Lost Family Time

[Ottawa]

This is something that we recognized early on when we had our daughter.  Both my spouse and I work fulltime and find it difficult at times to reconcile the notion of making more money at the expense of spending time with our daughter.  Mustachianism makes sense of the trade-off in time lost now for the sake of much more time gained in the near future. 

The collateral damage of consumerism in America (and some other places) is opined on in the article by Krugman below from a year ago:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/what-we-have-less-of/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 

I think  the paper below clearly shows more hours are worked...the follow-on suggestion in the Krugman article being that the extra hours worked are to afford to buy more stuff due to lifestyle inflation.  Here is the actual paper about allocation of family time titled "Changes in the Distribution of Family Hours Worked Since 1950"
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/SR/SR397bw.pdf


Some Mustachians here have started their journey early and will be FIRE before children enter the picture. 
Some Mustachians started their FIRE journey after kids left the home.
I suspect there are many Mustachians in the same position as us, wherein the journey to FIRE is occurring concurrently with child rearing. 

I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on how they weigh up time lost now (due to the push to hit FIRE ASAP) with future time gained through FIREing. 

[acroy]

Great question –
I figure I can always make more money. The one thing I don’t get more of is time. The clock keeps ticking; so I better use my time as best as I can.

To that end; my wife decided to be a stay-at-home homemaker & homeschools the kids. I manipulated my career to ensure no travel, reasonable hours, and a short commute. This has certainly put a crimp on the career – I may well have made it another rung or 3 up the ladder if I had dedicated 100% of effort to the career, but I’d miss out on the kids growing up.

I figure I’ll have to work about another 5yrs on the current trajectory vs. if I had gone the full-bore career-builder route. Bat that is ok – even with this, at age 36 I’m very close to being SWAMI, and by 40 should have enough to be FI (not have to work again, ever) using the 4% rule. Any work past that will be just to add to the ‘stash.

[Carrie]

We went the SAHM route when our first was born and haven't regretted it for a second.  I lost out on a solid professional income (not high, but it would have steadily climbed), but when we added up the equation, it didn't make sense for us to have two full time workers.  Day care costs + less time with family + less time for cooking healthfully & from scratch + commuting + professional wardrobe + stress + time off for extra sick days + feelings of guilt + stress = SAHM with $50k less income per year.  SAHM won. Taxes dropped big time when I quit work and added dependents.  I cook for way cheaper than many lunches out + take out & convenience foods.  I have time to economize. 

One way to help bridge the gap and to ensure we're still on track for ER, is I pick up some work from home (it really helps to have skills where this is possible; I'm skilled contract work, not doing a WAHM scam for pennies).  I work little enough that it doesn't cause stress, but it provides extra money for mortgage pay off and investing since we don't rely on that money for paying bills.

[MooseOutFront]

This is one of the tougher sells for FIRE for my wife.  We have a 2 yr old and one on the way.  Showing her how we can be FI in 6 years seems to her that we're working away the SAHM years and will be free just in time for the kids to spend all day at school. 

I figure if we can hit it prior to #2 starting kindergarten then it was worth it.  Summers off with the kids, winter break, pick up and drop off, etc.  Not working for almost their entire school career is a tradeoff vs SAHM care for them now that I'm willing to make.

I would possibly see it differently if her income was lower, but for now she makes more than me.

[Emilyngh]

This (and to ensure general quality of life through most of my life) is why we took a serious step off the rat track even though it will delay FI.   We worked many hours and made lots of money before having DD.   We then moved to a lower COL area, DH quit his job to be a SAHP, and I took a much lower paying but flexible job with more like PT hours.   I consider us currently semi-retired, but it'll now take us more like 10-15 years to reach FI (so sometime while I'm in my 40s) instead of just a few years on the rat track.

Right now, I don't regret this decision and think it was the smart one (since we have very close to a retired standard of living in this semi-retired state).   I could imagine regretting it though if something happens to my job and I'm forced to get a suckier one, though.  Although, if that does happen, I imagine I can at least get one with suckier hours that pays better for a few years and then just ER.  So, hopefully, it's not that much of a risk.

[AndrewJackson]

I would concur with the SAHM route. I am in my low 20's and just had our first a few months ago. I view my wife staying at home as a major investment into our children so the tradeoff is not as bad as it seems. Plus, if you really optimize your spending you can probably be completely fire or at the bare minimum (cut your hours to part time when your oldest kid is a little bit older and able to appreciate your time more).

[Gray Matter]

This is a very personal decision.  Outside of maternity and adoption leave, we both worked full-time while the kids were young.  Other than wishing we'd saved more money during that period of time, I do not have any major regrets.  But as they've gotten older (8, 9, 12), I've felt an increasing desire to spend time with them. 

Though I've always known time with them is limited, being half-way through their time at home and seeing how fast it's passed is making me more keenly aware of it.  And the ages they're at, I'm also more aware of the peer and media influences and I want to be around to provide counterbalance.  Plus they're just so darned interesting, these little people of mine.  These factors make the time RIGHT NOW seem more precious to me and there is an urgency to wanting to spend more time with them that I have never felt before.

Some people feel that urgency with their babies and toddlers and are more willing to focus on a career after they're in school--that was not the case for me.

If we had played our cards right, we would be FIRE by now.  But we didn't, and rather than push through, I am slowing down my career, which will delay FIRE by five or more years.  But I'm OK with that, as I'd rather have the time now.  Otherwise we'd be FIRE right as they are leaving home.

Good luck with this decision.

[milla]

We both work less. A lot less. I work two days a week and my husband works three days. Opposite days so our kids are always home. This is part of our plan for life. We both want to parent, we both want to work. We both want to have the kids at home.
Yes, we are aware that we are not going to be tapped for high powered positions, that's OK. We don't wanna. We know it's going to take longer to be financially independent but we really don't care. We like our plan. We don't believe in working yourself stupid for FIRE and we don't want to sacrifice our ideals for child-rearing.

[Ottawa]

Some interesting answers, and some common themes. 

A little more information about what we did (and plan to do):

The first year my wife stayed at home with our daughter.  Following on in year 2,3,4 my wife worked part-time (4 days) and took Monday off.  I worked full time but on a compressed work week and took the Friday off.  We thought this was making the best of the situation at the time.  That is, neither of our careers suffered and our salaries and DBP (defined benefit pension) was accumulating.  We thought this struck a good balance with the ability to maximize our time off with our daughter and position ourselves to FIRE because, we anticipated what Gray Matter articulates:

Though I've always known time with them is limited, being half-way through their time at home and seeing how fast it's passed is making me more keenly aware of it.  And the ages they're at, I'm also more aware of the peer and media influences and I want to be around to provide counterbalance.  Plus they're just so darned interesting, these little people of mine.  These factors make the time RIGHT NOW seem more precious to me and there is an urgency to wanting to spend more time with them that I have never felt before.

That is, she will be 8-9 when we hope to be positioned to FIRE.  So, while we still spend alot of time with our daughter now (over the ages 2-8); beyond that age we will be there 100% of the time.  To be clear, there isn't much time now that we don't spend with her.  This is because I go to work early while my wife gets dear daughter ready for school and on the bus.  There is only about an hour where a caregiver (2 doors down from us) has her after school before I get home from work.   

We rationalize this by thinking that there is benefit in her being exposed to more than one environment and peer group - i.e. school/daycare and home with us (which of course includes play dates etc as well).

[tooqk4u22]

DW wanted to be SAHM, so we did and because of it she "gave up" a very good career/income.  With that income some might say we would be in a position to FIRE sooner than we could have, but I wouldn't have changed a thing and I am the one that is highly focused on FIRE. Here is how I see it:

- that is time with our babies that just disappears and you can never get back, priceless.
- we effectively trade x number of years today for tomorrow, that's ok it is essentially a wash.
- it strengthened our partnership, she was the warrior on the homefront and I was the warrior at work - the teamwork allowed for a happy homefront with someone always around and allowed me to focus and not be distracted at work that resulted in my income increasing significantly (not sure either of these would have played out with both of us working).

Another thing I take comfort in is that even if DW would have stayed working there would have been no guarantees that she wouldn't have been laid off, downsized, etc - so in the view of no guarantees in life we took control of the direction.

This was good for us, but may not be for others.

[Able was I ERE]

For us, it has definitely been a trade off between now and later.  My wife is a freelance musician, and takes care of the kids during the day.  I have a daytime job, and have the kids when she works evenings. So together we spend 100% of time with them.  Of course, some of this started before children,  my wife eschewed a potentially lucrative technical career to follow her musical passion.

Recently, I cut my work hours to 80% (4 days) .  This gives me an extra full day per week to spend with our growing offspring (3 under 4).  Currently, we're using that time to teach them swimming and to take daytrips to places that are crowded on weekends.   This will probably delay FI by ~2 years, but is well worth the trade, IMHO.

[ace1224]

i do it for my family.  and because i like working. 
for a while i did it so my son could have a stay at home dad.  now i do it so we can do the things that are important to us, like when my son liked dinosaurs we would take multiple weekend trips to dc to see the Smithsonian,  having a stash lets me do that.  i also do it because 1. i'm selfish and 2. my partner.  my bf hates working, he rather work out and play with the dogs all day.  when he does this he also becomes the house ceo and handles everything, i basically come home make dinner (bc poor guy can't, and i like it) and thats it.  i'm off
working hard and living as close to the MMM lifestyle as i can affords me that.   it keeps me happy and my partner happy and therefore our relationship happy.
right now he's working bc after a while he feels like a "bum" so he works for a while and then decides to come back home again.  we just add his money to the stash. while i like getting closer and closer to FU money and being FI i would trade years for it just to have someone handle the homefront for me so i don't have to. 

[oldtoyota]

For me, it was great to have other people who loved my kid too. So, off she would go to her fourth grandma (daycare person). Or, one of my friends (the third grandma) would take her for a while.

Neither of us stayed home FT, and we have a happy and curious kid who has a lot of other adults besides us who love her and still want to spend time with her. =-) She was able to learn from the other adults things that we didn't know, and we think this all worked out pretty well.

I liked attachment parenting, so my theory was "bring the kid everywhere" and she'll learn how she's supposed to act in the world. We did that too.

We both worked while our kid was small, yet I brought the baby to work for a spell, we worked 4-day weeks, we worked compressed schedules, and did other unusual things to maximize our time together.

I had dreamy thoughts about staying at home, but now I'm glad I didn't. It seems like it's hard to re-enter the work force based on what some of my friends are going through. I'm happy with my choice to keep in the work world while dialing back. Thankfully, my profession naturally allows a good deal of flexibility. I'd sing a different tune if I was a doctor.

[imustachemystash]

This is such a timely post because over the past few weeks I have been considering taking a leave of absence next school year.  Next year my son will be entering kindergarten.  I have to choose between a half day and a full day program.  I kind of want to choose the half day program so I can hog him and spend time with him before he starts school full time.  My part time income is only a tiny amount compared to what my husband makes.  It would be a question of saving $3,000 per month for a year instead of $6,000.  Then, being the mustachian I am, put the $36,000 into a compound interest calculator and saw that if I let that money grow until my son was in college, he could have a fully funded college education.  Hmmmm, I'll keep you all posted on what I decide.

[greaper007]

My wife doesn't ever want to completely stop working (owns her own business where she's the face), though she does wish she worked less now, and I don't ever want to go back to work.    So FIRE is really a different sort of issue for us.    I, ummmm, retired early because I hated my career, and really hated every job I've ever had and hated spending 4-6 days a week away from my kids.   She likes her career which gives her personal satisfaction, I feel really lucky that we have such a symbiotic relationship.

[Torran]

Just another thought here - I went to a childminder when my mum went back to work, from the age of 3 - 5, and then after school up to about the age of 7. I was very lucky in that I grew up in quite a tight-knit rural community, so we could see the little school from the childminder's garden, and in fact the older kids would all hang out in a gang after school (mostly climbing trees in our childminder's garden and getting stuck, as far as I remember). This was in the late 1980s, early 1990s.
Anyway, my point is that while I definitely agree that family time is extremely important, and your kids are very lucky they have parents willing to make the work/finance changes to have a happier family life - from a little critter's perspective, I remember loving being away from my family for short spaces of time so I could hang out with a bunch of kids and some adults who were not particularly interested in me. I have great memories of it, and I think it probably made me more resilient.
I would hate for my parents to feel guilty or worried that they were working at this time - the socialisation aspect is worth considering.

[steveo]

I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on how they weigh up time lost now (due to the push to hit FIRE ASAP) with future time gained through FIREing.

I have 3 kids. 12, 10 & 3. I still see a lot of all of my kids although the 12 y.o. wants to see less of me. I don't think we are really working too many more hours to retire as early as possible. My wife works full-time and I suppose she could work part-time or not at all.

I suppose I don't view myself as being less of a parent due to not being able to spend more time with them. I'm not sure that they even want that.

[Mlkmn]

We are in the adoption process right now for a domestic infant. Once we get the baby my wife will most likely switch to a virtual position and I will switch from 4 days a week to 3 days a week at a hospital making pretty much the same as I do now. In a little under two years we will move somewhere cheaper since my wife will work virtually and not need to live across the street from her job ^_^. Rent is 66% of our spending, so dropping that down by at least 25% will be nice (downtown major city to smaller town next to a hospital).

We may end up not even dropping in income, but even if we do it will work out fine and not add much to our years before FI. My pay increase will make up for it because my wife's income won't rise much more without going into management or becoming a dean, something she has no desire to do right now.

We are planning to unschool/home educate so the virtual position plus only three days of work a week should let us be home most of the week to spend plenty of time with the children.

[Gray Matter]

Anyway, my point is that while I definitely agree that family time is extremely important, and your kids are very lucky they have parents willing to make the work/finance changes to have a happier family life - from a little critter's perspective, I remember loving being away from my family for short spaces of time so I could hang out with a bunch of kids and some adults who were not particularly interested in me. I have great memories of it, and I think it probably made me more resilient.
I would hate for my parents to feel guilty or worried that they were working at this time - the socialisation aspect is worth considering.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  The research is pretty clear that children do equally well whether they are home (with a quality parent) or in daycare (with quality daycare providers).  So no-one gets the take the moral high-ground here. 

That's the good news--there really isn't a wrong choice here.  It's what works best for each family, taking into account everyone's personalities and needs and wants, and usually involves trade-offs and which ones you're willing to make.  I worked full-time when my children were younger because I wanted to and my children were thriving.  And now I am working less because I want to, and because some of my kids' needs have changed and can be better met by me than by after-school childcare.

I think things can get really tricky if the partners don't agree on what's best for the family or they value the trade-offs differently.  People in that set of circumstances have my sympathy, because these are not easy decisions even when you are like-minded.

[oldtoyota]

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  The research is pretty clear that children do equally well whether they are home (with a quality parent) or in daycare (with quality daycare providers).  So no-one gets the take the moral high-ground here. 

That's the good news--there really isn't a wrong choice here.  It's what works best for each family...

So true!

[oceanowl]

Great topic, and one we've been thinking about a lot lately. My son is 2.5 right now, and while he has done really well at daycare and is a very social/socialized little guy, we really feel the stress of trying to balance 2 full time jobs, housekeeping, recreational and fun activities and family time all together. Everything feels so hectic and rushed, and we seem to always have the feeling that we can't get stuff done and can't relax. So, unless something really bizarre happens between now and then, I'm stopping my job in early summer to stay home for a while. It's a tradeoff, since this will definitely slow down our FIRE plans, possibly derail them indefinitely, but we can't help but feel how quickly time is flying by, and how much the daily grind is eating into our current quality of life.

I'm working on building up more ways we can earn passive/semi-passive income though, so hopefully that will help.

[happy]

As others have said, there is no OSFA answer. 
For me, family time wins and if I had my time over again I would have FIREd prekids. I've been on a slow downshifting journey for nigh on 2 decades...but only learnt about  FIRE a couple of years ago.  I would have liked to be a SAHM, but my now ex did not agree, so I worked part-time. Then became a single parent for last 14 years - and stayed part-time.  My hours have gone up and down ( mainly between 0.5- 0.7 FTEs) and changed shape according to my children's ages/ needs/ locations.  So at one stage I worked evenings, since that was what childcare I could get. At one stage I swapped houses 1 night a week with my mum since I worked a fair way away, but closer to her house. For a long time now I've worked shorter days to be home in the afternoons after school.

A couple of years ago when I found ERE and MMM, I was working 0.7 and very burned out and my workplace was increasingly treating me like a full timer. Was excited to make a plan to retire earlier at age 60 instead of 67 or so.  After nearly a year of MMMing, I decided to work only 0.5, which would shake up my duties at work so I couldn't be treated like a full timer, help me recover a bit, and be a bit more available to the teenagers.  To do this though, I blew out my FIRE date to 62.5. Its all worked out splendidly, and living on less (I had to shed 28% of my budget) has been no problem.  The hardest part has been the slowing of the NW increase. Its worth it, but I do still feel it.

Interestingly, though, with ongoing improvements in my MMMing abilities, I've gradually made ground and reduced that time to 61.5 years.  Recently a few more mustachianly practices have taken root and I've hatched a bold new plan to retire at 60 again. Its a stretch goal but should be doable.

Our tax rates here are high: if I worked full-time, a lot of the extra would be lost as the tax rate for that proportion would be mostly 45% ie I would take home just over half.  I had thought about just biting the bullet and getting it done, but it becomes inefficient because of this. A lot more pain, teenagers unsupervised, and essentially being paid a lower hourly rate. For me, not worth it!

[bogart]

Anyway, my point is that while I definitely agree that family time is extremely important, and your kids are very lucky they have parents willing to make the work/finance changes to have a happier family life - from a little critter's perspective, I remember loving being away from my family for short spaces of time so I could hang out with a bunch of kids and some adults who were not particularly interested in me. I have great memories of it, and I think it probably made me more resilient.

Yeah.  My 1st grader wishes he were in after school, as that is where his friends are.  Next year we'll probably sign him up, though his dad's SAH, just because he wants to.

[oldtoyota]

Anyway, my point is that while I definitely agree that family time is extremely important, and your kids are very lucky they have parents willing to make the work/finance changes to have a happier family life - from a little critter's perspective, I remember loving being away from my family for short spaces of time so I could hang out with a bunch of kids and some adults who were not particularly interested in me. I have great memories of it, and I think it probably made me more resilient.

Yeah.  My 1st grader wishes he were in after school, as that is where his friends are.  Next year we'll probably sign him up, though his dad's SAH, just because he wants to.

Your 1st grader is right "on time." Around six is when children become more outward facing and more social outside the family. =-)

http://msbecker.edublogs.org/planes-of-development-6-9/honoring-the-social-life-of-the-6-9-montessori-child/