If that will make that parent miserable, than no.
I say no, too. I would put it like: if you have more than one child then you have fewer resources to commit to each, so you should not have more than one child. Nevermind that a child’s long term happiness isn’t determined by how many times they go to sports/math/drama camp or trips to exotic locales. I’d rather they have a sibling. I wouldn’t trade my brother for anything I lacked growing up.
Similarly, spending constant time with your child doesn’t necessarily make them a better person. I have seen kids smothered (turns out terribly) and I have also seen kids that need extra attention (that’s when you need to consider a STAH situation). So, it depends on the kid and the parent.
Also, what is “full potential?” Money? Sports? Music? Contribution to society? Only the child can really determine that because “full potential” is a subjective state.
I think if you can afford to do so, yes, at least for a few years, those are the most precious moments of a child’s life. you dont’ want to miss it and your child shouldn’t feel deprived.
Having said that, everyone’s situation is different, if you are unable to do so because of finaical reason but otherwise you have the grandparents help, it is still better than kicking the kids to boarding schools and day care…
I didn’t know, under beauty thread such a good disscussion going on.
I’m a working mother . I dont know about others but I cant stay home and do household chores and raise kids. But that doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention to my child. I and my husband make sure that atleast one of us spends time with our kid once she is out of school and involve her in all the activities that she needs at this point.
I believe it totally depends on how your family is structured. If both are working and need extra help to raise their kids, that works well too.
Exactly! As long as it works for a family, it should not be judged!
When kids are in school - absolutely, but what about before kids goes to pre-school?
Wait, wait, wait…Are you kidding me. You can’t be serious. I can’t believe what I’m reading here. There are three women in one thread. That’s 300% more woman than our previous record.
In an ideal world a woman (or a man for that matter) should be able to SAH with the kid for 3-4 years and then get a resonable chance to reenter the industry.
Unfortunately in most industries (of corporate world), it’s not an option. Once you leave, you are done.
Ok.
When you said “you are done” do you mean if you stop working for a few years you will not have the same position at the same company or you will never be able to work in the industry again or at all?
I am assuming the former… and this is where the sacrifice for your kids come in…
It is often hard to work at the same position after you have kids, or sometimes the industry, but you can still transfer your skills to other industries and perhaps take a step back and try some other “lower paying” jobs.
At a previous position, I worked with a lady that came back to the industry after 7 years of being a SAHM. She had previously been a muni trader and built a reputation for herself. She also kept in contact with her colleagues during her time at home (lunches and cocktail parties). She ended up using her network to get back into the business as an FI PM. So it’s not impossible to do. You just have to be smart about it.
Depends on where you live, I suppose.
According to the 2011 census, the lowest top 5% income is only $186,000. May be princely in Texas or rural Florida, not so much in California or New York city. Not bad, but not top of the world either. FWIW, the lowest you can earn and still be in top 20% is $101,000, which is a pittance in California.
I like my women to be a little bit thuggish and rough around the edges, I find this OCDesque attention to the details of personal grooming a bit frightening.
No, I meant the latter - you will not be able to enter the industry. Of course there are exeptions, if you want to take that risk. At my firm, senior women with children had some sort of arrangement (4 days work week etc) when had little kids, but never left for even one year.
As for going to a different industry, I am not sure it would be so easy to do either, unless you go back to school.
Personally, I think the several years break and uncertainty about future job prospects would make me neurotic.
You are right. I was thinking about top 1%
I am in the top 1% and I dont feel like I “have it made” either. Been through enough down cycles to know that just because youre killing it today doesnt mean you wont be begging for a job tomorrow. I never sit back and say I have money, now I can blow it all and it will just keep coming.
You are an educated woman with experience, it is silly to think you won’t be able to find a job AT ALL if you take a break for let’s say 5 years.
Honestly though, women in worse situations could find jobs, single moms who never worked after graduating from HIGHSCHOOL…
I think you ought to have more confidnece in yourself than that!
Oh I will be able to find a job. But the job I actually want? Not so sure.
Well that’s what i meant, if you WANT only the position you left from or better, then yes, it would be hard. But to take a step back and work your way back up again? i don’t think it’s hard given you have the experience already.
I mean, that goes for everyone, even if you don’t have a baby and you get laid off from a position and if you go out in the job market looking for ONLY the same position or better - it’s probably just as difficult.
Ok, I meant people with family money/trust funds etc. So I guess top 0.01%?
And I agree on not blowing away money (aka saving like there is no tomorrow).
Which reminds me of the thread there was on AF awhile back about saving tips/things you don’t spend money on even if you can afford. Does anyone remember?