people slaving away for her.

In retrospect, we took a lot of little logical steps and ended up somewhere we didn't want to go.

Because it turns out, that NOT working became it's own cage, that staying home with kids isn't a picnic, ESP if you don't have a ton of patience. If momma's not happy, than nobody happy.

I know women who are mothers and in that role become the center of a community's universe. Women in whom people invest their lives, because the ROI is astonishingly RICH. Then there are those that run like he11 all day everyday to get stuff done, regardless if working inside or outside, and that was the choice that they made... On the other end of the spectrum are mothers who were not really keen, and are much happier at work.

All of these things swirl in the midst of a window of time where kids need to be taken care of... and once that time has past, what then? There's the rub. Try to get back to a job you once had 10 years later? 20? Have kids young, and then start into the workforce only later? Taking the pay hit, but much more mature, and looking at an unbroken climb?

Interestingly, I wish I would have had such a choice. I was laughed at when I suggested that the person making the MOST and with the BEST benefits, should work while the other one stayed home with the kid. Heh, you can guess who was who.

In theory, every man also has a choice, but in fact, the theory isn't quite so simple. Plenty of women say they want that too, but when push comes to shove, they don't feel that way.

And sometimes they don't KNOW they don't feel that way, until later, when their house-husband has bonded so well with their kid, and does a great dinner every night...
and they can't quite figure out why they have an unreasoning hatred of him.

The most interesting part of the mommy-track, is in how we can't quite hit a sweet spot, where everyone works, but some do so in the home and some out in the fields, and the choices are both accepted.

Kinda glad I'm too old to care, now.

/musing

If you want to stay home with your children because it is the right thing for your family, then by all means stay home with your children.

It's too bad this was tucked away at the end of the article, because with rare exceptions, staying home with your children is the right thing for your family. Yes, it will cost you those years of career growth you'll never make up. If that's too high a price to pay, don't have kids.

I have to agree with Rex... Women can't really have it "all" and I will probably end up sacrificing my career path to grow my family... For us it will be worth it

If that's too high a price to pay, don't have kids.

Nah. I know too many families that work just fine with mothers working. It takes all kinds. It's far more important that kids have two loving parents who stayed together than it is that Mom has a job. It does, however, seem popular for people to come up with arbitrary standards people should have to meet before they breed.

Playing the devils advocate here then because I truly want to know the answer to the question... Why have children to put them in daycare longer than you actually spend with them during the week? I guess I dont understand the logic of putting a child on formula and sticking them in a daycare at 6 weeks old. Not insulting the moms who do it just want to know the rationalization.

Lindsey. I worked at the time both my kids were born, and in the grand scheme of things it is much easier to leave a small child in day care, than properly supervise a 13 year old while you work.

I had one child who was fine as a baby but by the time she was 8 was emotionally fragile, to the point that if I had not been there, I don't think she would have made it to 18.

Babies sleep quite a bit of the time and day care works well for infants as long as they are not sick, or have some medical issues that require close attention.

Contrary to what others on this board, may think,I am not opposed to two parent working couples who have a system in place so that the marriage and the kids can be the priority when they need to be a priority.

What I am opposed to is, two aggressive type A business people who work 60 hour weeks having children as an afterthought, and always arranging their lives so that work, career, and pursuit of the all mighty dollar comes first.

Throwing money at kids and smothering them with material possessions because you have no real time to be a parent, is a poor choice.

A lot of kids who were raised this way resent the hell out of their parents, and I don't blame them.

Well I have not gotten to the preteen or teen years yet to say with any certainty about how we will handle those situations. I think I have to disagree with you that daycare "works well for infants". I nursed my daughter and this relationship is not fostered by daycare workers in most places (Having many friends who work in the field scared the crap out of me putting my child in one of those establishments). However I do agree that two type A parents who throw money instead of supervision and love at a child should have thought through their motivations before reproducing. I saw first hand how hard some of schoolmates sought out in many times destructive ways to get their parents attention. I was fortunate to live in an extremely affluent community where this was prevalent. However many of the mothers stayed home too and still chose to do tennis and other "extra-curricular" activities as opposed to paying any kind of attention to their offspring. I think it comes down to quality time and thinking long and hard about becoming a parent and realizing after you have a baby it is never about you again!

What I am opposed to is, two aggressive type A business people who work 60 hour weeks having children as an afterthought, and always arranging their lives so that work, career, and pursuit of the all mighty dollar comes first.
_____________________________________

Ah. That explains things a lot better.

Good lord, if I worked 60 hours a week, I wouldn't even consider DATING, let alone getting married or having kids! Time for peace and quiet mean a lot to me.
_____________________________________

Throwing money at kids and smothering them with material possessions because you have no real time to be a parent, is a poor choice.

Posted by: Isab at April 16, 2013 3:57 PM
______________________________________

I firmly believe the family, the environment and the nation would be a lot better off if parents (and all adults) refused to keep up with the Joneses and told kids that whenever they asked for something, like a fragile toy, that couldn't really be shared/appreciated by the whole family (as opposed to a trip to Disneyworld), they would have to earn the money themselves. The only exceptions would be birthday/holiday presents. HOWEVER, if the kids would learn to be patient and quiet, they would find that the parents would eventually ask THEM once in a while: "I feel like getting you a treat - what would you like?"

I also suspect that aside from wimpy parents who won't make their kids write thank-you notes to Grandma or other generous adults, one not-so-minor reason kids don't write thank-you notes much anymore is that they wouldn't really MIND if they never got a second present in the mail from Grandma or anyone else, since they already get pretty much whatever material goods they demand from their parents - and would prefer something more meaningful from Grandma et al, even if they're not sure what it is.

Of course, too many grandparents and family friends don't have what it takes to refuse to give more presents until the kid starts writing thank-you notes! (You pretty much have to ask directly - you can call it "feedback" if you like.)

What seems to matter more than just about anything is how well families function as a whole. When you have a baby, it's not about you anymore. It's not about the baby, either. It's about the family. Healthy marriages make strong kids. Daycare, home care, tennis lessons, those are all secondary.

My mother told me stories of her childhood. During the summer, she would eat breakfast, then her mother would toss her outside to play. She'd come home for lunch if she remembered, then go back outside until dinner. She's go most of the day without seeing her parents, but it worked out fine. I don't think extra-curricular activities are ruining the youth of America. For school-age kids, home is a safe place to land.

Monica, I don't think you can realize how much stability having one home to go to, and meals put on the table at regular times brings to a child's life.

This is not an unstructured childhood. It is probably twice as structured as what a kid with divorced parents, or two full time working parents sees now.

My belief about toys is that sports equipment was the best gift for kids over about seven. Trips are nice, but can be overdone.