How much would you or spouse need to make to SAHP?

[Deleted]

Not enough because having a stay at home wife is just not for me. My wife knew that before we tied the knot and has come to accept it.

Some say she might change her mind when we have a kid but she will end up with with a resentful husband which will eventually lead to divorce...

and guess what, she would need to go to work anyway.

So let's bypass that and she keeps working. Yes some man/woman love having a spouse at home, I may be the exception that does not care for it.

[formerexpat]

You assumed both will lose their jobs at the same time which is not an assumption I was willing to make.

No, I didn't assume that. Two people make $200k [100 each] and save $50k a year [ie 150 burn rate]. One loses their job. Burn rate remains the same - $50k over budget until the second gets a job.

Second person gets a job making $75k instead of $100k and now their savings is just $25k instead of $50k unless they make a change in their lifestyle.

Lifestyle creep kills two income households a lot of the time.

100k's are IT people with say 10 years experience - who have survived very well in this recession..

100k's are engineers in the energy industry..

I think you're looking through your own narrow view now.

Wonder how highway/road engineers or defense engineers will do in the next decade as government expenditures decrease since we can't afford it?

I'd certainly expect more downward pressure on IT salaries too...but that's just me, with my second degree in information systems.

[lurkyloo]

Don't underestimate the power of taxation! The tax rate between 175K-200K is pretty high; you might be taking home home 15-20K less but not 25K. 28% federal tax, 7.45% FICA and whatever state income tax adds up fast.

DH and I are reasonably close to your theoretical couple. I gross just under 100K; his yearly salary is 170-180K plus a large contractual bonus and some company stock. I periodically run the numbers and conclude that the only sensible thing to do is for me to SAH. I can't and won't do it. I get challenge, satisfaction, validation, variety and social interaction from my job. Singing about the itsy-bitsy spider all day isn't going to replace that adequately. I'd totally suck at being a housewife, slide into depression, and wind up in a housedress and curlers weighing 300 lb and watching Oprah and Jerry Springer.

We could easily live on DH's income alone. Living on mine alone would be a little tight, just because we splurged on our house and went all the way up to 1.9x income It's very improbable that it would come down to my income alone though, for a number of reasons. And that's decreasing gross income by 2/3; which is a whole different beast than a 12.5% drop in gross.

If I lost my job for whatever reason, I would likely have trouble finding another that paid as well and that I liked as much--my field is ahead of the curve for being outsourced. If DH lost his, he'd probably be unemployed for a maximum of 20 min. His new job might well pay less, but if we got to move out of CA I'd be okay with that. We've got pretty simple tastes, and most of our lifestyle creep is due entirely to this ridiculously HCOLA we live in.

Where was I? Oh yeah--I'm deeply ambivalent about having kids in the first place. But I don't think having one of us SAH is something we'd ever see as a goal, kids or no, so we're not really relevant to the question.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'd certainly expect more downward pressure on IT salaries too...but that's just me, with my second degree in information systems

That makes sense. I mean it's not like computers become more and more necessary to pretty much every business on the planet on a daily basis, at the same time that fewer and fewer Americans are entering the field due to some seriously weird preconceived notions about what job security is like based on misconceptions from the tech bust that's over a decade old at this point. But that's just me, with my decade of experience in the IT field.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2011 23:11:37 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

You assumed both will lose their jobs at the same time which is not an assumption I was willing to make.

No, I didn't assume that. Two people make $200k [100 each] and save $50k a year [ie 150 burn rate]. One loses their job. Burn rate remains the same - $50k over budget until the second gets a job.

Second person gets a job making $75k instead of $100k and now their savings is just $25k instead of $50k unless they make a change in their lifestyle.

Lifestyle creep kills two income households a lot of the time.

100k's are IT people with say 10 years experience - who have survived very well in this recession..

100k's are engineers in the energy industry..

I think you're looking through your own narrow view now.

Wonder how highway/road engineers or defense engineers will do in the next decade as government expenditures decrease since we can't afford it?

I'd certainly expect more downward pressure on IT salaries too...but that's just me, with my second degree in information systems.

Your 2nd reply made less sense than your first.

[swasat]

May 17, 2011 23:09:08 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

So let's bypass that and she keeps working. Yes some man/woman love having a spouse at home, I may be the exception that does not care for it.

cawiau, my DH feels the same as you. We are both IT professionals and while I am under no pressure to keep working, he feels very very proud of my achievements.

We gross 212K, DH 125K and myself 87K. With two kids 6 and 3 years old we can easily make it on DH's salary alone in this MCOL area. But I don't want to be a SAHP. I am just not cut out that way. I like having a schedule to my day and I like the thrill of earning the money.

But thats just me. I left my job and was home with DS for 8 months after he was born. Boy, was I busy at home. But I still missed my job. So I went back and we have managed very well since then.

So to answer the OP, we have met and exceeded all the money goals. Right now its not about the money. So no amount of money will make me be a SAHP

[qofcc]

After our short-term debt is paid off (in 5 years) and DH's DD turns 21 (next summer) and no more child support, we could maintain or slightly improve our current lifestyle with one of us staying at home with a take home salary after taxes, 401K contribution and health insurance of about $3-3.5K/mo. We're past the point of kids at home, but if I had the opportunity to take care of DG and keep dad from having to go to assisted living, I would do it in a minute and DH would like for me to be able to stay home. Problem is DH only brings home $2k/mo (sometimes $2.5K if there's a lot of overtime) and all of the benefits are through my job, so if he had to pick them up it would be even less. He would need close to a $70K job and I don't see that happening anytime in the near future. I bring home $3.5K, so theoretically I could support him staying at home, but if I have to work, no f-ing way in hell is he not working. Call me a hypocrite all you want, but if I get to stay home, then I'll earn my keep by saving the household money, keeping the home spotless, good dinners on the table every night and parties to entertain his friends every week or two and basically kissing his butt like my SAH friends get to do for their DH's, but no way does he get to stay home and enjoy life while I have go to work... If I have to be miserable every day and miss out on having a life then he doesn't deserve to have one either... he can wait until I get us to the point where we can retire.

[Deleted]

The magic number is totally dependent on too many factors. We make more than enough to have one of us stay home. My wife is a teacher and she stays home now, but will likely return after a year leave due.

My day-job is really low-stress and relatively short hours (35 hours). I also own a business that I do on the side that provides a legitimate 3rd income. It's actually more than my wife or I make at our day jobs.

We go to a church where it's pretty common for the wife to stay home regardless of how tight things are. So their perspective is totally different than ours. We don't want things to be tight, we know the stress that brings on a marriage and kids. We figure as long as we have low-stress jobs, then why not continue to work. We feel like our balance is fine.

Plus, both working allows us to live in one of the top school districts in the state, go on vacations, and buy some nicer things.

[raeoflyte]

We could very comfortably have a sahp on 80k per year. Even at 60k, but things would get tight. Our fixed expenses are about as low as possible. I'd be curious to post my budget and see if people thought we could get by on 50k (still saving for retirement etc).

We work opposite shifts and dh only works 30 hours per week, so we're lucky we don't need day care and both get lots of face time with DS. I gotta say that I think it would be easier if dh had the day job, or if I were able to stay home with him in these early years. Some of it is just the crazy mommy stage he is in right now, but they have some rough days waiting until I get home and I get a lot of calls asking how late I'll work, and if I can work from home today, etc. I'm sure when he's older I'll be super boring, and he'll only want to spend his days with dad.

[thyme4change]

fewer and fewer Americans are entering the field due to some seriously weird preconceived notions about what job security is like based on misconceptions from the tech bust that's over a decade old at this point.

I think increased outsourcing to India is the common concern now. But I agree that the field is a good stable field and there are lots of companies that will never outsource.

Lifestyle creep kills two income households a lot of the time.

You can control that. And, I'm not sure why increasing your lifestyle and then decreasing it is so dramatically worse than never having had nice things at all. Sure, going "backwards" is hard, but having an easy financial time for a while, and then pulling back - selling the mercedes and buying an honda, or downsizing your house, or not going on vacation every year - whatever. I would rather go on vacation for 5 years and then not for 5 years vs having never gone on vacation at all.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I think increased outsourcing to India is the common concern now. But I agree that the field is a good stable field and there are lots of companies that will never outsource.

I think a lot of the people predicting doom and gloom in the IT field are missing the point a little. It's too damn vital to business to go away at this point. It would be like saying accounting or advertising are going to go away. As long as companies exist and are chasing a profit they'll have bean counters, advertising, and for the foreseeable future IT.

Maybe at some point you can build robots to take care of the machines and information flow necessary to run your business, until that day comes though you'll have employed IT people. Even when that day comes, the computer nerds and engineers will be the ones building the dang robots.

Too many people still think of it as a fad, or self contained industry. It's a vital component of modern business.

[azphx1972]

I agree with DH. IT may be going away, but not until people or machines stop writing buggy code. IOW, not anytime soon that I can see.

[qofcc]

I hope companies wise up and stop outsourcing their IT to India. We have a large customer who sends us reports. They used to be run by a very nice lady in Pennsylvania in their IT department who managed the process. When there were problems/questions, I could call her anytime and she would research/fix things in their computer. They outsourced her function to India. Now nobody in that company knows who to contact in India and I can't call them up and ask questions, they're not even working during the hours we work, the whole time zone nonsence. I'm upset, the people at their office in PA are upset the only people who are happy are the people in their corporate office who sees that the person in India costs less than the person in the USA. I'm sure the whole country of India is not as disorganized as the folks I've had to deal with, but the point is whatever they save in salary dollars, I think they're loosing that much or more in customer dis-satisfaction and internal frustration. This is just as bad as when another company I know of started outsourcing manufacturing to Mexico to save salary dollars then the workers kept quitting and going to another local manufacturer who paid them $.25/hr more and the managers got kidnapped and quit and came back to the USA.

[thyme4change]

Honestly, there are very few decisions in life that are purely numbers decisions. And, every decision that is made may change due to unforseen circumstances.

[thyme4change]

qofcc - I agree. I also think that the math on outsourcing to India is not as lucrative as some people have been led to believe. If you are a very large company and can support an entire office, then it might work out. The set up costs are quite high, as you have to train an entire staff, run an extra facility, and keep communication lines open around the world. But, if you are a smaller company, just hiring a couple guys to sit in your already existing / paid for facility, and paying them twice as much, and managing them onsite can be totally worth it.

[kiskis]

For one of us to be a SAHP, the other's income would have to cover all living costs plus be able to maintain target retirement savings contributions. There is no defined magic number because I don't know what costs will look like in a few years as our kids grow/eat/spend.

DH is the one who wants to be a SAHP/early retiree. He is on target to quit at 40. I don't know how much our expenses will have changed, but I feel pretty confident that my salary will cover costs and savings by then. We are already almost living on only one income ($30,000+) and shoveling the rest into retirement savings. Our costs will drop significantly when our house is paid off at 35.

[aricia]

Currently staying at home with:
-$88,000 DH salary
-12 + month EF (~24 months of expenses)
-No non-mortgage debt
~20% retirement savings (+/- if counting employer match)
-Wiggle room!
-Own home with small mortgage, 70% down, 15 year mortgage.
LCOL

(Disclaimer: technically I'm barely working, just enough to pay for expenses to keep things current with my profession and have a few thousand left over)

[Formerly SK]

May 18, 2011 13:14:31 GMT -5 CCL said:

I know this is a money forum, but sometimes it's not about the money. I think most people assume their children will be born healthy and grow up with few problems. For them, a daycare may be fine. It doesn't always work out that way. You just never know how things will work out.

Ditto this. I've been a SAHM for 6.5 yrs now and I honestly don't know how families with two working parents do it. DH leaves at 7am and comes home at 6:30pm or so. If I had a similar job, who would make dinner, take kids to swim lessons, help with homework, etc? Even if we hired a housekeeper/gardener/etc I don't see how you could cook/eat dinner every night and still get the kids to bed by 8pm. Not to mention both our kids have medical issues and we've had hundreds of therapy/dr appts over the past few years.

Sure we are taking a hit financially. And I know it will be hard to get back into the workforce when I do return. Our youngest will be in FT kindy this fall and we are trying to figure out what I can do. But neither one of us wants to have me go back FT - the extra income just isn't worth the headache it would cause us logistically.

Oh, one other thing: DH's career has been as successful as it has because he's never once had to take time off work for a kid issue. We *know* he's gotten larger raises than his peers because he's reliable. We factor that into our decision about my career as well.

[8 Bit WWBG]

For me, its not so much about the money as it is about the time. When DF was downsized and had 2 days/week at home, I very rarely came home to a cooked dinner or a clean house. There was still a list of chores I had to do after work. I really didn't get any additional value for giving up the things that extra money allowed.

Right now, we are living off my income, and using DFs to save and pay stuff down. If she were completely out of the work force, it would drastically slow our savings/payoff rate, and force cutbacks. In order for that to be worthwhile, I'd have to never ever ever ever EVER have to lift a finger outside of the office.

I think it would be nice if we could each do something like 4 day weeks, and perhaps stagger the days so one week we got separate days off and the other took them together. Sometimes you just need time to do what you want without the other person breathing down your neck.

[Formerly SK]

WWBG - I do 90% of the home "stuff" which is why DH doesn't want me to go back to work. I'm pretty bored out of my mind as a SAHM, though, so I'm trying to find something stimulating that will pay enough, be flexible for the kids, and not force DH to start having to take time of for X kid reason.

[spartan7886]

WWBG, your experience with your DF is why I refuse to be a SAHM when the time comes. I know that I will accomplish very little around the house. I am not self-motivated. It is easier to work and pay someone else to do the unpleasant stuff.

For DH to be a SAHD, if he can overcome his gender predjudices (which is slowly occurring) would work much better. He would accomplish more work around the house, and the lost income would be less. He would probably prefer to go part-time if he could, though. I would prefer to be making about $120k before being the only salary. That is probably 3 years of raises for me or so.

[thyme4change]

DH leaves at 7am and comes home at 6:30pm or so. If I had a similar job

That isn't necessarily a typical work schedule. I guess a lot of it depends on where your house is compared to areas of potential employment. If, no matter what, your commute is an hour - then yes, that is something to take into account. (Frankly, I don't know how people do it when they both have long commutes, unless one of them can work 6-3 and the other one works 9-6, or something.) It also depends on what form your "overtime" needs to take. I do a lot of catching up after bedtime, from home - but that isn't always a possibility. When my husband had a "facetime" job, things were a lot tougher on us.

[Deleted]

The calculation should be very simple. IF you are willing to live a 1 earner lifestyle, then you only need 1 earner. If you want to keep up with your 2 earner friends, then you need two earners.

[Firebird]

I think it would be nice if we could each do something like 4 day weeks, and perhaps stagger the days so one week we got separate days off and the other took them together. Sometimes you just need time to do what you want without the other person breathing down your neck.

Be careful what you wish for. Before I moved in with DF, this was a huge concern of mine - I am a solitary person and I knew I'd want my own time pretty often. As it turned out, I didn't. But we do have staggered schedules. At the moment, I work M-F and come home around 7pm, and he works ~5 days a week (always including Saturday and Sunday) and has random days off during the week.

I hardly ever see him. I have all the alone time I could possibly want but it gets kinda lonely Oh well, soon the kitty will be there to keep me company.

[Firebird]

WWBG, your experience with your DF is why I refuse to be a SAHM when the time comes. I know that I will accomplish very little around the house. I am not self-motivated. It is easier to work and pay someone else to do the unpleasant stuff.

This is me too, but only to an extent. If it was my JOB to keep the house running and clean and so forth, I could do it easily (I still think I'd be bored but I could do it). In the normal course of things, I'm not that motivated to do things around the house. Mainly because I feel like I handle more "household" items than DF and therefore I shouldn't have to do as much housework (and he agrees with me).

I still clean and stuff, but I'm not nearly as "on it" as I would be if it was my job.

[thyme4change]

Even if it was my "job" I probably still wouldn't be that productive. My husband is so nice, he probably wouldn't say anything about it either.

[resolution]

May 18, 2011 15:49:26 GMT -5 @mmc said:

The calculation should be very simple. IF you are willing to live a 1 earner lifestyle, then you only need 1 earner. If you want to keep up with your 2 earner friends, then you need two earners.

I think this is a good measure for it. Most people are posting large salaries that are way over the median household income of 50k. We don't have kids and neither of us stay at home but most of DH's coworkers support SAHWs on about 35-40k. I did agree before we got married that if we had kids, I would stay home with them at least until they got into school. However we don't plan on having them so that would be very unlikely.

[Deleted]

May 18, 2011 14:05:13 GMT -5 Formerly SK said:

Ditto this. I've been a SAHM for 6.5 yrs now and I honestly don't know how families with two working parents do it. DH leaves at 7am and comes home at 6:30pm or so. If I had a similar job, who would make dinner, take kids to swim lessons, help with homework, etc? Even if we hired a housekeeper/gardener/etc I don't see how you could cook/eat dinner every night and still get the kids to bed by 8pm. Not to mention both our kids have medical issues and we've had hundreds of therapy/dr appts over the past few years.

I just graduated and am looking for work after a long absence. This is my #1 concern. I really don't know how we are going to find time and most jobs have hours like you posted, when you factor in the commute. Dh is used to having a SAHW so he takes on tons of stuff to do in his off hours, because he doesn't have to do house/cooking/shopping/appointment stuff. As well as being able to work whenever he is needed. It is going to be weird shift.

At this point we don't need money, but I really need to gain experience. As far as how much is needed to have a spouse stay home spouse, I would say enough to comfortably cover expenses, savings, and fun stuff.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"WWBG, your experience with your DF is why I refuse to be a SAHM when the time comes.":::...

Oh no, it was GREAT for her. She could sleep in, read, work out, relax, watch TV, read, organize, declutter... occasionally she'd clean obsessively. That was the worst because although a room would be sparkling, I'd walk into the house "owing" time... even though I had worked and commuted a full day.

...:::"I hardly ever see him.":::...

If the stagger system I outlined works, then we'd each get one "day to ourselves" one week, and have a 3-day weekend the second week which would be ideal for weekend trips. Your house may be different, but neither DF nor I currently lack time with one another. A compressed schedule might make that a bit different, but if we each went PT and did 32 hours a week, that would be nice.

...:::"If it was my JOB to keep the house running and clean and so forth, I could do it easily (I still think I'd be bored but I could do it).":::...

The ones that I've seen make it work have had this type of arrangement. The benefit to both of you is that when the worker gets home, the evening is free for leisure and relaxation.

Right now, DF and I usually leave our home at 7:30am and walk back in the door at about 6:20pm. That leaves roughly 3.5 hours to do anything and everything that can't be put off. On gym nights... forget about it! So things get pushed to the weekend, so then its Saturday and I want to relax and there is a large list of things that need to be done.

We knew a couple who was one of these quintessential yuppie couples. Both had well paying jobs with crazy hours, so in their late 20s they were netting anywhere from $10k/mo to $13k/month. They were paying for dog walkers, dog sitters, cleaning services, grocery delivery, and so on because what precious little time they had after their long weeks was certainly not going to be spent on chores.

[Clifford]

We pulled the trigger at 50K in 2001. We calculated that after taxes and expenses, we were taking a $600/month hit for DW to stay at home vs working. To us - with our first child 6 months old - that was acceptable.
At the risk of being flamed, I have to say that I do not agree with the concept of making plans "in case we get a divorce." If you think you might, then you shouldn't have kids, and perhaps shouldn't have married either. Part of life is about making adjustments based on circumstances. Work the plan based on how you think it will turn out (the 80% likelihood), and adjust on the fly if something changes (the 20%). If you think it will turn out in divorce, then work in a pre-nup or walk away.