Whenever I talk to a couple who’s chosen to live off one income, I always hear the same defense — it gives them more quality time with our newborn/toddler, and if the stay-at-home parent took a job, much of his or her income would go toward daycare and work-related experiences. It’s a good argument and, because my son is still a few years away from pre-school, I only work part-time (if at all!) so that I can care for him during the day. But sometimes I catch myself thinking, “Damn, I really wish I had a 9-5 job…think of how many video games I could buy.” Also, think of how quickly my retirement account would grow.
The New York Times recently published an article validating my hesitation about remaining a stay-at-home-dad.
My husband — who has been working part time since January — is now contemplating going back to work full time…
There are many women who are willing to run their homes [and stay with their newborns/toddlers] open-ended. I have not been able to find any research on this topic, but I suspect most men view the position as a stopover.
Even if we were millionaires, my husband would want to resume his life. We are most assuredly not, so a large part of his salary will have go toward paying for the various ways our lives will have to be rebalanced when he does start working. I’d like to say I know that this shift will be worth it in the end.
That phrase — even if we were millionaires — was what caught my attention. A lot of people derive significant satisfaction and validation from their careers. A couple’s choice to live off two salaries isn’t necessarily a choice about money; it may also be a choice about meeting personal needs.
Now, I’m no workaholic, but my (infrequent) doubts about staying at home must mean I do find a smidgin of personal satisfaction in my work life. Maybe I should take this stay-at-home opportunity to go back to school and find my calling, my vocation.