Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see how successful I am with the proverbial nut shell:
We are a 4 person family, both with grad school education, in our late 30's myself, in mid-late 40's husband. Two small children, 4 and 6. We both work full-time, husband exclusively from home, myself some office time, some work-from-home time.
We have well over 150,000 family income, live in a house dramatically less expansive than what we would qualify for, no debts.
We are also experiencing a generally high to very high pace of life.
I do not like this at all but we have to make it work.
I was told that if we wanted a slower pace of life I should MAKE THE CHOICE of NOT working in paid employment and just be a stay at home mom. "Ta-da - problem solved".
We live in a neighborhood where many moms do indeed stay at home, though they do not seem to experience a significantly slower pace of life than what we have. Where I am at work, they volunteer at school or run kids to 100 activities.
The sole income earners in our neighborhood DO NOT make what my husband and I make together, let alone more than that; they do not have jobs any more secure than what most people have today (which would be NOT SECURE); and they do not live any less frugally than we do, in fact they often seem to favor more consumption than we do.
So I asked my husband how come they are comfortable with the choice of keeping the mother at home.
My husband said that most such single-earner families simply live largely pay-check to pay-check (or with much smaller saving than we expect), and are open to relocation in case the income earner (almost always the husband) loses his job - which is always very likely in today's economic climate. In fact our neighbors across the street moved away a few weeks ago because of job-related issues (he apparently lost his job here).
Given I do not find it acceptable to live this way and I am not open to relocation every 5 years, we find ourselves faced with the "choice" of having to have two income earners so one can act as a fall-back-on cushion in case the other loses the job. The "other" is in fact my husband because my job is one of the extremely few remaining jobs that can be considered "for life". He lost his job 3 years ago, we had to relocate cross-country, I absolutely hated the whole thing, and we eventually came back; but the experience made me realize that the whole "single earner" family model, as wonderful as it is in an ideal world, it is a reckless Utopia in our world.
My question is: do you think that most American families with SAHM-s (and not some power single-income earner) simply accept the possibility of a nomadic lifestyle (if husband loses job, we move where the next job offer is?)
My question is: do you think that most American families with SAHM-s (and not some power single-income earner) simply accept the possibility of a nomadic lifestyle (if husband loses job, we move where the next job offer is?)
Thanks.
I am a SAHM in an area full of SAHMs.
No nomads here... in fact, we have lived in the same house since 1987.
The ladies I was friends with then are still here too.... although some have upgraded their housing over the years.
IF your husband lost his job AND you were not working (and could not find work); AND he, likewise, could not find work in your immediate area OR in a reasonable proximity; AND if your 'below average' lifestyle could NOT be maintained with lower paying jobs; AND IF your single wage earning husband found a job elsewhere, that required a family move --- THEN, you might be one move closer (than you are now) to living a "Nomadic lifestyle that caused you to move every 5-years").
Otherwise, your characterization ... seems a bit dramatic.... and a tad over-thought.
Likewise, your husband's position that most single-wage families are living paycheck-to-paycheck and are more 'open to relocation' ... than two-wage families where one partner loses their job --- seems more like a 'veiled message', than a realistic scenario. Yes, there are always annecdotal examples, such as your neighbor, but, the housing market over the past few years has somewhat stiffled that scenario. Also, if your husband in his mid-40's already works from home ... why would he have to move to take another job?
There are no 'guarantees' in life, particularly when you are trying to think 3-4 moves/situations in advance. But, one generally makes better choices and decisions when they relax a bit and make decisions based on common sense and a 'forseeable future'. -- Otherwise 'analysis-paralysis' takes over and nothing happens.
My guess is that most people who have 1 income earner and the sole income earner lost their job, would go on savings or debt or in between jobs until another suitable job is found.
IF your husband lost his job AND you were not working (and could not find work); AND he, likewise, could not find work in your immediate area OR in a reasonable proximity; AND if your 'below average' lifestyle could NOT be maintained with lower paying jobs; AND IF your single wage earning husband found a job elsewhere, that required a family move --- THEN, you might be one move closer (than you are now) to living a "Nomadic lifestyle that caused you to move every 5-years").
Otherwise, your characterization ... seems a bit dramatic.... and a tad over-thought.
Likewise, your husband's position that most single-wage families are living paycheck-to-paycheck and are more 'open to relocation' ... than two-wage families where one partner loses their job --- seems more like a 'veiled message', than a realistic scenario. Yes, there are always anecdotal examples, such as your neighbor, but, the housing market over the past few years has somewhat stiffled that scenario. Also, if your husband in his mid-40's already works from home ... why would he have to move to take another job?
There are no 'guarantees' in life, particularly when you are trying to think 3-4 moves/situations in advance. But, one generally makes better choices and decisions when they relax a bit and make decisions based on common sense and a 'forseeable future'. -- Otherwise 'analysis-paralysis' takes over and nothing happens.
My husband works from home now because his current company allowed him to come back home and continue to work for them from a distance. However, if he loses this job he will be unlikely to find another remote one; so if I didn't have a job at that moment, we would have to consider moving again. Jobs in his industry are not easy to find locally, and this is why we had to pack up and move two years ago in the first place.
I have seen way too many families mbeing forced to move all over the place because of job imperatives, and not once - but several times. Many I have talked to or heard of have been living in so many states over the years, that they themselves lost count. Our neighborhood is made of families who moved relatively recently from all over the country.
So I find it hard to believe that all of these families with SAHM-s are paragons of geographic stability. Few, if any, have the kind of savings that would support an entire family indefinitely until the sole earner finds a job in the area again. The contemporary American job market is not designed for local searches - it works largely based on national, and sometimes even international searches. Few people can afford to ONLY look for a job locally. When you lose a job in today's economy, you'd better become open to accepting another offer ANYWHERE in the country.
I sense that most of these families do not think they need to build up that many savings, which would be very hard for a typical one-income middle class family to do anyway. So they stay one-income and just relocate every time the need to "go wherever the job is" comes up.
I have heard this phrase repeated so many times, it is clear most people find it normal.
You lose a job in city A, you'll look for another job nationally, something's GOTTA come up eventually, then you move to City B. Case closed.
It is true there are no "guarantees" in life - but from not having "anything 100% guaranteed" to working in jobs that are pretty much "guaranteed" to NOT last until you retire...that's a long, long way.
My guess is that most people who have 1 income earner and the sole income earner lost their job, would go on savings or debt or in between jobs until another suitable job is found.
1. Go on savings: IF they HAVE the savings. Many of such one income earners make serious sacrifices to keep the mother at home; they hardly have much to save at the end of the month. So much for "living on savings" for an indefinite amount of time until the man finds another "suitable job".
2. Live on debt until another suitable job is found: yes, this is a more likely scenario for middle class, single earner families. Another form of dignity loss. I for one never saw it as a solution.
3. Relocate as soon as job offer appears anywhere in the country (likely to happen much sooner than if search is restricted locally). Hence being open to nomadic life.
My husband works from home now because his current company allowed him to come back home and continue to work for them from a distance. However, if he loses this job he will be unlikely to find another remote one; so if I didn't have a job at that moment, we would have to consider moving again. Jobs in his industry are not easy to find locally, and this is why we had to pack up and move two years ago in the first place.
I have seen way too many families mbeing forced to move all over the place because of job imperatives, and not once - but several times. Many I have talked to or heard of have been living in so many states over the years, that they themselves lost count. Our neighborhood is made of families who moved relatively recently from all over the country.
So I find it hard to believe that all of these families with SAHM-s are paragons of geographic stability. Few, if any, have the kind of savings that would support an entire family indefinitely until the sole earner finds a job in the area again. The contemporary American job market is not designed for local searches - it works largely based on national, and sometimes even international searches. Few people can afford to ONLY look for a job locally. When you lose a job in today's economy, you'd better become open to accepting another offer ANYWHERE in the country.
I sense that most of these families do not think they need to build up that many savings, which would be very hard for a typical one-income middle class family to do anyway. So they stay one-income and just relocate every time the need to "go wherever the job is" comes up.
I have heard this phrase repeated so many times, it is clear most people find it normal.
You lose a job in city A, you'll look for another job nationally, something's GOTTA come up eventually, then you move to City B. Case closed.
It is true there are no "guarantees" in life - but from not having "anything 100% guaranteed" to working in jobs that are pretty much "guaranteed" to NOT last until you retire...that's a long, long way.
What is your point? No one can guarantee you a job for life AND even if you continue working - you could still have to relocate at some point if your husband lost his job.
If you want to be a SAHM and can financially afford it (at the moment) - then do it.
I know plenty of SAHM's who have never left the town the were born in. They are married to local business owners; doctors; pharmacists; and they certainly don't plan on leaving.
To answer your question based on my observations...... I believe many couples who have made the decision to rear children in a single wage earner lifestyle decide that they will respond to unemployment in whatever way they have to that makes sense if/ when it happens. They will:
*try to find employment locally
*send the other spouse on a local job search or do temp employment to ride the tide
*be open to relocation
In short, they have made the decision to "live in the Now" with a breath and a prayer that they can ride out their children's years with enough financial stability to meet their personal levels of comfort. In general, people don't make changes unless their present situations beome too painful. So, although you may compare yourselves to others and find that other couples' lifestyles or planning are puzzling, many don't share your values....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
