Why it's Important to be Financially Independent

[spartana]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades? 

[Sandi_k]

The whole point of the conversation, to ME, is that BOTH men and women should "learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings, rather than be dependent on a spouse's income."

Self-reliance and independence is critical in this world.

[spartana]

The whole point of the conversation, to ME, is that BOTH men and women should "learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings, rather than be dependent on a spouse's income."

Self-reliance and independence is critical in this world.

I agree completely but it's still rare to hear people say "I 100% support my son's decision to be a SAHD and dependent on his spouse's income" as several people said about their daughters up thread.  Fwiw, as a clueless crazy cat lady childless person, I think most parents want to see their kids become self sufficient and have the ability to be self supporting and be able to be a SAHP if they want to.

[GuitarStv]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

I wouldn't.  Not because he's my son, but because I'm a fan of safety and backup plans.  Everyone should have a marketable skill of some kind that they can go to in case things fall apart.  For a stay at home parent, a divorce is likely going to require that they find a job.  I'd want any kid of mine to be able to weather that and not feel trapped in a miserable marriage because they don't have other options.  Once he has that backup plan, then being a stay at home parent is totally fine.

[Sandi_k]

The whole point of the conversation, to ME, is that BOTH men and women should "learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings, rather than be dependent on a spouse's income."

Self-reliance and independence is critical in this world.

I agree completely but it's still rare to hear people say "I 100% support my son's decision to be a SAHD and dependent on his spouse's income" as several people said up thread.  FWIW as a clueless crazy cat lady childless person I think most parents want to see their kids become self sufficient and have the ability to be self supporting and be able to be a SAHP if they want to.

The problem is that being a SAHP rarely means FI.

The SocSec record is minimal, savings are minimal, and debt is high for most folks that I see in this situation. And the reason that the woman is normally the SAHP is that her earnings are already interrupted with ST Disability due to pregnancy, so why not hollow out her job skills, advancement, and LT employability by having *her* be the one to stay home with the kid?

It becomes easy for the harm to accrue primarily to the woman.

If it were possible to delay childbearing to age 40, when careers, savings, and some SocSec record is solid, it would be an easier situation. But fertility doesn't typically wait.

It's why I strongly encourage women to work at least PT after the kids are 5+ - the woman isn't so vulnerable to financial abuse, because she has a network and current job skills.

[mm1970]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Nope.

[the lorax]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

I'm along the same lines as what GuitarStv said for a son and no way in hell would I encourage a hypothetical daughter to plan for the trad wife approach.

[simonsez]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Sandi_k and GuitarStv already gave excellent responses.  I would not encourage any daughter or son to avoid learning workplace skills and instead be a stay-at-home parent (or plan to be one).  That sounds like they became pregnant (or made someone pregnant) at 18 or some other unprepared age by mistake and you're just dealing with the fallout.  That certainly happens and you can pivot to make the best of it but it's not something to be encouraged during young adult and adolescent years IMO.

I just don't know why it has it to be an either/or instead of both being a stay-at-home parent and having workplace skills and experience, and that goes for sons and daughters.  Call the reason(s) feminism, the demographic transition, post WW2 labor markets, an emphasis on tertiary education, whatever - but I feel like most developed societies are generally pushing children to have value beyond (but not in lieu of, necessarily) their fecundity and childrearing abilities, and that in acquiring this value it will directly and indirectly push the age of having children to later in life (when a person is likely to have more $ as well).  Having competency also lends itself to not being stuck in a crappy work situation, you are more likely to have the confidence and the wherewithal to move to greener pastures instead of being/feeling stuck.

@LaineyAZ thanks for your response, I agree with you in the grand scheme and admit to being a bit naive/overconfident in my own household's situation.  My wife has many marketable skills and I have no doubt if/when she wants to return to the workforce (tentative plan is ~3-4 years from now but we shall see, could be earlier, could be later, could be never), she will be successful in the long run (even if it takes her a little bit to get "back in" and not be underemployed).  If she didn't have any marketable skills to start with or was not pursuing any avenues of acquiring some, I wouldn't have been that interested in anything beyond a short-term physical fling (with protection!) to begin with, but that's off-topic.  To each their own with long-term mate selection!  We will do our best to raise our future daughter in an environment where she is in control of the life she wants to create.

I also think it's important for young people to be exposed to various jobs even if they have a good idea of what they want to do and be after whichever level of education they need to complete.  Go work in a factory one summer, go wait tables, go deliver food, go sucker horseradish, go pour asphalt, babysit, walk dogs, mow grass, lifeguard, replace roofs, install windows, whatever.  If you like it, great.  If not, you have money in your pocket, will have been exposed to various types of people that aren't always present in a young person's bubble, will have learned something (possibly about yourself or at least how to start balancing priorities), and you will be motivated for a career that is NOT related to what you were doing as a teenager over the summers or while you were going to school.

[Louise]

My boss said a jerky thing to me in a meeting and I called him out on it (it wasn't on purpose, more of a bad optics thing, but I was totally in the right). Haha- he was not expecting that, especially because I'm generally mild mannered. He actually avoided me for about two months and then I was moved to a new boss during a reorg. We were FI too, so didn't care if I was fired. It's a very helpful thing to have in your back pocket!

Now I want to know what he said!

And how you so wonderfully parried him with "Not today, F*cker!"

:-)

Now I can't even remember the exact words. It was a while ago. The gist was that my job wasn't really that important in a big meeting in front of all my peers and some of the higher ups. I was mad. I'll admit it wasn't the busiest of jobs, but how can you have so little respect? Plus it looks bad for him because he was my boss! I was a pleasant, cheerful person and I helped a lot of people with their problems. I kept my cool, but let him have it right after. hahaha I'm still surprised because I'm admittedly a people pleaser by nature.

[Sandi_k]

LOL, thanks. That was indeed a jerky thing to say, and I applaud your chutzpah in calling him out. Maybe he'll think twice before belittling his team members in the future.

[spartana]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Sandi_k and GuitarStv already gave excellent responses.  I would not encourage any daughter or son to avoid learning workplace skills and instead be a stay-at-home parent (or plan to be one).  That sounds like they became pregnant (or made someone pregnant) at 18 or some other unprepared age by mistake and you're just dealing with the fallout.  That certainly happens and you can pivot to make the best of it but it's not something to be encouraged during young adult and adolescent years IMO.

I just don't know why it has it to be an either/or instead of both being a stay-at-home parent and having workplace skills and experience, and that goes for sons and daughters.  Call the reason(s) feminism, the demographic transition, post WW2 labor markets, an emphasis on tertiary education, whatever - but I feel like most developed societies are generally pushing children to have value beyond (but not in lieu of, necessarily) their fecundity and childrearing abilities, and that in acquiring this value it will directly and indirectly push the age of having children to later in life (when a person is likely to have more $ as well).  Having competency also lends itself to not being stuck in a crappy work situation, you are more likely to have the confidence and the wherewithal to move to greener pastures instead of being/feeling stuck.

@LaineyAZ thanks for your response, I agree with you in the grand scheme and admit to being a bit naive/overconfident in my own household's situation.  My wife has many marketable skills and I have no doubt if/when she wants to return to the workforce (tentative plan is ~3-4 years from now but we shall see, could be earlier, could be later, could be never), she will be successful in the long run (even if it takes her a little bit to get "back in" and not be underemployed).  If she didn't have any marketable skills to start with or was not pursuing any avenues of acquiring some, I wouldn't have been that interested in anything beyond a short-term physical fling (with protection!) to begin with, but that's off-topic.  To each their own with long-term mate selection!  We will do our best to raise our future daughter in an environment where she is in control of the life she wants to create.

I also think it's important for young people to be exposed to various jobs even if they have a good idea of what they want to do and be after whichever level of education they need to complete.  Go work in a factory one summer, go wait tables, go deliver food, go sucker horseradish, go pour asphalt, babysit, walk dogs, mow grass, lifeguard, replace roofs, install windows, whatever.  If you like it, great.  If not, you have money in your pocket, will have been exposed to various types of people that aren't always present in a young person's bubble, will have learned something (possibly about yourself or at least how to start balancing priorities), and you will be motivated for a career that is NOT related to what you were doing as a teenager over the summers or while you were going to school.

Sorry if my post came off as trollish - it did - but I was genuinely curious if some of the posters would have the same mind set about their sons being a SAHP and not having careers for a long time (and often being left far behind on the career path as many SAHPs are) making it harder to become FI. Unfortunately there's still a double standard out there  abut "who should work and who should be a SAHP) so it's nice to see more people both accepting, encouraging and supporting their kids to do what they want.

[mistymoney]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Sandi_k and GuitarStv already gave excellent responses.  I would not encourage any daughter or son to avoid learning workplace skills and instead be a stay-at-home parent (or plan to be one).  That sounds like they became pregnant (or made someone pregnant) at 18 or some other unprepared age by mistake and you're just dealing with the fallout.  That certainly happens and you can pivot to make the best of it but it's not something to be encouraged during young adult and adolescent years IMO.

I just don't know why it has it to be an either/or instead of both being a stay-at-home parent and having workplace skills and experience, and that goes for sons and daughters.  Call the reason(s) feminism, the demographic transition, post WW2 labor markets, an emphasis on tertiary education, whatever - but I feel like most developed societies are generally pushing children to have value beyond (but not in lieu of, necessarily) their fecundity and childrearing abilities, and that in acquiring this value it will directly and indirectly push the age of having children to later in life (when a person is likely to have more $ as well).  Having competency also lends itself to not being stuck in a crappy work situation, you are more likely to have the confidence and the wherewithal to move to greener pastures instead of being/feeling stuck.

@LaineyAZ thanks for your response, I agree with you in the grand scheme and admit to being a bit naive/overconfident in my own household's situation.  My wife has many marketable skills and I have no doubt if/when she wants to return to the workforce (tentative plan is ~3-4 years from now but we shall see, could be earlier, could be later, could be never), she will be successful in the long run (even if it takes her a little bit to get "back in" and not be underemployed).  If she didn't have any marketable skills to start with or was not pursuing any avenues of acquiring some, I wouldn't have been that interested in anything beyond a short-term physical fling (with protection!) to begin with, but that's off-topic.  To each their own with long-term mate selection!  We will do our best to raise our future daughter in an environment where she is in control of the life she wants to create.

I also think it's important for young people to be exposed to various jobs even if they have a good idea of what they want to do and be after whichever level of education they need to complete.  Go work in a factory one summer, go wait tables, go deliver food, go sucker horseradish, go pour asphalt, babysit, walk dogs, mow grass, lifeguard, replace roofs, install windows, whatever.  If you like it, great.  If not, you have money in your pocket, will have been exposed to various types of people that aren't always present in a young person's bubble, will have learned something (possibly about yourself or at least how to start balancing priorities), and you will be motivated for a career that is NOT related to what you were doing as a teenager over the summers or while you were going to school.

Sorry if my post came off as trollish - it did - but I was genuinely curious if some of the posters would have the same mind set about their sons being a SAHP and not having careers for a long time (and often being left far behind on the career path as many SAHPs are) making it harder to become FI. Unfortunately there's still a double standard out there  abut "who should work and who should be a SAHP) so it's nice to see more people both accepting, encouraging and supporting their kids to do what they want.

I wouldn't exactly encourage it for DD or DS, but I'd be more inclined to MMOB unless asked about it if they were somewhat on the fence. My advice would be the same whether it was my own child or their partner who was contemplating being a SAHP

Things to consider in what I would say - if asked!
how long in work force - if 10 years, then they are pretty solid, real experience, soc sec and medicare qualified, than someone out of college.
level of assets - if FI, who cares! if coast FI is in the bag in a short amount of time, 5 or so years (not 20), then also - who cares!
level of savings if not close to FI - if saving at least 10-15% on one income, then seems doable.
ability/willingness to work part time to keep a toe in, ability in terms of time and availability of same-level work on a pt basis - not just anything
level of free help/family nearby - if not help at all, SAHP makes more sense
Have they considered a SAHG* instead?




*SAHG being stay at home granny! But if both kids wanted that and were in different states as they are now, then I'd be pressed on what to do!

[spartana]

^^^or stay at home granddaddy lol.

I do think women are given a bit of lee way by potential employers and other people in general  when taking long periods off work then most men. I could say I quit my job at 36 to be a care giver or raise kids or be a trailing spouse to support a DHs career for the past 10 or 20 years and most people wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm not so sure that would be the case with males,  and a long work break might be a bit of a red flag for many employers. 

One of the things talked about here sometimes is whether or not a SAH spouse is FI or not if, in the event of a divorce or unemployment of the earning spouse, they have to go back to work? Or if they can continue to  FI (even a leaner FI) or not. So as a couple they might be FI but as 2 singles they may not be. Lots of people who are dependent on either a working spouse's income or joint assets to be FI would call themselves FI and maybe RE or even that they have FU money based on a spouse's earnings but wouldn't be if they divorced.  That was mentioned up thread as a reason to stash more then you need as a couple in case of a split or long unemployment.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

^^^or stay at home granddaddy lol.

I do think women are given a bit of lee way by potential employers and other people in general  when taking long periods off work then most men. I could say I quit my job at 36 to be a care giver or raise kids or be a trailing spouse to support a DHs career for the past 10 or 20 years and most people wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm not so sure that would be the case with males,  and a long work break might be a bit of a red flag for many employers. 

One of the things talked about here sometimes is whether or not a SAH spouse is FI or not if, in the event of a divorce or unemployment of the earning spouse, they have to go back to work? Or if they can continue to  FI (even a leaner FI) or not. So as a couple they might be FI but as 2 singles they may not be. Lots of people who are dependent on either a working spouse's income or joint assets to be FI would call themselves FI and maybe RE or even that they have FU money based on a spouse's earnings but wouldn't be if they divorced.  That was mentioned up thread as a reason to stash more then you need as a couple in case of a split or long unemployment.

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

[Sunnytimes]

I can say from first-hand experience that it is important to make sure you can support yourself. My sweet husband of 25 years passed away from an out-of-the-blue aggressive cancer within 9 months. He was only 54--a life-altering nightmare for us both on so many levels. Thankfully, though, I have a good career and can maintain our home, expenses, retirement contributions, etc. without his salary (while he was sick and after he died.) He did not have life insurance (which is another story--I tell anyone who will listen to ensure they have term-life at the very least.)  I couldn't imagine mourning his loss AND worrying about how to keep a roof over my head, pay bills, etc. For that I'm grateful my parents raised me to not be dependent on another because you just never know.

[ATtiny85]

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

Maybe the guy wasn’t a very good engineer, or maybe just a bad communicator.

I took a six year break after undergrad engineering degree (Army) and feared difficulty finding a technical engineering position. Hit the reset button by going to grad school and getting a MS.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

Maybe the guy wasn’t a very good engineer, or maybe just a bad communicator.

I took a six year break after undergrad engineering degree (Army) and feared difficulty finding a technical engineering position. Hit the reset button by going to grad school and getting a MS.

Certainly possible. He seemed relatively well adjusted, but I was young. It just stuck with me as a warning for the risks of taking career breaks.

[GilesMM]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Nope.

It can be a very touchy subject around here, historically.  Some will say that evidence demonstrates, all things being equal, raising pre-K kids is best done by a loving stay at home parent and a second attentive parent that is around outside work hours.  There are others who will vehemently argue that 10-12 hours of day care in a crowded facility from a few months onward is harmless and allows both parents to pursue their rightful careers, uninterrupted.  A few may argue the middle ground of a live-in nanny supporting 1-2 WFH parents.

[spartana]

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

Maybe the guy wasn’t a very good engineer, or maybe just a bad communicator.

I took a six year break after undergrad engineering degree (Army) and feared difficulty finding a technical engineering position. Hit the reset button by going to grad school and getting a MS.

Were you in the Army those 6 years? If so that's likely a plus for many employers. Even if you weren't working in the profession you trained for as a civilian, you were still working and not lying on a sunny beach drinking Monday morning mimosas after some beach volleyball ;-).

 I think potential employers want to know what you were doing durning long work breaks when hiring. There's lots of ways to explain those gaps - many like being in school, military service, pro-athlete, or SAHP are easily provable. Athough saying you were a SAHP if you don't have kids might be harder but someone could say caregiver. Other long gaps in employment might be harder to explain - especially if they are very long - and make it more difficult to get a job again. Add the loss of skills and knowledge that likely happens with a big employment gap if someone's looking to be hired or re-hired into their former career.  I'd probably be pretty unemployable right now (other then burger flipper) after a 20 year FIRE but at least I could lie and tell a potential employer I had put my career on hold to be a SAHP or caregiver or to.support a DHs military career and they'd accept that even if I was just really a slacker beach bum.

[jeninco]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Nope.

It can be a very touchy subject around here, historically.  Some will say that evidence demonstrates, all things being equal, raising pre-K kids is best done by a loving stay at home parent and a second attentive parent that is around outside work hours.  There are others who will vehemently argue that 10-12 hours of day care in a crowded facility from a few months onward is harmless and allows both parents to pursue their rightful careers, uninterrupted.  A few may argue the middle ground of a live-in nanny supporting 1-2 WFH parents.

Oh stop. There are obviously options between "work all the hours, stick the kids in crappy daycare for 100+ hours per week" and "one of you -- probably the female one -- should significantly decrease her lifetime earnings (and salary, and retirement benefits) by staying home indefinitely, because "women naturally want to stay home with baybeees"". And your "middle ground" is barely available to the most highly-paid families, so knock it off!

[spartana]

I can say from first-hand experience that it is important to make sure you can support yourself. My sweet husband of 25 years passed away from an out-of-the-blue aggressive cancer within 9 months. He was only 54--a life-altering nightmare for us both on so many levels. Thankfully, though, I have a good career and can maintain our home, expenses, retirement contributions, etc. without his salary (while he was sick and after he died.) He did not have life insurance (which is another story--I tell anyone who will listen to ensure they have term-life at the very least.)  I couldn't imagine mourning his loss AND worrying about how to keep a roof over my head, pay bills, etc. For that I'm grateful my parents raised me to not be dependent on another because you just never know.

So very sorry @Sunnytimes but that's a good point. Losing a partner, their income and maybe their assets, while dealing with their death (and maybe huge medical bills) would be extremely hard if not FI or at least able to support yourself. Have life insurance is at least a good hedge against possible poverty.

Same for dealing with divorce or a life altering illness or injury. I'm divorced (no kids) so for me (and ex-DH as well as current SO) it's important for us to be FI separately so if something like death, divorce or a long term illness or injury happened we'd each be able to keep being FI/RE. Or be self supporting if still working. Having to split all your shared assets and losing one partners income  (maybe the only income if someone is a SAHS) while having to pay all expenses on your own can be tough.  I know there's life insurance and  disability insurance but maybe there should be divorce insurance too!

[Ladychips]

I know there's life insurance and  disability insurance but maybe there should be divorce insurance too!

My most favorite thing about this forum is when someone says something that has never crossed my mind and makes me go hmmm. I just wanted to say thanks for the new thought @spartana!

[GilesMM]

I know there's life insurance and  disability insurance but maybe there should be divorce insurance too!

My most favorite thing about this forum is when someone says something that has never crossed my mind and makes me go hmmm. I just wanted to say thanks for the new thought @spartana!

Et voila!


https://www.boydlawsacramento.com/what-is-divorce-insurance/

[spartana]

I know there's life insurance and  disability insurance but maybe there should be divorce insurance too!

My most favorite thing about this forum is when someone says something that has never crossed my mind and makes me go hmmm. I just wanted to say thanks for the new thought @spartana!

I'm not sure how they'd do it  - maybe a policy that pays each party x amount of money upon divorce - but I guess it could be a "thing" that's separate from a pre-nup. Although I can see the potential for fraud where couples divorce to get that money then continue to shack up together. I guess that's better than one spouse murdering the other for their life insurance LOL.

ETA: Just saw @GilesMM post that it already exists! I never heard of it before.

[mm1970]

^^^or stay at home granddaddy lol.

I do think women are given a bit of lee way by potential employers and other people in general  when taking long periods off work then most men. I could say I quit my job at 36 to be a care giver or raise kids or be a trailing spouse to support a DHs career for the past 10 or 20 years and most people wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm not so sure that would be the case with males,  and a long work break might be a bit of a red flag for many employers. 

One of the things talked about here sometimes is whether or not a SAH spouse is FI or not if, in the event of a divorce or unemployment of the earning spouse, they have to go back to work? Or if they can continue to  FI (even a leaner FI) or not. So as a couple they might be FI but as 2 singles they may not be. Lots of people who are dependent on either a working spouse's income or joint assets to be FI would call themselves FI and maybe RE or even that they have FU money based on a spouse's earnings but wouldn't be if they divorced.  That was mentioned up thread as a reason to stash more then you need as a couple in case of a split or long unemployment.

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

She sure would have, except she would be paid less.

[mm1970]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Nope.

It can be a very touchy subject around here, historically.  Some will say that evidence demonstrates, all things being equal, raising pre-K kids is best done by a loving stay at home parent and a second attentive parent that is around outside work hours.  There are others who will vehemently argue that 10-12 hours of day care in a crowded facility from a few months onward is harmless and allows both parents to pursue their rightful careers, uninterrupted.  A few may argue the middle ground of a live-in nanny supporting 1-2 WFH parents.

Oh stop. There are obviously options between "work all the hours, stick the kids in crappy daycare for 100+ hours per week" and "one of you -- probably the female one -- should significantly decrease her lifetime earnings (and salary, and retirement benefits) by staying home indefinitely, because "women naturally want to stay home with baybeees"". And your "middle ground" is barely available to the most highly-paid families, so knock it off!

Thanks @jeninco you saved me from having to say the same thing. 

"People would say..." whatever.

Most of the evidence (you know, meta-analyses) shows no difference with 2 working parents vs 1 SAHP. 

Also, the average amount of time a child is in daycare is 30-35 hours a week.  That's the average of all kids in daycare, not the average of all children.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

^^^or stay at home granddaddy lol.

I do think women are given a bit of lee way by potential employers and other people in general  when taking long periods off work then most men. I could say I quit my job at 36 to be a care giver or raise kids or be a trailing spouse to support a DHs career for the past 10 or 20 years and most people wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm not so sure that would be the case with males,  and a long work break might be a bit of a red flag for many employers. 

One of the things talked about here sometimes is whether or not a SAH spouse is FI or not if, in the event of a divorce or unemployment of the earning spouse, they have to go back to work? Or if they can continue to  FI (even a leaner FI) or not. So as a couple they might be FI but as 2 singles they may not be. Lots of people who are dependent on either a working spouse's income or joint assets to be FI would call themselves FI and maybe RE or even that they have FU money based on a spouse's earnings but wouldn't be if they divorced.  That was mentioned up thread as a reason to stash more then you need as a couple in case of a split or long unemployment.

I worked with a guy early on when I was interning that had taken off several years as an engineer to take care of his child when they were born. He got an engineering job back afterwards, but it was a third shift job that seemed to be the only one he could find. I wondered if a woman would have been in the same situation.

She sure would have, except she would be paid less.

And that's certainly possible. I can anecdotally attest to pay discrepancy as I've seen it. I haven't really seen many people with huge holes in their working resumes except this guy, so I have no knowledge on the subject. I was just thinking about it in regards to the conversation because I could see the effect in this situation.

[Treedream]

To espond to the original post. Yes being FI is really a peace of mind. But you don't need to be FI to be safe if your job becomes untenable. All you need is the will to go look elsewhere and a good emergency fund in case it really becomes untenable. Saying you need to be FI before you can make any moves or have any security seems very scared and stuck. Why would you not look around if your job is awefull?

[twinstudy]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

[Laura33]

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

I wouldn't.  Not because he's my son, but because I'm a fan of safety and backup plans.  Everyone should have a marketable skill of some kind that they can go to in case things fall apart.  For a stay at home parent, a divorce is likely going to require that they find a job.  I'd want any kid of mine to be able to weather that and not feel trapped in a miserable marriage because they don't have other options.  Once he has that backup plan, then being a stay at home parent is totally fine.

+1000.  I also want my kids to do things that engage them and that they find interesting.  I love my kids, but BOY am I not a little-kid person.  If either one of my kids is a little-kid person, then I'd absolutely support them SAH.  But I wouldn't want one of them to feel pressured to SAH if that's not what works for them.  Every mom, dad, and kid is different; the only thing that matters is finding something that works for everyone involved. 

^^^ Curious if you all (the generic you all) would encourage (support the decision) your sons to be SAHD rather than learn a marketable skill and develop a work history and have some savings  rather then be dependant on a spouse's income for years or decades?

Nope.

It can be a very touchy subject around here, historically.  Some will say that evidence demonstrates, all things being equal, raising pre-K kids is best done by a loving stay at home parent and a second attentive parent that is around outside work hours.  There are others who will vehemently argue that 10-12 hours of day care in a crowded facility from a few months onward is harmless and allows both parents to pursue their rightful careers, uninterrupted.  A few may argue the middle ground of a live-in nanny supporting 1-2 WFH parents.

Oh stop. There are obviously options between "work all the hours, stick the kids in crappy daycare for 100+ hours per week" and "one of you -- probably the female one -- should significantly decrease her lifetime earnings (and salary, and retirement benefits) by staying home indefinitely, because "women naturally want to stay home with baybeees"". And your "middle ground" is barely available to the most highly-paid families, so knock it off!

Thanks @jeninco you saved me from having to say the same thing. 

Ditto.

Not to get us off-track (meaning:  now I'm going to get us off-track), but it is interesting to me that folks assume that full-time one-on-one family care is always optimal.  I mean, I had grandparent care when I was little.  They adored me.  My Granny, Grandad, and Grandpa also smoked.  Was I better off with them than in a smoke-free daycare?  Who knows?  I mean, I was loved, but I've also had asthma and terrible allergies since I was very little.   

This was really brought home to me with my DD.  I am introverted and unscheduled; she is extremely extroverted, active, and craves a day filled with activities in pre-scheduled 15-minute increments.  She adored going to daycare -- they had much better toys, a predictable schedule, and many many many more people to interact with.  They did a waaaayyy better job with her than I would have.  Not to mention that all-day, every-day with her left me on the edge of cracking; I was a much better parent when I had hours to myself every day to recharge and prepare for the post-daycare energy-and-attention onslaught.

[dcheesi]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

[jrhampt]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

Same.  I know some of these people personally, too.

[wageslave23]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Getting another job is the easy part. Wanting to work at another job is the more difficult part. Especially as you get more seniority, set in your ways, develop your niche and client relationships, mold your job and others expectations over many years, etc.

[mm1970]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

Same.  I know some of these people personally, too.

I've known many of these people in the past, during previous layoff/ downturns.  And they are great people, highly talented, hard workers.  If there aren't enough jobs, some people will be unemployed for awhile.

(Also, consider that there may be jobs in other locations - I'm in my 50s, as are many of my friends, and moving to another city or state isn't going to happen - so you are stuck with the job openings in your city.  Not that you CAN'T move - but we are a 2-career couple, and it's not just one job, it's two.)

[the lorax]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

I don't agree- there's a ton of ageism, sexism, racism and other forms of conscious and unconscious bias that get in the way of logical hiring decisions - plenty of people who are/would be good at the job don't get a look in whilst others who are totally mediocre or worse but fit the mould stay employed. It all gets worse when unemployment spikes of course.

[neo von retorch]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

I'm a super versatile experienced (25 years) software engineer with 2 years of self-taught data science experience, plenty of cloud / devops experience.

I've only been VERY casually looking for the past 5 months, but I have had exactly ZERO response to my (multiple versions) resumes in that time. Note that because I'm furloughed and collecting unemployment, I have to submit my resume to 2 positions each week.

The last time (and every time) I've looked for a job, I had an offer within 3 weeks of starting to look. (Most of my career, I've been recruited out of the blue with no effort on my part.) My current job was one where I knew a guy who knew a guy, and I interviewed, but at the time they went with someone more junior and affordable. Then a year later, they called me and gave me what I asked for (which was higher than what I'd asked for a year earlier.) They didn't have me re-interview. I've been there 5 years, but am now furloughed due to a bunch of misfortunes affecting our company; no fault of our own. (High interest rates, low venture capital pool, one client went bankrupt which hurt us in multiple ways, another client had an unexpected CEO death! Other projects are pending but not yet signed. And so on.)

Maybe I'm "suddenly" bad at my job ;) or maybe, just maybe, the over-hiring during COVID, the lay-offs of 2023, and the "return to office" mandate (which is another form of layoffs) just maybe indicates a big shift in the tech job market?


There's also something to be said for the gold rush for "AI" (e.g. machine learning being applied in new and novel ways, and utilizing the big, popular models and their APIs). Most of us, however senior as we are, have very little experience in this new area of technology, but the companies that are hiring "only" want someone with experience, because they don't want to risk being left out of the cool new thing. This happens from time to time, and it will likely shift again over the next 6 months as various companies figure out what's necessary to pursue, technologically speaking, and what can be safely put off for now.

If you're in tech and need work, skill up!

[GuitarStv]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

I don't agree- there's a ton of ageism, sexism, racism and other forms of conscious and unconscious bias that get in the way of logical hiring decisions - plenty of people who are/would be good at the job don't get a look in whilst others who are totally mediocre or worse but fit the mould stay employed. It all gets worse when unemployment spikes of course.

I worked in aerospace for a while.  Big contract, tons of people hired.  Contract ends, tons of people get fired.  It's very cyclical and there's no serious attempt to hold on to good people when you're firing 90% of the engineers.

[jrhampt]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

I don't agree- there's a ton of ageism, sexism, racism and other forms of conscious and unconscious bias that get in the way of logical hiring decisions - plenty of people who are/would be good at the job don't get a look in whilst others who are totally mediocre or worse but fit the mould stay employed. It all gets worse when unemployment spikes of course.

And also, the more senior you are, the more expensive you are.  It doesn't matter if you're also very good if you're expensive and they're looking to "reduce opex".

[jrhampt]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

I'm a super versatile experienced (25 years) software engineer with 2 years of self-taught data science experience, plenty of cloud / devops experience.

I've only been VERY casually looking for the past 5 months, but I have had exactly ZERO response to my (multiple versions) resumes in that time. Note that because I'm furloughed and collecting unemployment, I have to submit my resume to 2 positions each week.

The last time (and every time) I've looked for a job, I had an offer within 3 weeks of starting to look. (Most of my career, I've been recruited out of the blue with no effort on my part.) My current job was one where I knew a guy who knew a guy, and I interviewed, but at the time they went with someone more junior and affordable. Then a year later, they called me and gave me what I asked for (which was higher than what I'd asked for a year earlier.) They didn't have me re-interview. I've been there 5 years, but am now furloughed due to a bunch of misfortunes affecting our company; no fault of our own. (High interest rates, low venture capital pool, one client went bankrupt which hurt us in multiple ways, another client had an unexpected CEO death! Other projects are pending but not yet signed. And so on.)

Maybe I'm "suddenly" bad at my job ;) or maybe, just maybe, the over-hiring during COVID, the lay-offs of 2023, and the "return to office" mandate (which is another form of layoffs) just maybe indicates a big shift in the tech job market?


There's also something to be said for the gold rush for "AI" (e.g. machine learning being applied in new and novel ways, and utilizing the big, popular models and their APIs). Most of us, however senior as we are, have very little experience in this new area of technology, but the companies that are hiring "only" want someone with experience, because they don't want to risk being left out of the cool new thing. This happens from time to time, and it will likely shift again over the next 6 months as various companies figure out what's necessary to pursue, technologically speaking, and what can be safely put off for now.

If you're in tech and need work, skill up!

This matches what I've been seeing and hearing.  Very, very different job market right now for tech/white collar jobs.

[jinga nation]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

I don't agree- there's a ton of ageism, sexism, racism and other forms of conscious and unconscious bias that get in the way of logical hiring decisions - plenty of people who are/would be good at the job don't get a look in whilst others who are totally mediocre or worse but fit the mould stay employed. It all gets worse when unemployment spikes of course.

I worked in aerospace for a while.  Big contract, tons of people hired.  Contract ends, tons of people get fired.  It's very cyclical and there's no serious attempt to hold on to good people when you're firing 90% of the engineers.

One of the reasons I learned early in the defense aerospace sector; job is dependent on the whims of some committee and/or pork barrel of local politician and/or congress voting on a spending bill. Left that shit behind and moved into IT. Because everyone needs it, and is increasingly becoming more reliant on the network/compute/storage/etc with their fondleslab screens. And IT got me to FI faster than if I had stayed in mil-aero sector. Also, less management assholes to deal with in IT world, and less racism and sexism. (Worked at a MegaCorp that started with Honey, ended in Well.... )

[2sk22]

There's also something to be said for the gold rush for "AI" (e.g. machine learning being applied in new and novel ways, and utilizing the big, popular models and their APIs). Most of us, however senior as we are, have very little experience in this new area of technology, but the companies that are hiring "only" want someone with experience, because they don't want to risk being left out of the cool new thing. This happens from time to time, and it will likely shift again over the next 6 months as various companies figure out what's necessary to pursue, technologically speaking, and what can be safely put off for now.

If you're in tech and need work, skill up!

Even in AI/ML the demand is drying up. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum I'm an OG AI researcher (30+ years working on neural networks :-)). I have now been retired for four years. Until the end of 2023, I used to get cold calls from recruiters but this year, the calls have completely stopped. I just feel grateful that I got out of the field when I did.

[dcheesi]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

I'm a super versatile experienced (25 years) software engineer with 2 years of self-taught data science experience, plenty of cloud / devops experience.

I've only been VERY casually looking for the past 5 months, but I have had exactly ZERO response to my (multiple versions) resumes in that time. Note that because I'm furloughed and collecting unemployment, I have to submit my resume to 2 positions each week.

The last time (and every time) I've looked for a job, I had an offer within 3 weeks of starting to look. (Most of my career, I've been recruited out of the blue with no effort on my part.) My current job was one where I knew a guy who knew a guy, and I interviewed, but at the time they went with someone more junior and affordable. Then a year later, they called me and gave me what I asked for (which was higher than what I'd asked for a year earlier.) They didn't have me re-interview. I've been there 5 years, but am now furloughed due to a bunch of misfortunes affecting our company; no fault of our own. (High interest rates, low venture capital pool, one client went bankrupt which hurt us in multiple ways, another client had an unexpected CEO death! Other projects are pending but not yet signed. And so on.)

Maybe I'm "suddenly" bad at my job ;) or maybe, just maybe, the over-hiring during COVID, the lay-offs of 2023, and the "return to office" mandate (which is another form of layoffs) just maybe indicates a big shift in the tech job market?


There's also something to be said for the gold rush for "AI" (e.g. machine learning being applied in new and novel ways, and utilizing the big, popular models and their APIs). Most of us, however senior as we are, have very little experience in this new area of technology, but the companies that are hiring "only" want someone with experience, because they don't want to risk being left out of the cool new thing. This happens from time to time, and it will likely shift again over the next 6 months as various companies figure out what's necessary to pursue, technologically speaking, and what can be safely put off for now.

If you're in tech and need work, skill up!

What I can't figure out is exactly why this drought is so prolonged? I mean, yeah, obviously after FAANG did mass layoffs couple of years ago, there's gonna be a glut for a little while. But part of the explanation for those layoffs was supposed to be correcting for the previous over-hiring during the pandemic, so that should have just put us back at 2019 conditions (albeit with a lot more FAANG name-drops on resumés). But it really feels like a much deeper and more persistent change in the tech job market.

And on the other side of the coin, this all started before "AI" became ubiquitous, so I can't see "ChatGPT took er jerbs!!1!" being the answer, either. Which only makes me wonder how much worse it's gonna get when that does become a major factor?

[2sk22]

The concept that job security is parlous is something foreign to me. I think if you are good at your job you will always have work, whether as an employee, as a contractor, with your own practice, etc. There is demand for everything as long as you are good at your job.

Dunno, I've been reading numerous horror stories about the state of tech job hiring atm. Seemingly qualified people spending months and months looking, and getting zero offers. Perhaps they're all just bad at their jobs, or (more likely) bad at interviewing? But it's enough to give me pause as a tech worker myself.

I'm a super versatile experienced (25 years) software engineer with 2 years of self-taught data science experience, plenty of cloud / devops experience.

I've only been VERY casually looking for the past 5 months, but I have had exactly ZERO response to my (multiple versions) resumes in that time. Note that because I'm furloughed and collecting unemployment, I have to submit my resume to 2 positions each week.

The last time (and every time) I've looked for a job, I had an offer within 3 weeks of starting to look. (Most of my career, I've been recruited out of the blue with no effort on my part.) My current job was one where I knew a guy who knew a guy, and I interviewed, but at the time they went with someone more junior and affordable. Then a year later, they called me and gave me what I asked for (which was higher than what I'd asked for a year earlier.) They didn't have me re-interview. I've been there 5 years, but am now furloughed due to a bunch of misfortunes affecting our company; no fault of our own. (High interest rates, low venture capital pool, one client went bankrupt which hurt us in multiple ways, another client had an unexpected CEO death! Other projects are pending but not yet signed. And so on.)

Maybe I'm "suddenly" bad at my job ;) or maybe, just maybe, the over-hiring during COVID, the lay-offs of 2023, and the "return to office" mandate (which is another form of layoffs) just maybe indicates a big shift in the tech job market?


There's also something to be said for the gold rush for "AI" (e.g. machine learning being applied in new and novel ways, and utilizing the big, popular models and their APIs). Most of us, however senior as we are, have very little experience in this new area of technology, but the companies that are hiring "only" want someone with experience, because they don't want to risk being left out of the cool new thing. This happens from time to time, and it will likely shift again over the next 6 months as various companies figure out what's necessary to pursue, technologically speaking, and what can be safely put off for now.

If you're in tech and need work, skill up!

What I can't figure out is exactly why this drought is so prolonged? I mean, yeah, obviously after FAANG did mass layoffs couple of years ago, there's gonna be a glut for a little while. But part of the explanation for those layoffs was supposed to be correcting for the previous over-hiring during the pandemic, so that should have just put us back at 2019 conditions (albeit with a lot more FAANG name-drops on resumés). But it really feels like a much deeper and more persistent change in the tech job market.

And on the other side of the coin, this all started before "AI" became ubiquitous, so I can't see "ChatGPT took er jerbs!!1!" being the answer, either. Which only makes me wonder how much worse it's gonna get when that does become a major factor?

You need to go back to the five years between 2000 and 2005 to find a similar period in terms of tech employment. After the Dotcom bubble collapsed, software development jobs were very hard to come by for many years. I was grateful to just be employed at that time. I had to go way outside my field to find any work at all.

[GilesMM]

The tech layoffs are tapering off so conditions could improve going forward, especially for AI, cloud and cybersecurity experts.

[twinstudy]

In my comments about job security, I wasn't suggesting that you would never be laid off, but that there should always be an alternative to hop to. I'm no longer an employee, but when  I was, I was constantly in the ear of recruiters so that I had a plan B and C in case my current firm wasn't going well or wasn't acceding to pay demands. Employers are replaceable, so treat them accordingly.

And on the other side of the coin, this all started before "AI" became ubiquitous, so I can't see "ChatGPT took er jerbs!!1!" being the answer, either. Which only makes me wonder how much worse it's gonna get when that does become a major factor?

Can't see AI ever supplanting most skilled human jobs. AI for instance can transcribe to some extent but we still have human court transcribers. And that's not a particularly difficult job to begin with. More complex jobs are completely AI proof and will use AI only to augment their productivity.

[GuitarStv]

In my comments about job security, I wasn't suggesting that you would never be laid off, but that there should always be an alternative to hop to.

I was laid off (the whole company imploded actually - from 300 employees down to about 40) from a job that I had done well at, in a field I understood very well.  This was at the beginning of the financial crash in 2007.  It was a solid eight months, hundreds of resumes/job applications, and dozens of interviews before I found another job.

Job alternatives depend on the market at least as much as the skill of the job seeker.

[dcheesi]

In my comments about job security, I wasn't suggesting that you would never be laid off, but that there should always be an alternative to hop to. I'm no longer an employee, but when  I was, I was constantly in the ear of recruiters so that I had a plan B and C in case my current firm wasn't going well or wasn't acceding to pay demands. Employers are replaceable, so treat them accordingly.

And that's what I was addressing: from what I'm hearing, the alternatives in my industry have dried up, and those recruiters no longer come calling (nor have anything real to offer if you call on them).

And on the other side of the coin, this all started before "AI" became ubiquitous, so I can't see "ChatGPT took er jerbs!!1!" being the answer, either. Which only makes me wonder how much worse it's gonna get when that does become a major factor?

Can't see AI ever supplanting most skilled human jobs. AI for instance can transcribe to some extent but we still have human court transcribers. And that's not a particularly difficult job to begin with. More complex jobs are completely AI proof and will use AI only to augment their productivity.

I'm a bit skeptical of "AI" abilities as well. But I do think that it'll get to the point that a lot of low-level jobs in certain industries can be automated away, with a smaller number of "AI wranglers" overseeing and double-checking the output. Even if the quality drops a little bit, a lot of businesses in a number of industries will likely be willing to make that tradeoff to save time & money.

[jrhampt]

The tech layoffs are tapering off so conditions could improve going forward, especially for AI, cloud and cybersecurity experts.

Idk if reporting is capturing the whole picture, though...my megacorp has made no announcements about layoffs that have made the news or triggered WARN, but their goal has been to reduce headcount by something like 20%.  They have been doing layoffs at least on a monthly basis since spring of 2023, in addition to opening two large IT bases (one in Ireland and one in India), so also outsourcing, and using RTO as a way to get people to leave, then not backfilling those positions.  It is kind of baffling to me as well how quiet it has been, and how quiet the recruiters have gone (previously I also got outreached by them on a regular basis), but I think lots of the recruiters have been laid off as well.

[Just Joe]

Amateur question: is the economy just slowing down and the big employers are premptively shrinking their employee pools?

Car manufacturers are also laying off white collar workers.

[dcheesi]

Amateur question: is the economy just slowing down and the big employers are premptively shrinking their employee pools?

Car manufacturers are also laying off white collar workers.

All the standard economic indicators suggest otherwise, which is part of why this is all so baffling.