Theoretical musings on SAHM strategy - interested in thoughts/critiques

[mrteacher]

I'm wondering if anyone has been in a situation similar to the one I lay out below. What was it like? What were the challenges? Joys? Would you do it again?

At present: long term GF and I (marriage coming, eventually) are both 26 w/just around $110,000 combined NW. We have not combined finances (we will once married). Our combined savings rate is ballpark 40-50%. We are both very interested in having children and raising a family, and we both had SAHMs and felt that this was invaluable to our respective childhood experiences.

EDIT: We are both teachers and are fortunate to have a great work/life balance and paid time off as part of the gig. This also opens up side hustle options: I could hustle during the summer (already do!), or she could 'go back to work' in the summers and I could be the SAHP for those months. Lots of options. Lots of flexibility, as teachers.

We've been tossing around an idea wherein we'd hustle hustle hustle for the pre-kid years, and then she would SAH until the youngest kid is going to school all day. This is what our idea looks like:

- Both work 4-5 more years, save another $150,000-$200,000...NW grows to $250,000-$300,000, depending on savings + market
- With birth of first child wife becomes SAHM
- I become sole breadwinner w/majority of my income covering living expenses. Savings rate decreases; FIRE takes a backseat and is de-prioritized to allow for SAHM
- Money accumulated pre-kids remains invested and grows for however however long SAH lasts (likely 10-12 years)
- Then, she re-enters the workforce, savings rate soars, FIRE becomes new goal

Thoughts?

[justajane]

and we both had SAHMs and felt that this was invaluable to our respective childhood experiences.

Presumably if you feel this way it means that you remember the years in which your mothers stayed home. That means you were older and in school when you thought this was invaluable and not a young child. In that sense, I would focus on accumulating wealth while the children are young so that you can have your wife home when they are older and can remember the experience.

I also had a stay at home parent and really liked the lazy summer days when we went to the pool and being able to hang at home after school. You present a timeline of 10-12 years, so correct me if you've already considered this. But you also said she would stay at home until the youngest goes to school, which would mean that your children wouldn't really even remember the time they had a SAHP.

[mrteacher]

and we both had SAHMs and felt that this was invaluable to our respective childhood experiences.

Presumably if you feel this way it means that you remember the years in which your mothers stayed home. That means you were older and in school when you thought this was invaluable and not a young child. In that sense, I would focus on accumulating wealth while the children are young so that you can have your wife home when they are older and can remember the experience.

I also had a stay at home parent and really liked the lazy summer days when we went to the pool and being able to hang at home after school. You present a timeline of 10-12 years, so correct me if you've already considered this. But you also said she would stay at home until the youngest goes to school, which would mean that your children wouldn't really even remember the time they had a SAHP.

Good point, justajane, and something that I had not considered! My mom was a 'full' SAHM until I was in late middle school, and then she started teaching again. My GF's mom started part-time work once my GF was in MS/HS.

I suppose we see the value as less about what our kids would remember and more in regards to being a more significant presence in their development. Of course, with this several years from now, we still have a lot to think about, so we appreciate challenges to our current thinking!

[mamagoose]

High five to you for thinking this through before marriage and kids come along. We basically did this same thing. Right now I'm the SAHP, and we're considering my husband take a turn for the next couple years as the SAHP.

[bogart]

and we both had SAHMs and felt that this was invaluable to our respective childhood experiences.

Presumably if you feel this way it means that you remember the years in which your mothers stayed home. That means you were older and in school when you thought this was invaluable and not a young child. In that sense, I would focus on accumulating wealth while the children are young so that you can have your wife home when they are older and can remember the experience.

I also had a stay at home parent and really liked the lazy summer days when we went to the pool and being able to hang at home after school. You present a timeline of 10-12 years, so correct me if you've already considered this. But you also said she would stay at home until the youngest goes to school, which would mean that your children wouldn't really even remember the time they had a SAHP.

Yeah ... I did not have a SAHM and am not a SAHM and SAH isn't something I want, so I may not be your best source of info.  BUT, I have had teenaged stepkids (now grown) and have an elementary schooler and definitely think that at least for us, the interest in being SAH before the kids are in school is just not the right fit / best use of resources (i.e. time/money).  I much prefer having flexibility to be around/available as needed (e.g. after school, vacation) but not SAH for any single stretch.  Of course, depending on your career (and financial) goals, that flexibility may or may not be a plausible part of working F/T, or even P/T. 

And having had the teenaged stepkids (and they were good kids, and have grown to be good adults), I can definitely say the teenage years aren't the best ones for both parents to be working F/T.  Ours, at least, were fun and interesting to be around, and engaged in all kinds of activities (e.g. sporting events we wanted to be able to attend), and besides those kinds of things, you don't necessarily want to leave even "good" kids who have pretty much all the rights adults have -- can drive and so on -- but not the judgment adults have (hopefully) developed (totally) unsupervised for long, predictable stretches of time, in my opinion/experience...

[mxt0133]

My wife and I both prioritized having a SAHP, so after we got married and had a child she quit to be a stay at home parent.  We did not have FIRE goals initially but due to the drop in income, we tried to optimize our expenses and that's how we found out FIRE. We continued to increase our income while lowering our expenses.  Even tough we lowered our overall income since we went down to one income, our savings rate increased because we focused on only spending on what we truly value and optimize them.  We do not feel deprived because we know our priorities and know that it is a choice if don't go to the fanciest restaurants, get the kids brand new clothes or shower them with toys.

You are young and it is not inconceivable to double your incomes by the time you have children.  So if you keep your expenses the same, even if you do drop down to one income you should be well on your way to FIRE.  Just don't fall in the upgrade trap, upgrade your car, your house, your ....

Our current plan is not focused on getting to FIRE as fast as possible.  I would like to keep working and between my wife and I, I can't imagine we could not earn enough to at least cover our expense after our kids are independent with part-time jobs.  So we are thinking of doing something like you are proposing where I would also be a SAHP for short periods of time to live abroad or do some slow traveling.  But we won't do that until we have a stash that would support a bare bones FIRE budget first, in case I never want to go back to paid work again.

[jac941]

There is a lot to think about with kids and parenting. I just want to chime in to say that my mom stayed at home until I was in 2nd grade or so, and I don't remember having a stay at home parent at all. In my mind my mom "always worked". When I became a parent a few years ago, my mom told me her biggest regret was not spending more time with us as teenagers. If she could do it again, she would have prioritized working less those years and would have worked more when we were little.

This was an interesting perspective to me, and I would have picked middle school to have the SAHP. But in thinking back on when I really needed that parent to be more available  -- my mom was right, high school was it.

Personally, I'm prioritizing working now and getting experience in a field where I can consult so I can work less as my kids get older and be there for them after school to help with homework. But you need to decide what your priorities are and base your decision on if / when to have a SAHP on that.

Kudos to you for even considering this before kids! I certainly didn't!

[Knapptyme]

My wife and I currently have two young children (4 years and 8 months), and we both work, for now. While our FIRE plans 2 years ago were work for 10 more years and be done (as teachers we get plenty of time off during holiday seasons and summers), we're always thinking and challenging ourselves/ideas.

More recently, I ran the numbers if only one of us worked F/T and FIRE would only take five additional years for one person after we both work one more year after finishing this one (Instead of 10, it goes to 15). This did not include any money made on the side or with a P/T job or money saved because someone could devote more time to running the household more efficiently. In hopes to game the system better with paid maternity leave, I will become a SAHD to a 5 and 2 year old with potentially more children to come.

The upside is that I can always get back into teaching as a math/science teacher. There's always a need. So when the kids don't want me around as much, I can go back to work as a teacher and still be around after school lets out. Good job for planning ahead. You can always challenge the status quo of not making money during the 10-12 years of SAHPing. We're also looking at adding more rental houses to our long-term plan which could reduce the number of years of indentured servitude. Life is good.

[little_brown_dog]

Can't comment on SAHM for infants vs. older kids since I only have a baby but here's my perspective on this so far:

I'm a sahm to an infant right now, plan on being a SAHM until all kids (hopefully 3) are in school when I'll probably start working part time. I think being a SAHM with an infant absolutely rocks. We don't have to worry about daycare bills, the baby getting sick all the time, or deal with the stress of running around for daycare pickup after work. Breastfeeding is easier when you are a SAHM in that you don't have to deal with all the worry and struggles of pumping during the workday. We also have the psychological benefit of knowing our baby is being well cared for and we don't have to worry about staffing ratios/school security measures/nanny cams/etc.
But obviously we don't make as much as we could be, so we are very lucky my husband makes plenty to support us completely while also saving for FIRE.

10 years is a REALLY long time for a woman to be completely out of the workforce. There should be some soul searching about this because it is much easier to re-enter your field after a couple years off instead of a decade. That being said, I personally think being a SAHM is more important if that is what a family really wants, you don't get those years back.

[mrteacher]

I'm a sahm to an infant right now, plan on being a SAHM until all kids (hopefully 3) are in school when I'll probably start working part time. I think being a SAHM with an infant absolutely rocks. We don't have to worry about daycare bills, the baby getting sick all the time, or deal with the stress of running around for daycare pickup after work. Breastfeeding is easier when you are a SAHM in that you don't have to deal with all the worry and struggles of pumping during the workday. We also have the psychological benefit of knowing our baby is being well cared for and we don't have to worry about staffing ratios/school security measures/nanny cams/etc.
But obviously we don't make as much as we could be, so we are very lucky my husband makes plenty to support us completely while also saving for FIRE.

Thanks for sharing your perspective as a mother to an infant. I our desires align with yours as we see a SAHM as a wonderful thing for a newborn.

That being said, I really appreciate the insight provided by those parents with teenage children. I definitely see the perks of being home, or at least having flexibility, when kids enter those emotional, sometimes tumultuous, teenage years.

Something that we'd like to avoid is having to pay for early childhood care, and, as a result, having other people do the brunt of raising our kids. 

mxt0133, I have a feeling that we could end up following a similar path: my salary will continue to increase, and even if it is the only salary, our commitment to simple living could result in a still impressive savings rate.

[mamagoose]

A few tips looking back:

Go ahead and start living on just your income - i.e. save 100% of your wife's. That way you won't miss it when it's not there. We still do this, my pay is 100% directed towards our FIRE goal.

If you haven't already bought a house, save yourself a lot of grief and don't go buy a big "family home" in anticipation of having lots of little ones later in life. We bought a 4br/3ba as soon as we were married ("we want 2 kids, maybe 3"). After the first kid, we believe we are "one and done", and now we just have this oversized house to deal with. More is not better in this case. I wish we would have bought a 2br or 3 br, and then bought a larger home later as/if needed. Kids don't take up a lot of room, especially when they're little.

+1 to the previous poster's comment about SAHP with older kids. Many kids start getting into the real trouble after school when their parents aren't home (duh!), so we're factoring that into our FIRE plans as well.

[Kaydedid]

It's very very nice to have the option of SAHP, whether or not you choose that route.  Things can change when you have a baby-some people can't wait to get back to work, others want to stay home with their baby all day.  Bravo on getting things in order and planning before TTC!

And, although it's rare and hopefully doesn't happen to you, having a disabled child who needs special care can happen.  I planned to SAH for about a year after our son was born, but he ended up having some physical needs that childcare providers couldn't take care of.  Although it's pushing back FIRE, it is such a luxury to SAH for the next 5ish years without major financial concerns.

[NatureKnight]

I am a SAHM now (to just one baby). I find it very difficult, but I wouldn't change it. I guess my biggest piece of advice is to just prepare for the fact that whatever you plan might be thrown out the window. Some moms don't like staying home, some want to stay home longer, etc. It is difficult to know until you start having your kids. I think some good universal reasons for staying home (other than just the extra time with your child) is that breastfeeding is easier (if that is wanted and it works out) and you don't have to worry about the babysitter/daycare being good. I wouldn't be able to handle strangers watching my daughter, I'd just be a wreck worrying.

My other experience with your question is that I had a SAHM, but only when I was older. I don't remember going to a babysitter much when I was younger. I do remember driving home in high school to eat lunch with my mom, mom being at all my games even if it was a tournament in another city during the day, mom being there when I got home, etc. I loved my mom being home when I was older. I definitely think you should talk about that with your SO just to share your ideas. Again, it is very individual since we are all so different. I'm sure you'll find what works best for your family. I cherish spending my days with my baby, but I know she won't really remember any of this when she is grown. It is so great you guys are talking about this so early and trying to wrap your heads around it.

Edited out a part that I worded weird.

[gatortator]

Not sure what grades you teach but have you started to research options in your district(s)?
 
A few questions off the top of my head...

Can you switch to part time teaching during the school year (ie, co-teaching in elementary or reduced periods in junior/senior high?)
What is the  maternity/paternity leave policy?  In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

[mrteacher]

Not sure what grades you teach but have you started to research options in your district(s)?
 
A few questions off the top of my head...

Can you switch to part time teaching during the school year (ie, co-teaching in elementary or reduced periods in junior/senior high?)
What is the  maternity/paternity leave policy?  In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

Good options to look into! Hard to say whether or not one or both of us will be at a different school when kids come along, but when that time gets closer, we will look into part time options (I particularly like this one!) and leave policy.

[emilypsf]

We saved a bunch pre-kids and after having kids until I quit work to be a SAHM when my kids were 3 and 1.  Depending on the market, we should have enough that I won't have to go back at any point unless I want to.  fortunately we have gotten to a place where we can save substantially on one income, which is nice, but when I quit we thought we'd be spending almost all of my husband's salary.  The plan was to just wait for our saved money to grow and then retire.  I didn't want the pressure of having to re enter the workforce, especially on a set timeline.  I was concerned about losing my skills, having difficulty finding something, or having to take something less than optimal and having that take too much time from my kids.  Of course, teaching is a unique career with much better hours than mine (law).  My income was also high enough that toughing it out for four years made a big financial difference for us. 

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

When my kids were babies, it would have been super-hard to work full-time as a teacher. (I'm a librarian now, used to teach.)

An option you guys could consider is staying home for the baby and toddler years, then going back to work when the kids are more like preschool age (3-4), then quitting again when they get older and have more activities, harder homework, troublesome friends, etc.. I've been working part-time in a public library (including evenings and weekends) but now that my kids are 3 and 5 and the public school schedule is really making itself felt (Mr. FP is also a teacher) I'm looking for a job in a school. I'd rather work part-time but would take full-time for the school year if I can get it.

[Cassie]

My  3 kids are adults and I am 61. I stayed home until my youngest went to school f.t. at 5. I don't regret it for 1 minute. Those are the years when they really need you. By the time my kids were teens they were very busy with their own lives: sports, p.t. jobs, school activities, etc and I could go to their events after work or on weekends.  It is a giant hassle to work with babies and small kids and there is never enough time to do everything. I went back once for a year and it sucked. Coming home from work to kids that need you since they haven't seen you all day and you are tired and have to do dinner, baths, read a story, etc and then it is time for bed. If you don't put kids to bed early then they are tired and cranky when you have to get them up to take them to daycare.  I was tired before i even got to work. Ugh! 

[Gin1984]

Not sure what grades you teach but have you started to research options in your district(s)?
 
A few questions off the top of my head...

Can you switch to part time teaching during the school year (ie, co-teaching in elementary or reduced periods in junior/senior high?)
What is the  maternity/paternity leave policy?  In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

That is illegal.  District policy does not override federal law.

[gatortator]

In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

That is illegal.  District policy does not override federal law.

yes,  i agree.  I had the same reaction when someone described this to me.

I don't want to derail the original topic.  It is important for mrteacher to read and understand the policy for their own district.  They have time to investigate and be informed of all options open to them.

[Psychstache]

Not sure what grades you teach but have you started to research options in your district(s)?
 
A few questions off the top of my head...

Can you switch to part time teaching during the school year (ie, co-teaching in elementary or reduced periods in junior/senior high?)
What is the  maternity/paternity leave policy?  In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

That is illegal.  District policy does not override federal law.

I think they might be referring to the party of FMLA which says that if you work for the same employer, then you get a combined 12 weeks off.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[cats]

I agree that a SAHP is "better" when kids are older.  There isn't a lot of variety in needs from baby to baby, so pretty much any competent and loving adult can take care of them well.  But as kids get older and develop their own personalities, critical thinking skills, etc., I think it's more beneficial for a parent to be around to help them grow, direct them, keep an eye on things, etc.

My mother was a full-time SAHM until my youngest brother finished high school.  As others have mentioned, I don't remember a lot of my early childhood and I suspect the main difference between us and kids in daycare was that we had much less of a schedule.  With 3 kids close together in age, it's not like we were actually getting a lot more individual attention than we would have at a good daycare.  As we got older, having a SAHP allowed us more freedom in the summers (we were able to just roam the neighborhood or amuse ourselves in the backyard rather than going to an endless round of camps) and I do also think that having a parent around all the time kept us a bit better behaved because my mother knew where we were supposed to be after school AND there was actually a good chance she would either be around or showing up at some point--our opportunity to get into serious trouble was therefore fairly limited.

With all that in mind, my husband and I are choosing to continue to work FT for the moment, with the goal of being FIRE or damn close by the time our oldest starts kindergarten.  At that point we hope to drop to one FT or 2 PT incomes...basically whatever the minimum income necessary to cover our living expenses and keep us somewhat mentally alert, but no goal of adding to stash/savings because that will be taken care of.

[MayDay]

There isn't a right or wrong, or one right answer. 

In some ways it is much easier to work as a teacher (snow day childcare- no problem!) in other ways it would be much harder- spending all day with 25 kids, come home and no break- more kids! 

I would:

1.  Start looking for an mentioning wanting a half time role
2.  Consider taking a one year leave (my district offers this) to avoid newborn childcare, but going back after that for at least a year to try it out- my area has plenty of teacher schedule friendly daycares that let you have summer off.
3.  Consider your wife teaching summer school if she takes the school year off, or vice versa
4.  Consider that if she has quite a few years of service before quitting, it may be hard to get back in, as now they must pay her more than new grads

I substitute and would consider taking a half day role, but as an introvert, know way could I teach full time and parent children at night.  But loads of teachers do it, obviously.  Another thing to consider is that some teaching roles (MS and HS math and science especially) can be automated so there is little at-home grading/planning work, and some cannot- I would want to have that kind of extra stuff automated if I was working FT with kids. 

[jkitiara]

Very smart to think about this stuff now. Having somewhat flexible job options is the best. But also remember that plans and feelings change! My intention was to go back to work when #1 was born, put him or her into childcare, then be a SAHM when (hopefully) #2 comes along. Financially, that is what makes sense, since I earn than the cost of one child in daycare but break even around two.

Fast forward to me 6 months pregnant with #1, despising my job, unable to imagine leaving my future baby to go to a non-flexible 9-5 office every day.

Hell no. This is my last week at work. I'm leaving a lot of money on the table to walk away. But I'm not going to start a new job now (especially when all my current options would still be inflexible hours) and my husband makes enough to pay the bills and still keep saving (just not as much).

New plan is to figure out what kind of part time or flexible work I can do once kids are headed for school. Until then, I'll keep optimizing spending and help hubby out with his business as much as possible. 

[Gin1984]

Not sure what grades you teach but have you started to research options in your district(s)?
 
A few questions off the top of my head...

Can you switch to part time teaching during the school year (ie, co-teaching in elementary or reduced periods in junior/senior high?)
What is the  maternity/paternity leave policy?  In some districts,  teachers can only take 6 weeks regardless of FMLA, nothing longer allowed.

That is illegal.  District policy does not override federal law.

I think they might be referring to the party of FMLA which says that if you work for the same employer, then you get a combined 12 weeks off.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

That still would be illegal.  They can't determine how much each person takes.  If mom wants to take eight weeks if maybe she had a c-section, she cannot be told six weeks max.  All it means is that her spouse may not take more than 4 weeks. 

[Secret Agent Mom]

While I think it's a great idea to think ahead, there really is no way of knowing how long she wants to stay home, or if she will want to go back at all.  RIght now I'd agree with the poster who said to save her entire salary and only depend on yours right from the start.  There are many part-time things she may choose to do as a SAHM that could bring in money- selling crafty stuff on Etsy, teaching co-op classes for a homeschooled kids, babysitting another child or two, selling stuff on Teachers Pay Teachers- all sorts of things she might choose to do!  Parents should make the best decision for their family and kids, and money doesn't always enter into that equation.  By not depending on her salary, you are giving your family the opportunity to do as you feel best at each stage, you are keeping your options open.   

[couponvan]

While I think it's a great idea to think ahead, there really is no way of knowing how long she wants to stay home, or if she will want to go back at all.  RIght now I'd agree with the poster who said to save her entire salary and only depend on yours right from the start.  There are many part-time things she may choose to do as a SAHM that could bring in money- selling crafty stuff on Etsy, teaching co-op classes for a homeschooled kids, babysitting another child or two, selling stuff on Teachers Pay Teachers- all sorts of things she might choose to do!  Parents should make the best decision for their family and kids, and money doesn't always enter into that equation.  By not depending on her salary, you are giving your family the opportunity to do as you feel best at each stage, you are keeping your options open.

+1... I think one PT parent working enough to add $18.5K to 401(k) and HSA and Dependent care credit amount but very little more in order to maximize time with children is ideal...if there would be no savings at all with a full SAH, then the person should make $37k so both can do 401(k), plays the HSA/DCS amounts for around $47K. Independent contractor tutors could technically work after school when you are done with your normal day and maximize savings without impacting taxes. I'm still trying to figure that one out, and my youngest is 10. I only want to work when they are in school, but it doesn't always work out. Other things to consider are the SAH working each summer to maximize savings while minimizing taxes. I stayed home 6 years, and work PT....I make too much money and would like to cut my hours. It's a delicate tax balance you can "finesse" if you plan right.

[greaper007]

Why does it have to be the mom?    You could be the stay at home parent, I've been a stay at home dad for almost 7 years now and it's been great.    Since you're both teachers I assume that you make about the same salary so that could be an option.    Honestly, unless you're one of the techies on this board you don't really save any money by having two working parents with young children (especially with multiple children under kindergarten age).    I was an airline captain when I quit, and the difference in my salary, daycare, commuting costs, maintaining a separate residence etc was something like $500 a month.    Most months I could make up that difference by cooking all our meals, fixing the cars and maintaining our home.

Another option would be to have both of you take turns.   Perhaps your district(s) offer sabbatical years?

[mrteacher]

Thank you, everyone, for the thoughtful remarks, comments, ideas. We certainly have a lot of food for thought over the next couple years!

[mm1970]

I'm a sahm to an infant right now, plan on being a SAHM until all kids (hopefully 3) are in school when I'll probably start working part time. I think being a SAHM with an infant absolutely rocks. We don't have to worry about daycare bills, the baby getting sick all the time, or deal with the stress of running around for daycare pickup after work. Breastfeeding is easier when you are a SAHM in that you don't have to deal with all the worry and struggles of pumping during the workday. We also have the psychological benefit of knowing our baby is being well cared for and we don't have to worry about staffing ratios/school security measures/nanny cams/etc.
But obviously we don't make as much as we could be, so we are very lucky my husband makes plenty to support us completely while also saving for FIRE.

Thanks for sharing your perspective as a mother to an infant. I our desires align with yours as we see a SAHM as a wonderful thing for a newborn.

That being said, I really appreciate the insight provided by those parents with teenage children. I definitely see the perks of being home, or at least having flexibility, when kids enter those emotional, sometimes tumultuous, teenage years.

Something that we'd like to avoid is having to pay for early childhood care, and, as a result, having other people do the brunt of raising our kids.

mxt0133, I have a feeling that we could end up following a similar path: my salary will continue to increase, and even if it is the only salary, our commitment to simple living could result in a still impressive savings rate.

I understand the desire to avoid paying for care (just check out that other thread!) but be careful about the second half of that statement.  Other people are NOT doing the brunt of raising your (or anyone's) kids.

The typical child is in childcare for 30 hours per week.  Out of 168.  18% is not "the brunt".

And even for a stereotypical "full time professionals" (aka, expected to be at the office for 40 hours a week), a typical child would be in care for about 42-43 hours per week.

43/168 = 25.5% of the time.

That does not even factor in sick days, vacation days, and holidays.


My husband and I both work full time.  Our toddler is in care for 42.5 hours per week.  But I get 7 weeks off per year and my husband gets 7 weeks off per year, and we don't always overlap.  I'd say that on average, we are off about 10 weeks per year.

So that means the toddler is in "care" for 42.5 x 42 = 1785 hours, out of a total of 8760 hours in a year, or 20% of the time.  That is not "the brunt".

I only point this out because of perceptions that people have about child care - people who, in fact, have never used child care.

[mrteacher]

I'm a sahm to an infant right now, plan on being a SAHM until all kids (hopefully 3) are in school when I'll probably start working part time. I think being a SAHM with an infant absolutely rocks. We don't have to worry about daycare bills, the baby getting sick all the time, or deal with the stress of running around for daycare pickup after work. Breastfeeding is easier when you are a SAHM in that you don't have to deal with all the worry and struggles of pumping during the workday. We also have the psychological benefit of knowing our baby is being well cared for and we don't have to worry about staffing ratios/school security measures/nanny cams/etc.
But obviously we don't make as much as we could be, so we are very lucky my husband makes plenty to support us completely while also saving for FIRE.

Thanks for sharing your perspective as a mother to an infant. I our desires align with yours as we see a SAHM as a wonderful thing for a newborn.

That being said, I really appreciate the insight provided by those parents with teenage children. I definitely see the perks of being home, or at least having flexibility, when kids enter those emotional, sometimes tumultuous, teenage years.

Something that we'd like to avoid is having to pay for early childhood care, and, as a result, having other people do the brunt of raising our kids.

mxt0133, I have a feeling that we could end up following a similar path: my salary will continue to increase, and even if it is the only salary, our commitment to simple living could result in a still impressive savings rate.

I understand the desire to avoid paying for care (just check out that other thread!) but be careful about the second half of that statement.  Other people are NOT doing the brunt of raising your (or anyone's) kids.

The typical child is in childcare for 30 hours per week.  Out of 168.  18% is not "the brunt".

And even for a stereotypical "full time professionals" (aka, expected to be at the office for 40 hours a week), a typical child would be in care for about 42-43 hours per week.

43/168 = 25.5% of the time.

That does not even factor in sick days, vacation days, and holidays.


My husband and I both work full time.  Our toddler is in care for 42.5 hours per week.  But I get 7 weeks off per year and my husband gets 7 weeks off per year, and we don't always overlap.  I'd say that on average, we are off about 10 weeks per year.

So that means the toddler is in "care" for 42.5 x 42 = 1785 hours, out of a total of 8760 hours in a year, or 20% of the time.  That is not "the brunt".

I only point this out because of perceptions that people have about child care - people who, in fact, have never used child care.

Thanks for presenting the numbers, mm1970. That was actually reassuring to see!

When I used the term "brunt" these were my assumptions: I'm not counting sleeping hours...that automatically chopped 49-63 hours off of the 168 hours/week that I count as "time that could be spent with kids." Then, I assumed that regardless of SAHP status, we'd get weekends with the kids. I suppose that is not fair to not count, but I didn't count it in my head. So...when I said "brunt" I meant: majority, or close to majority, of waking weekday hours.

TL;DR - just nitpicking --- great points about the true time missed with child care

[mm1970]

I'm a sahm to an infant right now, plan on being a SAHM until all kids (hopefully 3) are in school when I'll probably start working part time. I think being a SAHM with an infant absolutely rocks. We don't have to worry about daycare bills, the baby getting sick all the time, or deal with the stress of running around for daycare pickup after work. Breastfeeding is easier when you are a SAHM in that you don't have to deal with all the worry and struggles of pumping during the workday. We also have the psychological benefit of knowing our baby is being well cared for and we don't have to worry about staffing ratios/school security measures/nanny cams/etc.
But obviously we don't make as much as we could be, so we are very lucky my husband makes plenty to support us completely while also saving for FIRE.

Thanks for sharing your perspective as a mother to an infant. I our desires align with yours as we see a SAHM as a wonderful thing for a newborn.

That being said, I really appreciate the insight provided by those parents with teenage children. I definitely see the perks of being home, or at least having flexibility, when kids enter those emotional, sometimes tumultuous, teenage years.

Something that we'd like to avoid is having to pay for early childhood care, and, as a result, having other people do the brunt of raising our kids.

mxt0133, I have a feeling that we could end up following a similar path: my salary will continue to increase, and even if it is the only salary, our commitment to simple living could result in a still impressive savings rate.

I understand the desire to avoid paying for care (just check out that other thread!) but be careful about the second half of that statement.  Other people are NOT doing the brunt of raising your (or anyone's) kids.

The typical child is in childcare for 30 hours per week.  Out of 168.  18% is not "the brunt".

And even for a stereotypical "full time professionals" (aka, expected to be at the office for 40 hours a week), a typical child would be in care for about 42-43 hours per week.

43/168 = 25.5% of the time.

That does not even factor in sick days, vacation days, and holidays.


My husband and I both work full time.  Our toddler is in care for 42.5 hours per week.  But I get 7 weeks off per year and my husband gets 7 weeks off per year, and we don't always overlap.  I'd say that on average, we are off about 10 weeks per year.

So that means the toddler is in "care" for 42.5 x 42 = 1785 hours, out of a total of 8760 hours in a year, or 20% of the time.  That is not "the brunt".

I only point this out because of perceptions that people have about child care - people who, in fact, have never used child care.

Thanks for presenting the numbers, mm1970. That was actually reassuring to see!

When I used the term "brunt" these were my assumptions: I'm not counting sleeping hours...that automatically chopped 49-63 hours off of the 168 hours/week that I count as "time that could be spent with kids." Then, I assumed that regardless of SAHP status, we'd get weekends with the kids. I suppose that is not fair to not count, but I didn't count it in my head. So...when I said "brunt" I meant: majority, or close to majority, of waking weekday hours.

TL;DR - just nitpicking --- great points about the true time missed with child care

Even including sleeping hours, it's not "the brunt".

Total sleep time for my toddler: 10 hours.  9 at night, 1 at daycare.
Of the 42 hours a week in child care, he is awake for 37 hours.
He is awake during a typical work week for 98 hours.  (168 - 70)
Therefore, he's awake at childcare for less than 38% of the time.
That does not include vacation days, holidays, and sick days, which, of course, skews it even more towards "time with parents". 
(37 hours x 42 weeks =  1554 hrs / 5110 hours awake in a year = 30%)
On a typical work day, we have a couple of hours in the morning and several at night.

If anything, it skewed more towards "more time with parents awake" when he was a baby, because he napped longer at child care (3 hours) AND woke up during the night (1-2 hours).  I've done that math too, - but it was a few years ago now.

And of course, people like to say that sleep time doesn't count, but really, they forget that babies sleep at child care too.  Oh, sleep time counts, and you'll realize that when you figure out that your child care provider isn't taking the night wakings!

[bogart]

Something that we'd like to avoid is having to pay for early childhood care, and, as a result, having other people do the brunt of raising our kids. 

I wasn't going to engage in the "brunt" discussion but now that I see someone else has taken it up ...

Becoming a mom to a LO (as opposed to my teenage stepkids) absolutely convinced me, personally, that for me (note the many qualifiers), OMG with an infant/small/medium-sized child you (I!) get to spend SO MUCH time with them.  It is unreal.  They are there constantly.  One thing I have not at all had a shortage of in the past 9 years is time with my kid.  It is not ceaseless, but it sure can feel that way.

(It can also be lumpy.  During the week I didn't get enough time with my kid, but that's because besides being at work 9-5 M-F I chose to come home late Tues., go out with friends Thurs., and take care of my granddaughter -- at her home -- Friday evening.  No worries, son and I have all weekend together)

And besides the sheer hours of it ... what we know about how kids develop in general (and what I've observed from being around the now-grown stepkids, plus grandkid, and my own kid) is that when they're little, you are the center of their universe.  It doesn't matter whether they spend the day elsewhere or not, you're their mom or dad and things are the way you say they are, and the way the world works is the way you do things.  It's not to say they won't observe other possibilities or talk or ask about them -- my 3rd grader has become aware that other families allow kids his age to have access to portable mobile devices and even grumbles about the fact that ours doesn't! -- but all the same.  But as they reach those teenage years, that's no longer the case, they start to develop (and rightly so) as independent people and to take on "their own" views and beliefs -- which often means the views and beliefs of others around them who aren't their parents/families.  Which of course is good and appropriate, but you want to have some awareness of who those others are and plenty of time to keep track of what your teens are up to.  Which brings me back to what I've said before, it's as they get older that you want to make sure you have time available.

(Lots of people also prioritize spending, and want to spend, lots of time with their little kids and I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing.  But if you're not already in the thick of things -- and the OP is not -- I wouldn't discount the argument that there is PLENTY OF TIME even after allowing for daycare, sleep (not as uninterrupted as you might imagine when they are little-to-medium) and such.  And I do stand by the belief that it's the older kids, not the younger ones, who most need a guiding hand available, precisely because they're least inclined to want it.)

[hoping2retire35]

Back to the OP, the estimated $300k saved pre-child compounded at 7% annually over the expected 10 years will yield just shy of $600k, making a nice SWR. Looks like you can both retire. Save a meager $10k a year and stretch the baby making/early raising with one bread-winner years to 12 and you have $850k! Looks like you will be good to go bro.

[Cassie]

If 2 people work 8-5 by the time they pick up kids from daycare, get home, make dinner, eat, baths and it is bedtime for the kids so not much quality time. Then in am get ready for work, eat, etc and drive-not much quality time there.  Weekends are full of chores that no one did during the week. If one person does not work they do all the errands, housework during the week while they are home with the kids. When i worked I had very little quality time with the kids.  It really sucked and I did it for about 18 months.  Now as teachers you will get more time off and summers which I didn't get. Also some of my teacher friends dropped down to p.t. once they had kids to stay in their pension plans and you guys might want to consider that.  That might be the perfect solution.

[mm1970]

If 2 people work 8-5 by the time they pick up kids from daycare, get home, make dinner, eat, baths and it is bedtime for the kids so not much quality time. Then in am get ready for work, eat, etc and drive-not much quality time there. 

Speak for yourself.

First off, very few people actually work 8 to 5 and have kids in childcare for 7:30 to 5:30, or 7 to 6 (average child is in child care for 30 hours a week).

Secondly, in the morning:
- There are two adults.  There is plenty of time for a five minute shower, and a ten minute breakfast.  The rest of the time - anywhere from an hour to 2.5 hours of awake time - can be quality time.  This includes: snuggling on the couch, chatting while eating breakfast, discussing today's homework, brushing the LO's teeth, or wiping his butt, or getting him dressed, or nursing. (This is all going to vary on the age of the kid, my kids are 3.5 and 10.)  It also may  involve making toast together, or making a smoothie together, or doing an impromptu dance party.
- On the commute to school and/ or daycare - well it depends on if it's a driving day or a walking day.  Walking day is a lot of time (20 minutes) to chat on the way.  Driving day is quick for the older kid, but then about 15 minutes of chatting about the day with a toddler.  Then at daycare, it's 15 minutes of snuggling in and chatting with the dcp while snuggling.


Then, on the way home, reverse.  (Although in our house, it's the opposite parent, as we split the drop off/ pick up duties, and we offset our work hours).  Chatting with the dcp, then snuggles and chatting with the toddler in the car.  Then racing to the classroom to pick up big bro, then chatting with big bro on the walk back to the car, and the short drive home.  On music days, then it's racing from tree to tree waiting for music to get out.  On baseball practice days, it's playing on the playground during practice.  On baseball game days, generally one parent is home making dinner with the toddler (and often that is literally - he likes to help in the kitchen) while the other parent is at the baseball game.

Then it's a nice dinner at the table, talking about our days.  Then, it's evening chores.  But there again - the big boy helps load the dishwasher, the little guy likes to wash dishes.  One parent often is playing or helping with homework when the other packs up lunch for the next day.  Bath night is 2x a week, so I don't see how that's a big time suck (#1) and how is that NOT quality time?  Playing in the bath?

Then there's reading stories before bed (more quality time!), or playing chess or mousetrap or coloring or...

Quality time is what you make of it.  We easily get 2+ hours in the morning and 3.5-5 hours at night.  That's a pretty high quantity and it's easy to get quality if you try.  Sure, you can plop your kids in front of the TV when you cook dinner (don't get me wrong, we do that too sometimes!)

I don't know if the "lack of quality time" was your own experience (if so, sorry), or if you are just extrapolating what you think happens.  However, more than one study has shown that kids get *more* quality time with their *working* parents now than they did with their SAHPs in the 70s.

[sjc0816]

Speak for yourself.

First off, very few people actually work 8 to 5 and have kids in childcare for 7:30 to 5:30, or 7 to 6 (average child is in child care for 30 hours a week).

Where are you getting your stats?  Just curious, not arguing....but if I would have continued to work when my son was born, he would have been in daycare from 7:30am- 6pm. I don't know many full time working couples that work < 30 hours per week.

[little_brown_dog]

Speak for yourself.

First off, very few people actually work 8 to 5 and have kids in childcare for 7:30 to 5:30, or 7 to 6 (average child is in child care for 30 hours a week).

Where are you getting your stats?  Just curious, not arguing....but if I would have continued to work when my son was born, he would have been in daycare from 7:30am- 6pm. I don't know many full time working couples that work < 30 hours per week.

+1 - in our area, it is very common for kids to be in daycare alot longer than 8 hrs a day here. We actually have many programs that offer extended hours up to 10 each day to accommodate parents' commute times as well. If you need to work an 8 hour work day at the office, and you have a one-way 1/2 hr to an hr commute every day, that means the kid is in care for a minimum of 9 hours per day. Of course, many employers are flexible and allow some parents to leave earlier/come in later/do some work from home, but I know quite a few couples whose children are with the nanny for 8-9 hours a day at least, almost every day. It's just the reality of their professions and where they work. These are great parents and they DO get quality time with their kids each day, but from a time availability perspective, it is HARDER for them to fit it in around the rigid work/commute schedule and the other must-do's like cooking/showering/etc. On the other hand, as a SAHM, I spend my days walking with my baby, reading, playing, etc throughout the day. I don't have to fit it all in between 6-7am, or between 6-8pm at night, so it's a bit easier in that respect.

 Actually, one of the reasons we wanted a SAHP was because we knew how tough working parents can have it in terms of how much they need to accomplish in a day, and we felt like we wanted the "easier" route. I knew it was totally possible to fit quality time in every day around everything else, but I seriously doubted my ability to be my best mother self under those conditions. I felt like I'd probably get too tired and not be fully present for my spouse and kids. So in retrospect, choosing to be a SAHP can also be about recognizing your own limitations and how you think you would perform best as a parent. For me it was a "I'd rather rock one of these roles than risk burning out doing both" but many people know they can do a great job at both simultaneously.

[Cassie]

I worked for about 18 months and that was what my day was like. I bathed my kids everyday-not just 2x/week. My toddlers had to be in bed by 7pm or so otherwise they were too tired to get up the next day.  Their day started at 6 am. I didn't get off of work until 5pm and had to do pick ups at 2 different places due to the age of the kids.  Mornings were getting them fed, dressed, myself dressed up, etc and then driving to 2 different places.  If you work 40 hours then your kids are in daycare longer because it does take time to drive there.  There was no quality time.  Now if you are only working p.t. so your kids are only in daycare 30 hours/week then yes you have more time with them.  Due to our work schedules my hubby and I couldn't share driving them.  The weekends were chores, errands, etc which was not a lot of time left over for kids.  That is the reality for most working families.

[Gin1984]

I worked for about 18 months and that was what my day was like. I bathed my kids everyday-not just 2x/week. My toddlers had to be in bed by 7pm or so otherwise they were too tired to get up the next day.  Their day started at 6 am. I didn't get off of work until 5pm and had to do pick ups at 2 different places due to the age of the kids.  Mornings were getting them fed, dressed, myself dressed up, etc and then driving to 2 different places.  If you work 40 hours then your kids are in daycare longer because it does take time to drive there.  There was no quality time.  Now if you are only working p.t. so your kids are only in daycare 30 hours/week then yes you have more time with them.  Due to our work schedules my hubby and I couldn't share driving them.  The weekends were chores, errands, etc which was not a lot of time left over for kids.  That is the reality for most working families.

Many daycares now have multiple ages at the same place, some kids go to bed later than your child did (or get up the middle of the night), most parents share pick up and drop off.  Also you are looking at the first 18 month only yes? 

[Cassie]

No my kids were ages 2 and 5. The 5 yo had to go to a place that also offered 1/2 day kindergarten.  We lived in a big city and my work was much closer to both spots then my hubby's.  If I let my kids stay up later they were cranky in the am and it was difficult to get them ready and out the door in time.  It was not a fun time. They are long grown now.

[mm1970]

Speak for yourself.

First off, very few people actually work 8 to 5 and have kids in childcare for 7:30 to 5:30, or 7 to 6 (average child is in child care for 30 hours a week).

Where are you getting your stats?  Just curious, not arguing....but if I would have continued to work when my son was born, he would have been in daycare from 7:30am- 6pm. I don't know many full time working couples that work < 30 hours per week.

+1 - in our area, it is very common for kids to be in daycare alot longer than 8 hrs a day here. We actually have many programs that offer extended hours up to 10 each day to accommodate parents' commute times as well. If you need to work an 8 hour work day at the office, and you have a one-way 1/2 hr to an hr commute every day, that means the kid is in care for a minimum of 9 hours per day. Of course, many employers are flexible and allow some parents to leave earlier/come in later/do some work from home, but I know quite a few couples whose children are with the nanny for 8-9 hours a day at least, almost every day. It's just the reality of their professions and where they work. These are great parents and they DO get quality time with their kids each day, but from a time availability perspective, it is HARDER for them to fit it in around the rigid work/commute schedule and the other must-do's like cooking/showering/etc. On the other hand, as a SAHM, I spend my days walking with my baby, reading, playing, etc throughout the day. I don't have to fit it all in between 6-7am, or between 6-8pm at night, so it's a bit easier in that respect.

 Actually, one of the reasons we wanted a SAHP was because we knew how tough working parents can have it in terms of how much they need to accomplish in a day, and we felt like we wanted the "easier" route. I knew it was totally possible to fit quality time in every day around everything else, but I seriously doubted my ability to be my best mother self under those conditions. I felt like I'd probably get too tired and not be fully present for my spouse and kids. So in retrospect, choosing to be a SAHP can also be about recognizing your own limitations and how you think you would perform best as a parent. For me it was a "I'd rather rock one of these roles than risk burning out doing both" but many people know they can do a great job at both simultaneously.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_childcare_slides_16.pdf

If you consider that about 65% of mothers work, then the total average # of hours a child is in child care is about 30 hours.  Granted the average for working mothers is 36.

That means that for every "working mother" you personally know whose kids were in care for, say, 50 hours a week, there is a matching child with a working mother in care for only 22 hours a week.  What is *much* more likely is that you have a bunch of kids in care for 42 hours and a bunch in care for 30 hours, to reach that 36 hour average.  Though I'd like to see the histogram, personally.

While I don't doubt that we "self-select" for the dual-career working couple working many hours and commuting (I know they exist), there are other scenarios that are often ignored.  My friends in DC who both work full time?  Well, they were on compressed work week and their kids were only in care 4 days a week.

Here in my town, it's a variety.  The offsetting work hours is pretty common for full time salaried employees.  However, my own experience and my friends' experience also includes: working from home, working when the kids are asleep, working a weekend day, working part time (this is the *most* common way of my friends having kids in less care - they only work 4 days, or only work 5-6 hours a day). Some people own their own businesses and set their own hours.

My own personal favorite is part time.  I really enjoyed that.  Nowadays my schedule is so flexible, I come and go whenever needed.  I don't remember the last time I worked more than 40 hours, or even 40.

[mm1970]

I worked for about 18 months and that was what my day was like. I bathed my kids everyday-not just 2x/week. My toddlers had to be in bed by 7pm or so otherwise they were too tired to get up the next day.  Their day started at 6 am. I didn't get off of work until 5pm and had to do pick ups at 2 different places due to the age of the kids.  Mornings were getting them fed, dressed, myself dressed up, etc and then driving to 2 different places.  If you work 40 hours then your kids are in daycare longer because it does take time to drive there.  There was no quality time.  Now if you are only working p.t. so your kids are only in daycare 30 hours/week then yes you have more time with them.  Due to our work schedules my hubby and I couldn't share driving them.  The weekends were chores, errands, etc which was not a lot of time left over for kids.  That is the reality for most working families.

My kids get super dry skin if they are bathed more than 2x a week. 

I don't know a single dual-working family in my group of friends or my family on the other coast that aren't able to share drop off and pick up.  This is everything from blue collar shift workers to professionals.  Not saying it doesn't exist - it's just not my experience.

Though I hear you on double drop off and pick up.  My kids are 6+ years apart.  That is my life forever...except for one year coming up next year for kinder/ 6th.

[Cassie]

I am not against moms or dads working at all. I just think that if both work f.t. it is a tough life.  My kids are long grown so there are many more options available for parents now which I think there should be.  Ideally I would like to see both parents only have to work 20 hours/week so they could both share more in child rearing.  I also really feel for single parents and all they go through. When my youngest started school I went to college f.t. and then while in grad school f.t. I was able to work p.t.  This was still easier than f.t. work for me because my schedule was so much more flexible.  I didn't return to f.t. work until my youngest was in 7th grade and the other 2 were older then him.  It was so much easier that time around.  I think physically the years before age 6 are exhausting with all the work that is required.  By the time I entered the work force f.t. I was so excited and  ready to do it.  When I semi-retired at 58 I felt the same. Just different seasons of a life.

[FrozenAssets]

I've been a SAHM for 13 years. What started as a "maybe I'll stay home for a while..." after our first son was born has turned into a lifestyle (I homeschool all four of our kids now, and have since my oldest started kindergarten...) that we can't imagine changing to quicken our FIRE plans. 

My thoughts are to make tentative plans and go with the flow once you do have children.  :)

[BeanCounter]

If 2 people work 8-5 by the time they pick up kids from daycare, get home, make dinner, eat, baths and it is bedtime for the kids so not much quality time. Then in am get ready for work, eat, etc and drive-not much quality time there. 

Speak for yourself.

First off, very few people actually work 8 to 5 and have kids in childcare for 7:30 to 5:30, or 7 to 6 (average child is in child care for 30 hours a week).

Secondly, in the morning:
- There are two adults.  There is plenty of time for a five minute shower, and a ten minute breakfast.  The rest of the time - anywhere from an hour to 2.5 hours of awake time - can be quality time.  This includes: snuggling on the couch, chatting while eating breakfast, discussing today's homework, brushing the LO's teeth, or wiping his butt, or getting him dressed, or nursing. (This is all going to vary on the age of the kid, my kids are 3.5 and 10.)  It also may  involve making toast together, or making a smoothie together, or doing an impromptu dance party.
- On the commute to school and/ or daycare - well it depends on if it's a driving day or a walking day.  Walking day is a lot of time (20 minutes) to chat on the way.  Driving day is quick for the older kid, but then about 15 minutes of chatting about the day with a toddler.  Then at daycare, it's 15 minutes of snuggling in and chatting with the dcp while snuggling.


Then, on the way home, reverse.  (Although in our house, it's the opposite parent, as we split the drop off/ pick up duties, and we offset our work hours).  Chatting with the dcp, then snuggles and chatting with the toddler in the car.  Then racing to the classroom to pick up big bro, then chatting with big bro on the walk back to the car, and the short drive home.  On music days, then it's racing from tree to tree waiting for music to get out.  On baseball practice days, it's playing on the playground during practice.  On baseball game days, generally one parent is home making dinner with the toddler (and often that is literally - he likes to help in the kitchen) while the other parent is at the baseball game.

Then it's a nice dinner at the table, talking about our days.  Then, it's evening chores.  But there again - the big boy helps load the dishwasher, the little guy likes to wash dishes.  One parent often is playing or helping with homework when the other packs up lunch for the next day.  Bath night is 2x a week, so I don't see how that's a big time suck (#1) and how is that NOT quality time?  Playing in the bath?

Then there's reading stories before bed (more quality time!), or playing chess or mousetrap or coloring or...

Quality time is what you make of it.  We easily get 2+ hours in the morning and 3.5-5 hours at night.  That's a pretty high quantity and it's easy to get quality if you try.  Sure, you can plop your kids in front of the TV when you cook dinner (don't get me wrong, we do that too sometimes!)

I don't know if the "lack of quality time" was your own experience (if so, sorry), or if you are just extrapolating what you think happens.  However, more than one study has shown that kids get *more* quality time with their *working* parents now than they did with their SAHPs in the 70s.

This sounds very much like our house. We always say it's quality time over quantity of time. If I stayed home I doubt I would be as engaged all of those hours as I am in the front and back end of my working day.
When I look at the hours that my kids are in care/school- 7:30-5:30 it seems like a lot. But everyone seems to be doing just fine. My kids seem to prefer being with friends and having lots of activities during the day. Until recently I have had no interest in staying home and providing that.
 My kids are currently ages 3 and 7. We had a nanny from age 3 months to 3 years for each of them and when they turned three we transitioned them to a full time daycare/preschool. We were fortunate that we knew a "baby whisperer- granny nanny" and that we could afford her. She bonded with our babes and took excellent care of them (hey she had 40 years of experience compared to my 0!). Preschool is great. Both kids have been very happy there. Both types of care were expensive but I was lucky that I made enough to cover it and take home a decent salary. I never felt like I was missing out or that their care was less than what I could provide. In fact I would say that they got BETTER care than I would have done as a SAHM. Shocking I know, but I just don't think I'm cut out for that job. Little kids take so much patience! It has been great for me to stay in the workforce and continuing to increase my salary and my work experience. All while saving for FIRE. If I could do anything differently it would be that the days for the kids would have been shorter- ending just after nap at 3pm
That being said, I'm now feeling ready to transition to part time or full time at home.
Now that my oldest is in 1st grade it's getting a lot harder. His school has after school care which is great, but all the school holidays and summers are difficult. And before we know it he will age out of after school care and camps. I really don't want to have a 12 year old home by himself. Getting the school work done often cuts into our family time. Getting him to various sporting events and practices is a scheduling miracle. I can only imagine what adding the youngest to this mix will be like. Plus I have found that I really enjoy volunteering at the elementary school. I also think that having a parent more involved in middle school and high school could be very helpful.
I think that continuing to work while they are young and transitioning to FIRE as they get older can be a great plan. But as with many things in life you have to be flexible. What works one year may not work the next. So my best advice would be to plan your living expenses around one parents salary so that you do have the freedom of choice. It is amazing the pressure that takes off of you both.

[Frugal Lizard]

My kids are now 12 and 15.  I work part time from home.  I make excellent money when I have work but it is only about half per year that I would make working full time.  Our family lifestyle is wonderful.  I don't feel that I am missing out on things.  My guys are wonderful young people.  They still need me quite a bit.  I was away last week for work for a couple of nights and they both kept telling me how hard it was.  They also said that they had managed but won't want it to be that way all the time.  We discussed me applying for a full time position and my daughter felt she wouldn't be able to handle it yet.   We are starting to bring them into discussions about family finances so that they understand needs and wants and responsibilities.
I took the mat leave and parental leave.  My income was 2/3rds my husbands so that made financial sense.  And suited our personalities best.
I did some freelance projects after my son was born.  I cut back some spending when the mat benefit ended so I could stay home another six months.  When he was 18 months I went back to work FT and I paid my mom to come and stay with us during the week.  It was great because she loved and cared for him as much as we did.  I was worried that I'd forgotten how to do my job.  I hadn't and even more, I was far more effective.   I had somehow acquired the ability to cut to the chase and focus.  I had no urge to share in office drama and could shut it out instantly. Asked a technical question, the answer was still right there.  I enjoyed working but I missed my son so much.
When daughter came along, I couldn't go back to work.  My mom's hearing was worsening to a point that she didn't feel safe looking after an infant.  It tore her up. It tore me up.  We moved to a LCOL area and I stayed home.  When a part time day care spot became available on the same days that my older was in public school - I took it.  Then I starting doing freelance work to cover the cost of the daycare spot.  We were on the waiting list for the daycare spot for 22 months because I had been planning on returning to work full time.  I didn't want to pass on it. My daughter didn't sleep through the night until she was three so I was really not highly functioning.  They brought home every cold, flu and GI virus they met.  There were so many days that we couldn't have gone to work because someone was sick.  When they were finally in the same school (one drop off location yeah!) I made some extra money doing before and after school care for kids in the neighborhood. 
My son is now in high school and still needs a fair amount of contact time with us.  He likes to talk about what is stressing him and it seems to come out slowly.  He also seems to need a lot of rides to things. His friends are grateful for the rides too.
I saw and still see other kids who are very well loved and cared for but aren't quite having all their needs met.  I don't like to see kids who are acting out for attention.  I am the mom that notices someone crying on the street and gets ice or bandaids for booboos.  I see the kids that aren't dressed for the weather that day.  Or they are running a fever and are slumped in the chair in office waiting for a ride home and to bed.  I didn't want that for my kids so I chose to put my career on the back burner and we will have to work longer. 
It wasn't the plan when I finished my degree and worked for six years at progressively higher and higher levels.  I had no intention of having kids at all but changed my mind and have no regrets.  My partner is happy that I did.
You don't get to choose the type of kid you get.  I went into the parenting thing with the goal of raising my kids with consideration.  I would research, discuss, observe and then choose.  They are only little for such a short time, a fraction of the time I have to work so I am choosing time with them. My guys seemed to need extra care when they were little and I am glad that I could invest the time because we have great communication and they are happy to readily involve us in their lives. 
Do I regret not being where my peers are professionally?  Only occasionally but I still have time to ramp up my professional life.

[kiwi]

Check out the book "The Feminine Mistake" by  Leslie Bennetts from the library. The author comes down heavily on the side of not being a stay at home mom.

She got some serious hate in the Amazon reviews, but after reading the book, she's not extreme at all, and had some great arguments.