Mmmm. Candy.
Natalie writes:
"I have an offer for a job that I've been working at as a part-time consultant. We need the money, but I don't really want to put my kids (ages 6 and 2 into full-time daycare/afterschool care). I know moms everywhere do it, but I'm so torn. I like working part-time, but I'm afraid of giving up this job offer. I can probably find other part-time work, but it won't pay as well. Any thoughts on this contemporary mom kids v. work crisis?"
This is a tough one. It seems like there are two things you have to consider: your kids, and your career adn finances. Let's start with your career and finances.
If this is a job that you enjoy and that furthers your career, then you really need to consider it. If it's just about the money, you might want to start thinking creatively about a different way to make that money or make up for not making that money. Money is obviously important (especially when it's time to buy food or pay the rent or buy winter boots for your kids), but you can't discount the effect working full-time is going to have on you and your family. Enjoying your job can compensate for some of that added stress and time crunch. But if the only thing you're getting out of your job is money, it's going to be tougher on you emotionally, and that's going to trickle down to the whole family.
I think the exception to that would be if you were so strapped for cash that you had to take the job to survive, or if it was something you didn't enjoy but was setting you up for the rest of your career. In that case I think you just have to bite the bullet and take the job for as long as you need to to get into a better position.
Your kids alter the whole equation. How will they do with you gone? I think that really depends on their personalities, and, to a certain extent, their ages. Obviously it will be easier for the child who's in school most of the day anyway to adjust to your being gone than it will be for the little one who's used to your being there. But you also need to think about their personalities and how much physical time they need to spend with you.
I know that in those surveys done seemingly every week about "working" vs. "not working" moms, the working-full-time mothers, working-part-time mothers, and at-home mothers say that they think working part-time would be the best situation. Having been all three within the last two years, I'd have to agree. I like my job and my coworkers, but working full-time has added a ton of stress to my life, and I know it's not that great emotionally for my younger son (because of his personality). If we didn't have the babysitter we have (who's kind of like an older goofy cousin to him) I think it could be really difficult.
But you do what you have to do. If you need the money or really enjoy the job, you'll take the job. Your kids will be fine in the long run. So will you.
Any other ideas about how to weigh the decision?
I agree with Moxie that working part-time is the best situation. I also try not to make decisions based on fear. I firmly believe that if you make the choice that is in your heart, then the rest of the opportunities, money, etc. will follow. It may seem like a once-in-a-lifetime opening, but the odds are, you *can* find another one later on, so I wouldn't use that as a reason to take the job. Money, maybe (if I were *really* strapped). But I mean, if the timing isn't right for you, then the job isn't that perfect anyway. Tough choice! I know you will do what is best for you and your family.
Posted by: Rachel | October 31, 2007 at 08:22 AM
Wow it is a tough choice. I went from a part time job to a full time job this summer. I was going from a not-great PT job to a fantastic FT job, so that was a part of it, but I am really quite glad overall.
The difference for me on the positive side: my husband has REALLY stepped up. We swung our hours so that our son is in daycare about 7 hrs a day - definitely a long time, but not the full job + commute. The difference in truly becoming more equal parents has been brilliant. I am about an order of magnitude happier and it sounds clicheed but I am a better parent for it. We are able to save again and I feel that we are positioning our family's long-term financial health and my long-term career way better.
The downside though really is that I feel we are not doing the "ideal job" for our 2 year old. I think in another year when he is 3 it will be different, but right now it does tire him out to be even at his very calm and quiet Montessori (he's pretty extroverted, so loves the kids, but he is very, very sensitive to noise).
I think the 8:30 - 11:30 period is great and just what he needed; then he has lunch and nap which are kind of a wash. But the 2:30 - 4:30 time is pretty much the time I wish we had together. Whenever any small thing happens I feel the guilt.
Posted by: Shandra | October 31, 2007 at 08:32 AM
I've tried it all over the course of over 18 years(pt, ft, work at home, not working for pay, etc.) and I KNOW the answer to what is the best way.
It depends.....
Posted by: enu | October 31, 2007 at 08:38 AM
I have been gradually inching toward FT work - it was 3 days/week, now it's 4, with the occasional 5-day week. And for me the 4 days is working out really well... I had a ton of guilt about crossing this totally arbitrary threshold we'd created, that w/ the girl in daycare 3 days a week, we were still spending more time w/ her than the DCP was.
But the reality for me is that 4 days of work & childcare means that I can really focus on her when I'm not working -- something I hadn't been able to do previously. And she just adores her daycare.
So I don't know if there are any nuggets of advice buried in there. I guess for me the key is doing what's best for the whole family - and for our family that means me working a significant portion of the week, both for financial reasons and - importantly - for personal satisfaction/fulfillment.
Posted by: michaela | October 31, 2007 at 08:45 AM
The one financial element Moxie didn't mention is the additional cost of childcare. You might think of that as an automatic deduction from the total amount of your "raise" for taking the FT gig, because you're never going to see a cent of that money -- it's going straight to thedaycare/babysitter/nanny/what have you. What's LEFT of the wage increase AFTER paying additional childcare will be more like the net you can factor into the difference it will make in your lifestyle.
FWIW, part-time seems to be the most satisfying and least guilt-inducing of the options. I would stick with that.
Posted by: MrsHaley | October 31, 2007 at 09:06 AM
We were hesitant to put my 3 yr old stepdaughter into daycare full time, but agreed to try it for three months. We figured that was enough time to form a solid routine and see the effect it would have on our family. It ended up only taking us about two weeks to settle into a schedule. We make sure she has some down time with one of us before dinner, and we have family story time before bed.
The thought of changing the schedule was worse than actually doing it, and the change has been positive for us. We each have a chance to focus on ourselves as individuals and as a family, which has made all of us happy.
My mom was a stay at home mom of five, and that made her happy. I'm happy working full time, part time might be what's best for you. You'll never know until you try.
Posted by: Meg | October 31, 2007 at 09:12 AM
Bet this topic will get a lot of posts.
(MrsHaley is right, but another part of that particular equation is factoring in your expected wage increases over time, at full-time vs. part-time. I sometimes think the "you're only working to pay childcare" argument is missing something. You are also working toward a higher total of wages over the lifetime of your career, so if childcare eats a lot of your paycheck now, it will eat substantially less as time goes on, depending on your income increases, etc. Your job is a long-term investment in your financial stability, so your lifelong earning power needs to be considered.)
You don't mention the ability you may have of returning to your part-time consulting gig... It sounds like you may not have that ability? This would be a big factor with me. Since my kids have been born, I
have worked a seemingly endless combination of hours and types of schedules. 3 very long days. 5 days with some spent telecommuting. Less hours. More hours. We've hit what I feel works best for us (4 day workweek) now, but the point I'm getting at is it took A LOT of trying different things to find the right fit. And I think what is most important is that you genuinely derive satisfaction from your job, above and beyond the paycheck. So I wouldn't recommend another part-time position that pays better if you wouldn't enjoy it as much as your current part-time deal. What I'm getting at: I would take the full-time offer if I felt I could go back to the part-time position I currently have and enjoy (I believe you enjoy it?) Who knows--full-time may be great for you and your family. I would try it to find out, if at all possible. Of course, this depends on your ability to switch up your situation if you find it's not for you.
It's hard work, I think, to find what's best for your situation. You really have to know yourself, know your kid or kids, know how you and your partner work together... Good luck putting it all together!
Posted by: rudyinparis | October 31, 2007 at 09:22 AM
The job obviously sounds good and it sounds like you want to take it but feel guilty about what it will mean for the kids. Are the kids in child care now for your PT work? Do they like it? Will they be at the same place? If the kids are in care now and like where they are, then it sounds like the transition won't be too bad. I've just decided to go from 20 hours to 30 hours a week and a lot of that hinged on finally getting my child in a provider situation that I really like and my son seems to like. If I wasn't confident in his care, I don't think I could have made that move. Good luck to you. It is a lot of stuff to weigh.
Posted by: Debbie | October 31, 2007 at 09:29 AM
Oh and I meant to add that Mrs. Haley made a good point about added childcare costs but for us, we pay the same amount whether my son was there for 20 hours or 50 hours. Obviously if you have a nanny or sitter than that would be a factor.
Posted by: Debbie | October 31, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Yet another factor to consider ... the stress on the family "unit" for getting non-child related stuff done. I mean things like drycleaning, waiting for repairmen, tracking family finances, etc etc. When I was working more it was a constant stress who would stay home to wait for the cable guy, who would stay up late working on the monthly money spreadsheet, and on and on. Now that I work PT and from home (average about 2 days per week, sometimes 3) on a freelance-type job, I can do that stuff and we don't have to worry about someone pissing off their boss with a 2 hour lunch to let in the washing machine repairman.
Of course, we are lucky because we can afford to take the financial hit of my working less. But it is something to think about.
Posted by: Carla Hinkle | October 31, 2007 at 09:46 AM
I read your note to mean you would lose the part time gig, as the job was changing to full time? And that a new part time job might not pay as well. Rock and a hard place.
I wish I could go part time. Just 3 days a week would give me adult conversation, etc and the rest of the time I could spend with my little bug.
Our solution: We had an at home nanny 2 days, and a daycare 3 days a week up till very recently. The 2 days at home with the nanny meant he got 1:1 time with her, (my housework was done so I could spend more time with him on the weekend), and the 3 days at daycare meant socialization with other kids and a much busier/noisier day. Best of both worlds.
Now, the nanny has moved on and we are at daycare 5 days (third week of this) and he is struggling to adjust. He loves the kids, but I believe he needs the at home quiet days as well. ;-(
If finances are an issue to get a nanny, some kind of nanny sharing might offer a solution and help with financial impact of a nanny as they are more expensive than daycare.
Posted by: d | October 31, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Reading the responses I forgot to mention that we did keep our nanny one day a week so my son gets a day of "downtime" and we also hired someone to clean our house every other week.
I also just wanted to say that working PT did not work as well for me. Partly that was the job, but partly it was that I couldn't let go of anything - lunches, naps, etc., on the home front - being "available" on the work front. Now I have clearer lines between work and home.
I just think that goes to show that it really depends on which set up you have, your personality, etc.
Posted by: Shandra | October 31, 2007 at 09:57 AM
No time to read the comments. Before you jump or decline, do some research on Alpha Moms. The 'hot new trend in motherhood' (rolleyes!) is this - that mothers refuse both the part-time-less-pay and full-time-no-flexibility options, and just negotiate for what will work for them and their families.
This is what I have - a full time job at which I work part-time, on a nearly totally random cycle. My hours can be 16 one week, and 37 the next, and I can't recall the last time I put in a 'full 40'. I get paid hourly, so if I don't work, I don't get paid - I'm a consultant, that goes with the territory. BUT, there are non-consultants who are working out the same kinds of options, or flex time that is REALLY flex, or half-home/half-at-work, or 3/4 time, etc., etc. Alpha Moms make the job adjust to their lives, rather than trying to shoehorn their lives into a 'traditional working schedule'.
They like you or they wouldn't make the offer. So figure out what you could live with, really live with, and make a counter-offer (or at least offer to discuss). You can let them know that this is the rising trend, and that the numbers are increasing rapidly. That not everyone else is going to want to do it, but that companies that do it are able to attract the best workers, because top career women with high skill levels and dedication LIKE this approach (etc., whatever aspect you think will ease their discomfort with changing the old ways). Google it, there've been a bunch of articles on it recently.
So, I have four kids. Basically 10, 6, and twin 3's. Two schools, different schedules, Band practice, sick days, doctor appointments, school events, and on and on. I get my work done, I meet my deadlines, and my boss is totally fine with the variability in return for quality. Make the offer of quality in return for flexibility or a unique schedule that works for you, and see what you can get. Good luck! For the either-or if that's not possible, I suspect the others likely have covered it well, Moxie and all the wise women in this community together.
Posted by: hedra | October 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM
I agree with the idea that it's worth doing the math on childcare costs.
Also, will you have to change modes of childcare - so that your 2 year old is going from someplace small to someplace big? If so, then you (well mostly your 2 year old) will have a certain amount of immune system adjusting to do.
After La was born, I worked part time from home until she was 10 months old (nearly perfect - I could get the work done during naps or in the evening) then was laid off, then went back to the work force full time when La was 20 months old.
It was a big adjustment for our family - in the logistics of who is going to take care of what (getting home and making dinner in time for meetings, practices and concerts, sick kids, being home for deliveries, grocery lists and menus, checking homework, etc.)
Posted by: Cathy | October 31, 2007 at 10:07 AM
For me financial security is a kind of emotional security. Call me shallow...I didn't have the same options you do, but I know I would usually come down on the side of security, both short term (paying rent/mortgage/food/emergencies) and long term (college savings, retirement savings, health care), just because I am very money-insecure. I'm not one of the people who can look at a $300 bank balance and figure it'll all work out by the end of the month. I did sacrifice and work for the stability I have now, and I can't give it up. The panic I endure when we have been broke is just dreadful. On the other hand, it absolutely broke my heart to return to full time work.
Also, the constant cultural messages about mothers who work for a living (which I receive as wholly negative messages) do take their toll on me.
If you make the decision for work and are similarly sensitive, stay the hell away from parenting mags, mother-marketed ads, and the internet (cept moxie).
Posted by: shirky | October 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM
This is great timing for me - I'm 6 mos pregnant with my first (and addicted to Moxie to learn about parenting options) and we are trying to figure out the best way to handle the money/insurance after the baby is born and my mat. leave is up. I could arrange to work a very minimal amount of hours to make the $ difference that we need to have spending money/student loan pay down, but it's the INSURANCE that is killing us - if I leave my full-time job and go on my DH's insurance, then I lose my insurance and we effectively lose nearly half of his take home pay in paying for mine. We both really want me to be able to stay home or WFH or work for my dad where I could take the baby with me, etc.
Most comments here are dealing with toddler moms - anyone deal with the infant thing?
Posted by: Christiana | October 31, 2007 at 11:07 AM
For us it was no choice. My husband does not have a college degree, was a dad at 20 (I have two stepsons, one of whom is in college, and my husband and I have a 15 month old together), and had been doing construction for years. We both wanted him out of that, before he incurred some horrendous injury, and my job had the 401K, the health insurance, and paid better. So I went back to work full time when the Bean was 5 months old and dad became full time Mr. Mom. It was either that, or back to construction and handing his paycheck over directly to day care. Why bother?
On the plus side - he loves it! He can be there when his middle-school aged son comes home from school (he lives with us every other week but his mom is literally 1/2 a mile away), he gets to play with the baby all day, he keeps the house clean, shops for food, and is becoming an amazing chef.
On the downside, we are living paycheck to paycheck and sometimes I have to be a royal bitch about money - as in cutting down on extraneous groceries (beer, snacks, etc). We only eat out when my parents visit. We have no savings and can't afford a vacation.
The worst of all though is that I miss my baby. If I'm not at home then I better be working because its the only thing that keeps my mind off of her. If I could switch places with my husband I'd do it in a heartbeat. I love my job, I enjoy my coworkers, but really I just want to be with my kid.
The work I do requires specialized software that I can't do from home, and my current job requires me to be on site with regularity (so no 15 hours one week and 35 the next). The only flex I've been able to find is working four 10 hour days so I can have three days a week at home.
I'd say Moxie's advice is once again spot on. You have to consider how your kids will handle it (they may surprise you) and how you yourself will handle it. But don't forget to cut yourself some slack - if the job is one you really enjoy you need to consider your own emotional well being.
Posted by: Melissa | October 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Don't forget to add in all the incidental expenses of working full time: more dry cleaning, more eating out, more gas/tolls.
I agree with the other commenters that there are LOTS of options out there. This may be the best time in history for the number of options moms have.
I work part time at home, but make good money. Hubby also works at home which is great. He works WAY more than full time, but he is here so if I have to run errands while the bug naps that works.
Also, what fits into your personality? I Hated working 9-5 and Hated the structure of corporate management. Now, it doesnt matter what time of day I work as long as it gets done.
There is no magic answer. What works for my family might not work for yours and vice versa.
Posted by: Tracey | October 31, 2007 at 11:15 AM
I wanted to comment on the insurance issue. I am a SAHM looking after our 11 month old daughter. We've made major adjustments to do this (living in a TINY rented 1 bedroom apartment - daughter sleeps in the crib in the corner of our bedroom in a 'tent' - best we could do).
My husband had to switch jobs recently and the insurance was so very bad through his company (we'd have to pay $600 a month!!), that it ended up being cheaper to pay for it privately - about $475 including dental and vision!)
So you may want to look into that option for either you or the entire family. It's a killer and can make or break the financial situation.
Posted by: Alice | October 31, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Moxie, you are a brave, brave woman to introduce this topic ON PURPOSE! Kudos to us all for keeping it kind and respectful (to borrow part of a phrase from hedra).
I work 80% time and it's no secret that I wish I didn't have to. My employer is fabulously flexible both with time and location and it's not a bad job, but it still hurts to leave my kids all day. It's purely a monetary (and health insurance) decision for us.
For Christiana: When my Munchkin was born, my husband was doing wonky shift-work and my mom was somewhat available and between those and my flexible work schedule, we managed without any paid non-family childcare arrangement. If that had been sustainable, I would have stuck with that forever, but it wasn't, so we wound up having to make the transition when my (oh-so-Mommy-needy) Munchkin was about 10 months old. If I had it to do again (OK, when, with my second), I'd start the childcare sooner so that by the time the developmental separation anxiety showed up, the sitter/nanny/daycare was familiar. I know it seems unthinkable to leave your infant with strangers, but honestly at this age they're less emotionally invested in WHO is providing care. Find somebody you trust and it'll work out.
Child care costs are definitely a consideration. My two kids are in daycare only three days a week and it costs almost as much as my mortgage. Our experience has been that you can go cheaper (with a SAHM looking to make a little extra), but that those situations tend to be shorter-term -- when the SAHM has another baby, she doesn't want to watch yours; when her baby gets a little bigger, she wants to go back to school, etc. Also consider the impact of having to do laundry, shop for groceries, pay bills, wash dishes, etc, etc, etc during your 'off' time. Many's an evening when after a ten-hour work day, plus wrangling kids, I really really really really really just want to collapse in front of a good episode of Grey's Anatomy and the kitchen sink is full of dishes and the electric bill is past due and by the time I'm done dealing with life I just need to get to bed.
Honestly, I have dealt with all of that by lowering my standards. Sometimes the kids have breakfast on Tupperware lids because the dishes are dirty. Sometimes we fish dirty jeans out of the laundry and wear pretend we don't notice the grass stain on the knee. Sometimes we have cheese and crackers for dinner. You get the idea. Some people are wired to be able to do this, but some aren't. If you're the kind of person that's going to go crazy if your bed's not made every morning or if the laundry starts to pile up, it's going to be more stressful.
Ack, this has turned hideously long. My short advice is, don't do it unless you HAVE to or you really WANT to.
Here's a fun way to make a hard decision. Flip a coin -- whatever you find yourself really hoping for while it's in the air is what your gut is telling you.
Good luck to everyone (including me) that struggles with this. It is the epitome of the work-life balance problem and there's never any simple answer.
Posted by: Jan | October 31, 2007 at 12:13 PM
/on soapbox
I'll add my usual plug for hiring a financial advisor if you're trying to work out both the short and long term financial 'dance'. The difference this makes for a) our stress level, and b) the actual bottom line both short and long term, is ASTONISHING. It is a huge relief to know that our financial future, even if nowhere-near-secure-enough at right this VERY SECOND, has a plan, with an experienced and talented professional whose job it is to make sure our goals are met. Period.
It may take some looking to find the one you want, and who will take on the average family-with-kids-and-nothing-to-invest-each-month, but if you find one, OMG, the difference in everyday life! Ours didn't treat us like idiots for having made some dumb financial choices, took every advantage of every change in our status, helps us plan out even things like which funds to invest in through one or the other's 401(k) (currently only his, I don't have one), how to reduce our insurance cost without losing coverage (A LOT of savings there, and actually more coverage), adjusting our taxes to reflect our situation better, reducing debt, increasing net worth, etc., etc.
We pay $400/yr for this, and it gains us more than that each year in actual dollars available - SHORT term dollars, even. And the value in stress reduction is even more essential. We know we're not meeting our current goals, but know why, and where the money is going, and how that will affect our long-term planning, and have an idea of how much it will cost to catch up at various points, and even how we'll manage the catchup process.
So, consider that if there's a question on the finances. (This is one of those areas where you may even be able to safely borrow from relatives for the first year's cost - I know I'd fall all the heck over myself to help out if I knew the money was going to help my kids become financially stable and sane!)
I used to think that financial advisors were for people who had $1000 'sitting around doing nothing' at the end of each month (as one advisor we called said she was looking for in clients... um, yeah, do any of your clients have young kids? NO? funny that!). But IMHO, the people who can benefit most from financial advice are those who are struggling to balance their finances and don't quite have a handle on it (or have no handle at all on it). A first visit should be free, so you can start there, and see what you can do, even just ask them for what your next step should be, to get to where you want to go.
/off soapbox
Posted by: hedra | October 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I work full time, but have an extremely flexible schedule. So when shit comes up I can re-arrange things to deal with it. If it's a job where that is possible and it's something you enjoy doing and it will further your career and finances, I say go for it. But it also depends on your kid. Ours LOVES his time spent outside the house. We are looking for a full day preschool because he is very enriched by the variety of his days. Not all kids are like this, so that's an important factor. I don't always enjoy my job, and it's not very well-paying (education)......but I do value the time I have NOT dealing with the massive emotions of a 2 year old. He gets more of me even though the amount of time is less.
The advice I can give to you is what I always give friends who have a tough decision to make......Try your decisions on like a hat and wear them for a while - an hour, a day, whatever. Say to yourself "Okay..... I am NOT going to take this job" and live with that decision for a while and see how you feel. Are you relieved? Disappointed? Worried about $$? Write down how you feel and then try on the opposite decision and see how THAT feels. I realize much of the discomfort of taking the job lies in having to find childcare and wondering how your child will do......but in your heart you already know how your child will do, and finding the best place for your kids to spend their days is a detail that can be figured out.
So try on your decisions and see how they feel and then make one for real.
Posted by: julie | October 31, 2007 at 01:09 PM
I work part time from home as a consultant, and am paid well. Are you totally sure that "no other" opportunity will come up? Also, I agree with the idea of taking in all the costs: transportation, convienience food, daycare, etc. that come with full time. You will be much more tired, and you most likely not make dinner yourself as much as if you worked part time. That adds up too.
I'm not sure from how you said it, but do you "need" the money, or do you "want" the money? I think most kids would choose to have you home than to have certain classes or camps or lessons. I think kids would choose to have you home and live in a smaller home. It'd be hardest on your little one...these years are so short.
You can tell I'm biased toward staying home/with the kids as much as possible. I found when I worked full time, everything became very difficult and unbearable. When I switched to part-time consulting, things were much better. (I currently have 2 kids, 4.5 and 2, and a third on the way).
Posted by: colicmommy | October 31, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Christiana, I went back to full-time work when Mouse was 6 mos. (At the time I was working at a large company with fantastic benefits, so most of that leave had been paid, I had a team waiting for me to come back, an office to pump in, etc., and the money was very good. Wasn't nuts about the job in general though.) After looking at the options, we found we could afford a low-end nanny or high-end daycare, and we chose the latter. It was wonderful for Mouse and for our family. Depends on where you are, but we found a licensed home daycare that specialized in infants, had a 1:2 ratio, handled breast milk and made their own babyfood. SO lucky, I realize. BUT, I think the thing is, when you're thinking about putting a kid in care, think about how it can be an advantage to them--it can't replace you, that's impossible, but a lot of care situations can offer something you can't--greater variety of people and activities, more knowledge of development, caregivers whose only job is caregiving, etc. Choose a situation that maximizes those things, rather than one that most closely replicates having a parent at home. (YMMRV of course, but that's my opinion.)
Anyway, full time care worked out so well that Mouse (cheery, social personality if somewhat intense) has continued to stay in it even when I got laid off and eventually went back to work 3/4 time. I love the 3/4 time job and didn't like the fulltime one, so it's hard to compare. But she's gained so much from daycare and now preschool that I would make a priority of working in order to pay for it even if it was a financial wash. It also makes a difference what else is on the family's plate--in the beginning I was fulltime with a short commute and Mr. C was 55ish hours with more than an hour each way. That was a mess. Everyone was exhausted, no errands ever got done, etc. and I had to do 100% of drop-offs and pick-ups. We've both transitioned--I'm 3/4 with Friday (at least theoretically) being for my poetry work and he's now more like 45 hours but with a short commute. Way, way more reasonable. If your partner is locked into long days and long commutes, it's going to be correspondingly harder for you to go fulltime.
Moneywise, additional expenses for care, obviously--maybe for clothes & gas, but it depends on the job--I wear jeans most days and commute on a trainpass I'd have to have anyway. Highly recommend housecleaning help as a sanity saver/fight obviator, if it can possibly be fit into the budget. If you find a great care situation, you may save some on enrichment- or socialization-type activities you'd otherwise take the kids to.
If you want the job and your family isn't already utterly maxed on work/commute hours, I'd encourage you to go for it, and look at your care search as a way to find great new opportunities for the kids.
Good luck!
Posted by: Charisse | October 31, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Not going to read thru the comments (and I'm guessing some would probably make me mad anyway). It is so hard to find meaningful PT work that is actually making good money. PT is an ideal for so many of us and it is so hard to make it happen, even in companies that say they are flexible. I have worked FT since my 3 yr old was born, and am reducing to 80% next week. Doesn't sound like much of a reduction but 8 of those hours are telecommuting so I am only in the office 3 days a week. My boss agreed to it but I am the ONLY ONE around here in this HUGE company who is doing this so I am a little wary of how it will work out. I suspect there will be lots of scrutiny although I have 10 yrs here.
My suggestion - do NOT go back to FT unless it is a fabulous offer and you are genuinely excited about it. If you are happy doing PT don't worry about later - do it NOW and enjoy it while your kids are young. Worry about later, later.
Posted by: Lisa S. | October 31, 2007 at 01:50 PM
It was never mentioned whether Natalie could decline the offer and continue working as a part-time consultant. Is that a possibility, just to keep things the same?
Posted by: theWallflower | October 31, 2007 at 01:55 PM
A few people have commented that they have these great, flexible part-time work arrangements in fields they really enjoy.
Can I make a suggestion for a post one day? Can we talk about what kinds of jobs these people have? How they got into their chosen fields, how they negotiated this great part-time gig?
I appreciate hedra's point about being an Alpha Mom and just negotiating your way into a flexible work arrangement. But what if you're not an Alpha Mom by nature - what if you're a good worker but don't necessarily have an impressive, mile-long resume to make employers salivate over you regardless of your scheduling demands? What if your skills are solid, but nothing that an employer can't find elsewhere, in someone who is willing to give 60 hours a week? How do you even get your foot in the door of a satisfying part-time job? How do you even know where to start?
Posted by: stacy | October 31, 2007 at 02:13 PM
It would have really helped me to hear this a few months ago so I'm just going to say it: There Is No Shame In Working For a Living.
Posted by: shirky | October 31, 2007 at 02:16 PM
also, stacy,
you are speaking my mind
hi-five to you, friend.
and call me when you find out what these Magical Jobs are!
Posted by: shirky | October 31, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Christiana......I worked from home one day a week until A was about 18 months old (anyone want to guess what happened?) and it worked well until then. After that, with a dropped morning nap and increasing demands for Mommy, working from home was no longer an option - unless I wanted to do all of my work at night after he went to bed......and I was WAAAAY too tired to do that. So it will work for the first little while, but if you can afford to get some help, it will make it a LOT easier (goodness knows caring for a newborn doesn't really allow you much time to check your email - forget about responding!) and if you get the help from the beginning it will be "normal" so when your darling little one hits 18 months and decides that everything must change, you have an extra set of hands around the house to take care of things so you can get some work done in fits and starts.
Posted by: julie | October 31, 2007 at 02:21 PM
just a data point/rant on the insurance thing, to second Alice:
I've been a freelancer/consultant (business writer/editor) for a dozen years, and when T. turned one, I ramped the work back up to part-time (15-20 hours a week). It's the ideal situation for us, except for one thing: insurance. COBRA from my old job runs out in February, which would raise our monthly medical premiums from $1100 (ouch) to $2650 (completely insane). (I take expensive medication, so am uninsurable on an individual plan - that's the one group plan we qualify for.)
So DH had to stop consulting and get a FT job. The money's about the same - just enough to let me keep working PT and pay all our bills - but we lose the flexibility of having both parents working at home much of the time, which has been so great - he could cover for me when I had a deadline, he got to eat lunch with the family, etc. But excellent medical insurance is a must for me, and very nice for the rest of the family... so now we see him much less. Sigh.
I realize I'm complaining about a situation most working parents would give their eyeteeth for. But I hate how this country's ridiculous medical system forces people to make life decisions they might not otherwise.
My point, if I have one: as much as it sucks, you have to take medical/insurance stuff into account. And if you live in California or other expensive states, it's crucial.
Posted by: Anon | October 31, 2007 at 02:22 PM
ok, read through the comments, re-read the question. first, bravo to everyone who (as usual) are able to state their views without being inflammatory, and being so open minded that different options can work for different families.
i was wondering if you think you are done having kids? this would probably enter into my thought process for this decision. to me, it wouldn't be worth it to get back into the full-time track if i were seriously considering another baby in the near future (to much re-adjustment all over again). if i was done (or going to wait a few more years), then, yes, maybe going back to full time would be worth seriously looking into.
i also agree with jan's comment about it probably being easier for some babies to go to a full time caregiver as infants vs. older kids who have a close bond with a parent being separated during a clingy phase. of course, every kid has a different personality, and also goes through phases of development where they may grow out of being so clingy and really blossom in a group environment.
i suppose what caught me the most is why you are so torn- will you miss the flexibility of part time? do you think this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? are you in a position financially where this could really get you ahead of always feeling behind? is your younger child really close to you and you are worried about putting him in the care of someone else for so many hours? i think you've received some great advice and experiences here, best of luck to you in finding a solution that you are at peace with.
Posted by: pnuts mama | October 31, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Seconding Stacy's suggestion here to discuss those fab PT jobs! With the holidays upon us, I'm thinking about consulting in my old line of work, which I was never all that crazy about, but paid really well.
Posted by: Jen in Redwood City, CA | October 31, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Full-time scares me. I do a very miniscule amount of part-time and am very happy with that arrangement. But that's hardly a prescription for anyone else. It's your call. When making these big decisions it sometimes helps to remember that you can always change it if it's not working.
Posted by: Eva | October 31, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Julie, you were able to work at home without childcare with an infant?!? You are a far stronger woman than I.
OK, I do know a few people who did this, but they had the kind of kids who slept like 6 hours a day and could play on their own for more than 3 minutes at a time without attempting to throw themselves off the furniture and onto a pointy object.
I began rejoicing when T. hit 18 months and could bang on the fax machine for 7 or 8 minutes while I checked my phone messages. :->
Posted by: Anon | October 31, 2007 at 02:31 PM
part time work can be tricky. since i was laid off from my full-time job in advertising a few years ago and went back to grad school, i was lucky to be offered a flexible part time freelance job with a local non-profit. unfortunately, the director changed about a year ago and the work has been slowly cut back to nothing. ouch. it really sucks, and we are definitely starting to feel the pinch.
basically, if you can freelance what you do, that could be a part time job (design, writing, accounting, ??) that you mostly do at home, with some hours on site. if you can do it as a paid employee and get their accts to take out your taxes, vs. being a subcontractor where you have to do your own accounting, that could be better, social security wise, etc. i have friends who are part-time nurses, substitute teachers, college 'professors' (not tenured, just teach a class or two at a local community college with their bachelors or masters, depending), care-givers, therapists, etc. i also know some moms who do 'at home' (cottage?) industry selling things they sew, craft, create, etc. this isn't for everyone, but it's options.
like any other job search, you'll probably be more successful with personal contacts/referrals vs. anonymous help-wanted searches/replies. i think the longest most impressive resume in the world gets beat hands down every time by a phone call from someone saying "hey i know this girl and she does really great ___"- personal recommendations are always going to get you further- so maybe start telling people that you are looking to do ___, and see where it leads you? good luck!
Posted by: pnuts mama | October 31, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Comment from full-time WOHM who put her 3-month old baby in daycare to go back to work:
It's hard. But if the equation works out such that it is best for you to take the full-time position-- it will be okay, daycare will work out, and you can go to bed on *most* days feeling like you have been a good mom and a good employee.
As people have mentioned, more than childcare should go into the financial equation. I would add regular housecleaning at least. I still manage to cook every night (thank you, 6 o'cl*ck scramble), but some families might want to add in the extra cost of one of those cook and freeze a month of meals services or something. I'm sure there are other things...
But as someone else mentioned, it is not always about the money. There are other important considerations. For example, I found out I was pregnant at the beginning of a very prestigious fellowship that I had dragged my husband halfway across the country for (bad timing, but oh well, we'd been trying for awhile). No, we can't afford full-time daycare, but we squeak by b/c the long-term consequences to my career of bowing out would have been bad, very bad. A couple other considerations:
It will take some time and homework upfront to find the right childcare situation for your child. There is no one answer here- it is an intersection of your child's personality and the daycare setting. Also, this can change over time. AND, one 'pro' to in-home care is that child's illness is not as disruptive to your work schedule.
Finally, there is another HUGE consideration IMHO: the ability of your partner (or some other person in your social network) to shoulder some of the inevitable work/child crunches that will emerge from time to time. For example, will your partner be able to take turns staying home with a sick child? take turns doing drop off and pick up? agree to shoulder their share of household responsibilities?
Anyway, good luck. It's a hard decision.
Posted by: Amy | October 31, 2007 at 03:35 PM
filbert is 9 months and has been in daycare 2x week for the last month. my heart dreaded that decision until the minute i walked into her care providers home and felt at ease. so much of it has to do with the daycare setting and it is INCREDIBLY UNFAIR that there isn't wonderful care available for all women who need it. we've found a nice balance, i continue to work- actually found a new part-time job- so my other parts of my brain are used, but most of my time is at home. i get miffed when people just HAVE TO WORK so they can buy piles of plastic crap, whether new cars, new toys, new massive tv's, etc. it isn't any of my business except i feel for the children and their place on the scale of what is important. this is definitely not directed towards any moms on this site, but rather what i watch in the world around me. as long as you have insurance and can cut some extra corners without being angry or bitter (which may sneak out in negative ways around your family) make being at home and/or part-time work fit for your life. this is such an emotional topic!
Posted by: mammab | October 31, 2007 at 04:01 PM
@mammab, there are a million places on the internet where much is made of these people who "only" work for reasons that other people may find frivolous. I know said you don't mean anyone here, but really, everyone is here, and it kinda hurts to hear the same-old-same-old things, here at moxie, which is my little refuge.
You are certainly right, this is emotional, and one of my primary emotions I work with in this topic is defensiveness against the idea that I--as a paid employee and mother--am selfish or greedy. If you really knew what my life was like, details and all, I am sure you would not think so, so I have to think that would be true with other people, too.
Posted by: shirky | October 31, 2007 at 04:17 PM
This is a really interesting discussion. I came back to share some numbers on the "working part time saves you money" front.
When I was working PT, I was netting about $1400/mo and paying my nanny $140/week for 10 hrs, so $560, or 40% of my salary. There were not really great PT alternatives available for his age (as he gets older that is less true).
Full time Montessori costs $1200/mo and includes lunch; I now net about $3500/mo (however, that is minus a retirement deduction) so that represents about 34% of my salary.
Car expenses - well I do have a car payment still on my car, but I was paying that regardless. I do pay for parking, $100/mo, and there is an extra gas charge; I spend about $60/mo more (I do drive to work but am not running around during the day and group my shopping more carefully; I've been tracking gas costs so I'm pretty confident in this number).
Clothes - yes there was a start up cost for me of about $600, mostly shoes, but I would definitely not have had to buy that. Ongoing though it won't be that much. I am fortunate to still be pretty much at the wash and wear level. :) I'll put that over the first 6 months though, so $100/mo.
Housekeeping is $140/mo.
Food - well actually our costs haven't changed that much. I am not buying as much food for lunches and snacks and I take leftovers to work and use the crockpot which actually often ends up being cheaper; my husband's habits remain the same.
That's partly 'cause we made a conscious effort a long time ago to eat simply over eating pre-prepared - in other words we'll eat a lentil salad and a grilled cheese over some expensive frozen thing. We (so far!) order in about the same, twice a month. But let's say they went up $30/mo (one takeout meal) for the sake of arguing.
So in summary: Expenses PT: $560/mo - 40% net salary
Expenses FT: $1630/mo or 47% of net salary.
All that is after-tax dollars so I think it is pretty close to apples to apples.
I haven't factored in things like gifts at the office, however, I have also NOT factored in lunches out with friends while I was SAHM/playgroup snacks, or the way some days we dribbled money away at the mall. I spent more on art supplies and toys because I felt I should whereas now I'm like "eh, he has all the colours at Montessori."
I figure it is sort of a wash, since those are budget things I can (mostly) control for. I know there are some people who eat out at work every day or buy Starbucks or whatever, but I get free coffee at work.
Where I think there is a slight difference on top of the extra 7% is that I have much less time to trawl the thrift shops and so we probably will end up spending more for Noah's clothes in the long term. However at this point almost all his clothes remain hand me downs, so we're fortunate there.
If anyone's really paying attention they'll have seen that we actually kept our costs a little higher - four day Montessori is $1000/mo and then we have our nanny at, surprise, the same rate, $560. So in fact as a percentage it is higher than I've said, but that was a really luxury choice.
I wrote all this out because I got caught the OTHER way, thinking that going PT WAHM I would Really Save Money On Everything and it wasn't exactly true, so I thought I would kind of show our cost analysis.
Posted by: Shandra | October 31, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Interesting, Shandra--thanks for sharing! I hate to bring up the Linda Hirshman book since it's so very controversial...but one of the key points she makes is that the public tends to ascribe the cost of childcare only to the mother's income, when it really should be considered against both partners just as other expenses would be. Doesn't really change your main point (about it being a wash) but I do think it's important.
Posted by: Charisse | October 31, 2007 at 04:47 PM
Oh yeah I agree Charisse. I probably should have done it against household income - factor in my husband's salary to make it a percentage of household income, and the percentages only go down because he makes more.
My salary is now on a corporate grid so it will go up while our daycare costs go down (plus I'm gaining in seniority), and I'm on the CPP (social security) grid again and all those lovely things, so yah, there are definitely other financial factors.
Finances are SO not everything here but they are something measurable, at least.
Posted by: Shandra | October 31, 2007 at 04:54 PM
I would just add that hopefully you could "give it a try" as a full-time worker without having the part-time job evaporate. You say you "need the money," so that sounds to me that you've already done at least a rough calculation of cost of daycare balanced out by income. The thing is by working you ARE taking care of your kids because you are taking care of the family.
Posted by: Sarah | October 31, 2007 at 05:41 PM
I've been stalking this all day. I went back to work when my dd was 2 months old, and the only concession I've managed to get is a little bit of a flex schedule where I work 4 nine hour days and one half day. My husband owns his own business, so he doesn't get regular paychecks or have health insurance. Also, I really like my job, and it has great benefits. All of that being said, though, if my daughter didn't LOVE the lady who keeps her (and only one other little girl, both in her home) I would have had to have found a way to work from home doing something. I cried every day dropping her off for a while, but like has been mentioned above, now that she's older, she's already used to the babysitter, and there doesn't seem to be any separation anxiety (yet, she's 11 months now). Still, there's the guilt.
Shirky - Thanks. You're right. There is no shame in working for a living.
Posted by: hydrogeek | October 31, 2007 at 06:03 PM
On "what are these great PT jobs?"
I am an attorney. I logged 8+ years at a Big Corporate Law Firm, working 60-70 hour weeks but getting lots of good skills. I was able to leverage my experience and connections into PT, hourly, WAH work for some smaller law firms. It is great now but I spent years overworked and not enjoying it.
Posted by: Carla Hinkle | October 31, 2007 at 10:34 PM
THANK YOU everyone for not making this an "us vs them" discussion!
I am a working mom of a 7 month old. She went into day care when she was 5 months old. I had 3 months off (half paid w/disability, half paid part time through the California family leave act). I worked 3 days and my husband worked 2 days for month 4. My parents (retired) watched her at home for month 5. She does fine in daycare, although it took her a little while to adjust. We use a center near our work and have shifted our schedules so that she is in day care 7-8 hours/day (she wakes up really early, which has helped me switch my schedule!)
I currently work 35 hours/week over four and a bit days, have fairly flexible hours, and can work from home if I want to (although I rarely do this for more than an hour or two, because the baby knows I am there and definitely doesn't like to me ignored). I am a specialized type of IT contractor/consultant, but I think the keys to getting this arrangement were: (1) I had worked at my job long enough to prove myself valuable, (2) I went to my boss and told him what I wanted to do, (3) my company has a lot of telecommuters since we do a lot of remote work anyway.
I don't love my job, and am actually looking for a different one, but I love working. I have the utmost respect for stay at home moms, because I don't think I could do their job! I like having a job because it helps me hold onto my identity as a person distinct from my baby. Also, I find my one day a week at home with the baby at least as tiring as my work days. No one spits up on me at work, or melts down because they are sleepy. And I don't have to sing silly songs to be allowed to eat my lunch. (:
I also have a very involved husband, who contributes his share not just to the baby care (even in the middle of the night), but also to the housework/cooking/etc. This makes it possible for me to get the sleep I need to function, and to have the time to work AND still feel like a good mom (on most days).
We're lucky enough to not have had finances figure into the decision at all. Either one of us could have supported the family, given the right lifestyle choices.
So, to the original poster and the woman who asked about infant day care: you have to look at what you know about your personality and what you know your husband will contribute, and make the choice that will make you happy. I believe a happy Mom means a happy baby. I can tell you that the giant smile my baby gives me when I pick her up at daycare is wonderful. The contented way she nurses when I get her home makes it my favorite nursing of the day (this was also true when my husband or parents had her for the day). I also take her for a walk in the Baby Bjorn after work, and we both love that together time. There are times when it is hard, and I miss my baby. But I know that what I am doing is right for me, so I try not to feel guilty and am mostly successful.
Posted by: Working Mum | October 31, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Remember that intellectual stagnation or loss if identity / individuality is each person's responsibility to guard against, regardless of working conditions. Staying home does not automatically guarantee stagnation, isolation and boredom. Staying home contientiously provides intellectual stimulation, identity evolution and increased worldliness, if pursued responsibly.
Posted by: MrsHaley | November 01, 2007 at 12:28 PM
I'm a technical writer - couldn't ya tell from the endless posts? ;)
And I have done the variations - worked full time plus long commute = kids in daycare/preschool/(etc.) 10-11 hours a day. Laid off and stayed home. And current version/variable hours. Definitely prefer the variable, enjoyed the home but serious ow on the finances (debt), and survived the full-time fine for years.
Not everyone can force the Alpha Mom thing. Nor will even 'most' companies accept it. It's just worth noting that it is a rising trend, and worth considering if it can at all apply. Given that the OP was about PT consultant going to FT, anyone who works as a consultant is in a position to at least propose the idea. I've seen a lot of references to lawyers going Alpha Mom, as well. Tends to be professional fields, IT, or such, but not exclusively. Sometimes it is just the company and the opportunity and asking that make it possible. And a lot of time, it is the boss. (I was the first to do flexible hours at my old company, as well. It caused a HUGE to-do among my peers for about a year and a half, when they suddenly started realizing that it could apply to them as well, and since I'd proven the case well enough, the management loosened up, and suddenly nearly the entire company took up the flex time and telecommuting style. Sometimes it just takes a good pioneer attitude to get it started.)
IMHO, if you really want something, you can at least try to make it work. For me, the big hurdle was getting myself and everyone else over the idea that any decision I made COULD NOT CHANGE. The expectation of inertia is great - if you go full time, then that's IT you're signed on for full time! Only, it's not final. You can change if it isn't working. It might not be the change you want, but change is ALWAYS possible, and usually not quite as scary once it happens as it feels like when it's coming. Or so I've found.
We've also covered before the fact that we cannot see into someone else's life, and that includes people who buy loads of plastic crap and new cars every two years. I mentioned before I have a friend who lives that way (no kids, but that was not by choice), who on deeper exploration has financial insecurity/instability issues from childhood, and the purchasing is a reflection of what amounts to panic regarding the ABILITY to buy 'stuff'. I used to wonder about people who put 'stuff' so high on their priorities, but I now see that there can be real, profound, and painful reasons for that, and that they're trying to ensure their children don't suffer the same pain they had as children. As we all do. And I presume that there are vastly more reasons out there than that, but that I cannot even judge people 'out there' and not 'here' on that. Just skip the judging altogether, and assume that for every choice we wouldn't make, there is a story with pain and burdens we've never had to bear.
Posted by: hedra | November 01, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I have a two-year old daughter, and I work full time, but have a flexible job. I am an academic- I have to show up to teach class, but other than that, I get judged on RESULTS about once a year, which included writing papers and getting grants, much of which I do after the kid is asleep at night.
I stayed home with her for a full year. This was not the original plan, but she was a preemie and needed the extra care, so I had to quit my post-doc. At the time, my husband had the better job, so it was obvious I had to do that- plus, breast feeding every five minutes was necessary to fatten up such a tiny baby.
Luckily, I got an academic job despite this little career change (interviewed and got the job when she was 3 mos. old, but I delayed the start date for a while). I love my job, and would have been incredibly sad if I was never able to use my PhD- I worked so hard for that, and becoming a full time stay at home mom after that would have been so crushing. Not good for me OR the kid.
We had a full-time nanny for her entire second year, for which we paid an arm and a leg, but we didn't even think twice about it (preemies can't get all the colds of day care when they are that age). Plus, my house was always clean when I got home, and I didn't spend the weekend doing laundry! Totally awesome perk.
At about two years old, it became clear that she would benefit from more social interactions, and so now she spends 5 mornings a week in daycare (which she LOVES) and my husband stays home with her in the afternoons. He is an academic, too, but with an even more flexible job than me. When it becomes obvious that full time day-care would be good for her, we will switch to that. I think it could happen at any time (did I mention she loves it there?) but she does get sick ALL THE TIME now and realistically, we spend a lot of time taking care of her at home anyway. Maybe we'll go full-time in the spring.
My lesson from all of this is that you just have to do the best, most obvious thing for you and your kid at any given moment, and this will likely change over time. I've had to be flexible and open to change, and it does help when mom and dad both take turns making sacrifices if that is necessary.
We're not going to have another baby (because of the preemie issue, which would likely happen again), and I am very sad about that, but I know that the current small family we have is most compatible with two working, ambitious parents, so I have to be content with the way things are.
Posted by: BeBe | November 01, 2007 at 07:39 PM
I love my (new) job, but even if I didn't, it would be worth keeping it to keep the kid at the company run daycare. She loves it.
Posted by: Brooke | November 01, 2007 at 10:11 PM