wow, so, I am a mom of two kids and I make $90K+ a year and my husband makes about $40K. I think HE should be the stay-at-home mom or we're hosed. Fortunately, he has a job where he works at home and is there for the kids when I can't be. I don't think anyone in our household is suffering. Both my kids are in the gifted student program at school and we spend a lot of fun time with them. I am not stay-at-home material, to be honest. My kids would hate me if I was.

Do you find that your husband resents you for making more than him? Not that I think that's right, but it stands to reason that most men would..

I make twice the salary as my husband, and I carry the health care, 401k etc. My husband does not feel bad about the salary difference. Instead, he is grateful that together, we can make a decent income to support our family.

I have several friends where the situation is the same: the wife makes more than the husband. Men in the 40s and under seem more inclined to believe that the income of the team is important, not who makes more.

I do believe as a society, we all suffer when someone can't be at home, become more involved in civic activities, make the home a comfortable place (no scrambling for dinner or weekends spent running chores). Life is too short for all of us to be running like rats in a wheel, yet here we are.

Hey, way to stereotype!

My sister and I were the product of two working parents and ended up just fine. More than fine. We're two intelligent, hard-working, productive members of society ourselves. While our parents were working, we spent our afternoons helping each other with homework and playing with the dog...because we were raised by two good people. Imagine that! No sex time, drug time, or gang time, as you so eloquently put it.

And did you ever think that maybe the extra money could be used to do something together as a family? Those are some of my fondest memories, all the family vacations we took together. Think before you stereotype working parents.

Nonsense ---crime and drugs didn't exist before mothers worked?? Were you alive in the 60's??? Come out from under your rock and put down that burqua because women aren't going back...

If that's the choice you made, and it works for your family, then good. However, I object to the implication that a household where both parents work is inherently flawed. Those families who are falling apart "stressing themselves by trying to make two incomes work" would have failed for other reasons if the wives had been stay-at-home moms. . . most likely the stress of trying to live on a tight budget.

In our household, I work full-time with a 45-minute commute each way. My husband runs his own business from home, but he works an average of 60 hours a week. Our kids are happy and healthy and their needs (physical and emotional) are more than met. While we certainly feel the pinch from this recession, we are current on our bills. In the meantime, we have friends who have chosen to be SAHMs and couldn't make it in this economy without either government assistance or financial support from their churches. They were living below their means when the economy was good, but the economy caught up with them and eventually passed them.

Like I said, if your choice worked for you, that's great and I applaud you. That choice isn't for everyone, though, and to imply that doing it any other way is wrong is rather judgemental, in my opinion.

I completly agree. I am a stay at home mom and stuggle with the pull of going to work because we are so limited with our income that we cannot afford to purchase clothing for our 1 year old (yet dont qualify for any help). Even with that I cant STAND the thought of someone else raising my child which is what would happen if I went to work. We dont have credit cards and we live within our means and STILL barely make it. I feel like my family is punished (by society) for doing the right thing.

Two parents working IS inherantly flawed..... all you have to do is take a look at society as a whole and how far downhill it has gone since moms started working outside the home. I think if you have kids you SHOULD stay at home with them, at least until they go to school.

Stick to it if you can...the rewards really outweight the sacrifices, especially until they are school age. Try the local churches, and look for support from civic groups. My kids wore consignment clothes or items from Target and Walmart. It didn't hurt them at all. They are all well into their teens or early twenties now and I absolutely cherish the time I spent with them.

My wife and I are expecting our first child in about 6 weeks. We have decided together that her "job" is a mom for the first few years. We see that the benefits of having a full time mommy far outweigh having a second income. The fact that someone else would be raising our son was a big red flag coupled with the bonding that would be lost, then costs associated with a daycare, transportation and stress made this a no brainer for us. While I don't think this works for everyone, going back to a more traditional family model/society could alleviate some of our ills in this society. The family unit, in my opinion, is what determines the course of society. If the family unit is dysfunctional then you get a dysfunctional society.

It's not as simple as "mom at work=depravity". . . if only it were!

Before my mother remarried, she worked one full-time job and two part-time jobs. After she remarried, both she and my stepdad worked full-time. Yes, I was a latchkey kid. Yes, I rebelled as a teen -- but having a mom at home wouldn't have changed that. As an adult, I'm a very hands-on mom who happens to work outside the home. My work ethic extends to both my family life and my professional life, and I learned those lessons by watching my mother work as hard as she did to first support and later contribute to our family.

Does it benefit my children for me to quit my job, if they are parked in front of the TV while I cook and clean? Is it beneficial to them for me to home school them, if I'm not an effective classroom teacher? Are they somehow better off if we live paycheck-to-paycheck and my husband and I are always stressed about money and can't provide for their physical needs?

It's not about having them in my hip pocket 24/7; that is not what will make them happy and healthy. There are millions of screwed-up kids from homes with SAHMs. It's about being involved and bonded (yes, it's even possible to be bonded to your children despite a full-time job) with your children. My mom was my hero as a child, and she's one of my best friends as an adult. At the risk of sounding trite, it's about the quality of the time -- not just the quantity. Both count, but one counts more than the other.

And I still find it interesting that I can support your respective decisions regarding SAHMs, but I'm still wrong for working outside the home. Sanctimonious, much?

Why is it that some parents think that their child will turn out to be a criminal if they aren't clutching their child every second of every day? I find that a lot of the stay at home moms I know love staying home so they don't have to work. Who wouldn't?!?! I would love to stay home and watch cartoons and fingerpaint all day too, but unfortunately some of us have to live in the real world. Most men do not make enough to make it on one income. One woman I know pulled her kids out of school to homeschool them this year just so that she has an excuse to not have to get a job. I think using your kids as an excuse to be lazy is pretty sad.

@Chris-L - "...coupled with the bonding that would be lost.."

Bonding that would be lost? Really? I had my youngest two (twin boys) in PT day care from age 6 months on and they are incredibly, irrevocably, irretrievably and happily bonded to both of us. They are no less bonded to us then they would have been if I had stayed with them FT longer. They are age 7 now - incredibly happy, incredibly healthy (only annual checkups needed for the past 4 years), well-mannered, smart, engaged, self-confident, incredibly social, leaders etc.. - absolutely wonderful kids. I couldn't have asked for better and I do not believe that I could have given them better if I had stayed at home with them FT. I, as others have commented, am not good SAHM material - I think they were infinitely better off with people trained to care for them, teach them, engage them in activities - both indoors and out, arts and crafts, games etc. If I had stayed home with them they would have had none of the social interaction, early learning etc. simply because they 1) would have been alone with me - no other kids, and 2) I am not a trained early education teacher! And I am horrible at thinking up things to do! So, please do not denigrate the decision to send them to care - It may work out beautifully for you and I hope it does, but I looked hard for care that matched my values, that was well accredited by the state (no dings or violations) and then put them in and went back to work PT because I knew that, for all of us, it was the best decision. I am sane and they have done exceedingly well. They are not by any means less bonded to us becaused they went to child care!

Hate to bust your bubble buddy but I have seen home schooled families go to hades too. My kid's have always had a working mon and they are doing just fine. Very successful in fact. Your analogy proves nothing.

As though all kids of stay at home moms are happy well adjusted little darlings (and all the daughters of those stay at home moms of course are supposed to grow up, become highly educated so they can do what exactly, not work?).....really people..have you learned NOTHING in the last five decades about the foolishness of trying to constrict women to your narrow view of what they are?

@ VTPeach - "Bonding that would be lost? Really?"

Yes, bonding that would be lost. Every hour that I and my wife work outside the home is an hour less of bonding with our child when he arrives. I agree that quantity does not equal quality, but considering an average full time job requires 40 hours of your time plus another 5 hours between commute and lunch thats 45 hours a week that could be spent with your child in quality time. I don't know anything else I can call time away from your child other than lost. Again, I agree that rarely would all those hours be spent in quality time but not working adds hours that can be spent in quality bonding. Its also a little shortsighted to say "They are no less bonded to us then they would have been if I had stayed with them FT longer." Convential wisdom would dictate otherwise as more (quality)time invested in someone produces a stronger bond, ie: best friends, but neither you nor I would know as you can't go back in time and invest more time in them and then compare the bond. We also have the added benefit of attending a church that has a large number of SAHMs/homeschooling that provides us with help and examples when needed. Also in response to a theme that is in lots of comments dealing with working outside the home and putting family first; is your job performance or career mobility affected because your job isn't first? When genuine times arise, not mommy come pick me up I'm *ack* *ack* sick, does your job allow you to immediately leave for the needs of your family or is there any hesitation? I'm not judging, just asking questions that my wife and I asked, among others, when we decided on her being a SAHM.

Why dont you enlighten us? Im not sure what "side" you are refering to

The side that looks at articles for what they are REALLY saying instead of defending a persons own side or view.

First, I don't see 1.5% being that significant when compared to the intangibles of time together over those 25 years of the study.

Second, the title really says a lot, which the comment pointed out.

Third, this quote, “Families need a working wife in order to see their incomes grow.”, points to the article insinuating that MONEY/incomes is what families are about. That money equals happiness. What if they actually had people list the great memories they have from the prior year. I bet the families that have two spouses would have great vacation memories, but a lot less memories from during the entire year. So I guess it depends on what people VALUE for their life.

Silly me, I thought having a family was about creating memories of time spent together. It doesn't matter to me if my wife and I are walking along the canal or spending money on doing something together. The value is in doing that something together and having the memory to share.

@Mark-2263211-"The price of being a working mom."

And what would that price be? I am a working mom with incredibly happy, well-adjusted wonderful kids - teenager and two 7 year olds. And I am incredibly happy in my job. Both parts of my life are incredibly fulfilling to me. I get to work and utilize all the education that I worked so hard for in my past. And I get to have fantastic loving kids whom I love being with and who love being with me - spend wonderful times with them, go skiing, travel, go to the movies etc. etc. etc. So what is the price I am paying? I am reaping the rewards of being fulfilled in all areas of my life as I need to be - and my kids are reaping the rewards of having a happy, fulfilled mom who loves her job. This works for me - it may not work for everyone - and yes it is hectic at times, but I don't feel like I am paying a price at all. I have the life I want that works best for me. What could be better?

Keep in mind, nothing is free. Sadly, we have created a society that demands two incomes just to survive. My late wife and I chose to tighten our belts and become a one income family soon after the oldest of my three daughters was born. No regrets.

That being said, the tradeoff is, less money in college funds than there would have been with two incomes, retirement will have to be postponed even if the economy recovers, and while I am making ends meet, barely, it is not easy. Unless you are wealthy, particularly in Orange County, CA, it is a good thing, but absolutely a difficult thing. And yes, we are a bit worse off year after year. The amount seems small, but it adds up. I definitely do not live as well as we did 10 to 12 years ago. Money does not go as far.

My girls lost their mother three years ago when they were 16, 14, and 10. Because she was a stay at home mom, our girls had much more time with their mother than they would have had she been working.

@PJ - sorry for your loss. That is tragic that you lost your wife when your kids were still in their formative years. My condolences and blessings to you and your family.

Income demands are amazing on families, and for many families a single income is simply not a livable wage, and often it is just above poverty where you can get no help from the state or feds - so a second income is necessary just to scrape barely by. It is sad that people have to make that choice. But child care can be so expensive that going back to work makes no difference. I admire those who have chosen to be SAHM's and do it successfully. I do not work for income but because I know it makes me a better person and a better mother. It is an individual choice - everyone is different. Make the choices based on what works best for you, not because you want more $$ or stuff or, on the flip side, because someone tells you you are a horrible person for not staying home. I WAS a horrible person when I stayed home with my daughter - believe me! And, even with two incomes it can be a struggle to accumulate the funds needed for college, retirement, etc. Most families with two incomes are not living high off the hog - they too are struggling to just meet the basic needs of their families because neither parent earns enough. It sucks. It just seems that no-one is getting ahead these days unless you are earning way in that top 2%.

Because we're supposed to believe there's only one choice?? Come on...don't blame the messenger for a bit of reality here...not everyone wants to live in the 50's...

@ Sid Higgins - a couple points:

First, inflation traditionally is driven by rising wages, which result from increased productivity (and profit), with workers then demanding a share of the gains. But wages in this country have been basically flat for about 40 years now. If anything, adding to the workforce women who in the past would have been stay-at-homers increases the labor supply, thereby helping to keep wages depressed, which helps keep the brakes on inflation. . . .

Second, your second sentence (on government not letting you KEEP the money) is just gratuitous. Government has nothing to do with any of this. Federal tax rates are low by historical standards right now, and with very few brackets currently in place (compare the tax code of today to the tax code of the 50s or even the 70s, for instance), the wages earned by a second worker in the family will not be significantly eroded by Federal taxation.

casualty09:

Your first paragraph was very good except for the fact that wages do not rise solely from increased productivity. The cost of labor is also impacted by such things as supply (currently ongoing in China). However, your second was not necessarily correct. You assume that both worker's incomes won't push them too far out of the bracket just one of them would reside in as a single worker. At the bottom of the scale this is often correct or the difference is minor. However, in my particular families case there is a 10% difference in the income tax rate I weould pay alone and the one we pay together. Moreover, we have lost out on a whole lot of credits and deductions we used to be able to take which makes that 10% increase pricier because our taxable income is a higher percentage of our gross income than for lesser earners. Not that I want my wife to give up her lucrative job but your comment isn't applicable across the board.

We need to take our families back. Since the recession my family has reduced our economic output to the bare minimum, so that the foucs is on the family and not a thankless job and struggling to get ahead (for what?).

Now that I bring home 60% of what I did before -- with no health insurance to boot, I refuse to do anything more than required for corporate America. In @ 9 am, out @ 5 pm and not a minute more AND no crackberry. If they don't like it, I'll go somewhere else (but I think they do, because the less I care about what people at my job think, the better it seems to be going!)

Take back America before its too late!

We as a country need to realize that you don't get more for less without paying a cost somewhere else. If you want more college graduates taking care of your kids in child care then you have to PAY them college graduate pay to take care of your kids.

We are taking back America. That's exactly why I'm a mom who works.. and VOTES...

Right on, DanM-921989! Child care workers should be a WELL PAYING job. This is NOT where we want to find the lowest bidder. This is where we want to pay for what we get and get what we pay for.

After all, we're all going to "get" what the parents paid for. The kids in that unlicensed daycare next door will be the kids your kid dates, the taxpayers whose earnings pay for our benefits (or who's incarceration drains our country) and the employee pool our companies have to pick from in order to compete in the global market place. Make sense now, America?

This sounds exactly for what we are striving for with our 2 small children. After reading this I'm more determined than ever to make sure this is the way it stays, because that is exactly what we want... Good job!

How your kids turn out has nothing to do with whether or not mom stays home and everything to do with how much they are loved and cared for.

My mother was a single mother who worked an hour away from home. She worked holidays (double OT) and picked up extra hours a few nights a week, and some weekends. I went to the YMCA or a babysitter after school until I was old enough to stay home alone.

I never got into drugs, I was in the National Honor Society and had extracurricular activities. Mom never missed a chorus concert or play I was in. We sometimes ate dinner together, sometimes didn't. But I knew I was loved, I knew I could go to her with anything, and I always knew she was there for me.

I graduated college with a B+ average, and am (I think) a successful adult and mother now.

I am sick to death of stay-at-home parents acting like they are so much more invested in their children and that their children are so much better, smarter and more well-adjusted than other kids. Likewise, I think it's wrong for working parents to insult stay-at-home moms for making that choice.

I say do what works for your family, and stop worrying about what others do for theirs. You don't have to blow someone else's candle out to make yours burn brighter.

I agree as well.

"I am sick to death of stay-at-home parents acting like they are so much more invested in their children and that their children are so much better, smarter and more well-adjusted than other kids. Likewise, I think it's wrong for working parents to insult stay-at-home moms for making that choice."

Jeepers Melanie...You sound very bitter... I'm sorry you can't tolerate my personal experience. You should reread my post more carefully. If you feel insulted, perhaps you have issues to work through.

I grew up with a SAHM who parked me and my brothers in front of the television for hours on end. We spent our summers working in her yard and listening to her tell us how grateful we should be that we weren't stuck in "awful" summer camps or swim lessons. I am a working mom, and my children are healthy, happy, smart, and very social. They have known from an early age how to interact with others, how to share, how to ask politely for what they want, and how to be good members of society. My sister's SAH kids are awful brats who have none of these skills.

Do what is right for you and do not judge others who do not or cannot make the same choices. Just because I work does not make me a bad mother or make my kids future sex or drug addicts. My brother was BOTH with a SAHM!

Of course, she will be a stay at home mom. How do you expect her to get into college without a diploma?

Misty, way to show your true colors without adding substance to the discussion.

Melanie, sometimes how the kids turn out have nothing to do with parents. Sometimes great kids come from a family that also has terrible kids, people are different even within the same family. I am glad that your mom did so well with you. But if you really want to talk the truth of a study like this you don't do it one annecdotal example at a time. You have to deal with statistical generalities or averages. I assume you are not going to argue that having a single mother raising you is just as good as having two parents?

Unless the article is saying that money = happiness, this article really should have then compared the 1.2% increase in income to what the other families received from having a stay at home mom. Was it better grades or worse grades, or test results on the state tests. How did the kids do in college versus the kids who had two parents working. Did less go to college. Were they happier or not?

I'm sorry, but having a stay-home mom does NOT equate to a healthier child. That's just ridiculous. I have always worked. I took three months when each of my two children were born, and I will take three months when my third is delivered in a few months. My seven year old was early identified as gifted; recently polished off all seven Harry Potter books in two weeks and passed his black belt exam in Tae Kwon Do last weekend. My four year old is reading and her pediatrician said we should consider her a five-year-old; at her four-year annual checkup he said her size and development were a full year ahead. My children are profoundly bonded to me, just as the children of a SAHM are to her.

Look, you should all make the right choices for yourself and your family. Only you can know what the right choices are. But don't judge me for making my own choices, and I won't judge you.

YES! Pathetic beyond belief. We put more value in STUFF than PEOPLE these days.

LOL, yep, that's why I bust my butt working, for a purse. My god, get in touch with reality.

Yeah, I work for such "trivial things" like providing for my children's college funds. I don't want my children to have to depend on govt Pell grants (welfare) for their education when that is the parent's responsibility.

I think common_cent$'s comment has been distorted slightly. I don't disagree that every family is different, some need 2 incomes, which in my opinion is a sad reality that my grandparents and parents allowed to occur on their watch and I am now dealing with, I'm 26. That being said, if you, as a family, sit down and remove or scale back all the luxuries that consume your paycheck, could you, as a family, survive on a single income? I'm thinking luxuries are, multiple computers, new cars, designer clothes, cell phones, cable TV, paying for a lawn service, newest biggest "fill in the blank", etc. College funds would not be considered a luxury, although, in my opinion, college tuition needs to drop A LOT! You either have to be super rich, gain a scholarship or be in debt for the next 10 years to come close to paying for college in most cases. College funds of even $50K can be depleted in a few semesters at a lot of colleges.

I wonder if Karen would be willing to put her younger children in daycare to keep her college aged child pell grant free?

You sound very bitter sir and I feel sorry for you. Just because YOUR wife was like that doesnt mean all SAHM are like that. Just becuase it takes a different set of skills to take care of a household doesnt mean we are stupid either. Maybe if she had a supportive and encouraging HUSBAND she wouldnt have gained so much weight and given up caring about her mental capasities. It takes TWO people to make being a SAHM work, especially these days. You obviously didnt support your family emotionally and you obviously dont like your wife, so dont throw us all into the same class. Thanks.

Tone aside, he does make some good points about the psychological toll that being a SAHM takes on women, especially if they don't have a social circle outside the home. My mother was a SAHM full time until my sister was in kindergarten. She got bored with no one around the house and there's only so much housework one can do. She got a part time job to have adults company and to help pay for private Catholic school for two children. She worked full time for almost ten years teaching and both my sister and I turned out okay. We were expected to be able to take care of ourselves when she wasn't home starting in middle school, including cooking and cleaning. She's the first to admit that my father would be helpless if a woman didn't do his laundry or cook his food, so having him help out more wasn't a realistic option. It was good in the long run because we're both more indepedent and capable of taking care of ourselves than some kids who had their mother do most everything for them.

I grieve when I see a husband pressure his wife to get a job just so they can have more bucks for more prosperity. Some men misunderstand their children's needs...particularly the need, above all others, ie., the love and attention that only Moms can provide in the earliest years of a child's life. I'm a 57 year old husband of a 'former' stay-at-home/homeshool mom. I was self-employed most of those years -without health insurance or government freebies...Hard work, dignity and faith in the God of the Bible saw us through...The years have past and we have NO regrets. I could write a book...It was hard, but it was good. It built strong character. In many ways, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." Knowing what we know now, we would do it all again!

Well, if he had died, we had a large life insurance policy that would have supported us very well because our standard of living was very reasonable. And if he had been the type to trade me in I don't think I would have made the mistake of marrying him in the first place. We both loved and liked each other when we got married, the like carried us through those times when we weren't passionately in love with each other, the love carried us through those times we just didn't quite like each other, 32 years later I wouldn't trade him for anyone else. I also never had a problem finding good paying jobs, or moving up to better positions. And I wouldn't change a thing.

"I applaud all of you women who have made the choice to stay home and made it work. But in all the cases I have read here you all have constant, faithful and living [I assume you meant loving] husbands."

Also in all cases here, it sounds like their husbands' income has given them the option, the ability to make a decision to stay home, even if in some instances it means scrimping a bit and doing without any sort of "extras." For many families, one income simply isn't enough, especially if the husband has a job without health insurance.

Before passing judgment on others' decisions - and this goes for far more than this issue - people need to remember that not everyone has the same advantages. "Walk a mile in their shoes," as they say.

I meant living - not loving. I work in an occupation where I see many of these women - their husbands have left them or died and left them with nothing - no assets, no life insurance - just debt and nothing to live off of. They dedicated their lives to their kids (and God bless them) but have been left with nothing - be it through a premature death or a wandering eye. It is heartbreaking to me to see them struggle so. And to know that, if they had only worked a bit throughout the time they were SAHM's that they would be so much better off - easier to find a job with better pay. I pass no judgement on anyone. I believe it is a personal decision whether you stay at home or not - I stayed at home with my daughter until she entered preschool, and worked part-time throughout my sons early years, until they entered public school. So I have had my feet in both worlds. Both worlds were and are rewarding to me. All I am saying is that there is an incredibly high cost to those women who, through no fault of their own and with a good heart stay out of the work force and then are faced with the tragedy of a premature death (that hadn't been planned for with life insurance etc.) or an unfaithful husband who walks away and leaves them with almost nothing.

@mn-1062959 - you are a lucky woman - many, many households - lower income, less advantaged - have no life insurance, no retirement assets, nothing - just debt. And, you are lucky to have a wonderful husband - you can't necessarily tell at the time you marry someone what the future holds - sometimes people change (man or woman), they find someone else at work, church, wherever, decide they don't want this life anymore and just leave. It hasn't happened to me but I have seen it happen to others. So kudos to you- you are a very lucky person. Many others are not so lucky.

Also, most stay at home moms don't think about the fact that they have not contributed to Social Security or Medicare. And what if there is a divorce? Do women really want to have to mooch off alimony forever, rather than being able to take care of themselves. You make a great point, being out of the workforce for even a few years means never having a decent job again.

Oh believe me, I know I am lucky, but so is he, I was as good a wife to him and mother to the kids as he was husband and father, and his income was very low (poverty level) when we first started out, and we struggled even with me working the first couple of years until our baby was born, and there were times we were actually hungry ( + side... I was very thin ;-). But this is how it worked, Family came first, you did what you had to do to support each other, bills got paid before anything else, you bought food with what was left over, when there wasn't much left over we planted garden, breast milk was free, baked our own bread, picked berries, canned vegetables, he hunted deer the first few years we were married, that was the meat we ate. We didn't go out to eat or to movies, our recreation was a hike in the woods or taking the kids for a walk. But for us I think the key was being thankful for everything we had, even when we had very little. We ALWAYS paid for insurance even when we had little to insure, the insurance premiums, in fact were the cause of the hunger. And he had potential, and he worked hard, and his employer saw his ability, and he has done very well. And we are still so very thankful.

@mn-1062959 - Family comes first in my household too. ALWAYS. Just because I work doesn't mean I don't put family first. My kids are much happier with me working than they would have been had I stayed at home. I stayed at home with my oldest for four years and was absolutely miserable. It was not for me. I am a much happier, fulfilled individual and an infinitely better mom as a working mother than I ever was as a SAHM. My kids are incredibly happy, well adjusted, polite, intelligent etc. and have not suffered with me as a working mom - in fact I think my younger two have done infinitely BETTER than they would have if I stayed at home - and they were only in part-time care until preschool. And money had absolutely nothing to do with our decision to have me work - we did not and still do not need my income and could cut back at any time to just my husbands salary if we needed to - I did not go to work so we could buy more crap. And, it was OUR decision - my husband knew I was miserable staying at home and that we would all be better off with me working - he encouraged me to go back. I made almost nothing in my first few years back at work - it was worth it for my happiness - and by default, our family's happiness - alone. And my hubby totally understood that. Money played (and still plays) no role in our decision to have me be a incredibly proud working mother of three amazing, wonderful kids.

My point is that, if you do choose to stay at home, and can do it and make that sacrifice and it is the right decision for you DO IT - by all means. But keep a foot in the working world - even if it is just picking up a few hours answering phones when you send your kids to preschool or kindergarten. It is an insurance policy for that just-in-case. Allows you to maintain a work history and a resume to get that job if you should ever be forced to do so. Do not depend solely on your husbands vow to support you for the rest of your life - if he died with no insurance, and your assets were spent caring for him because he had a long-term illness - what then? Many families do not have the resources to purchase life or disability insurance, let alone understand what it is and why they should have it (or how much they need).

Oh yeah - just like you, my hubby is damn lucky to have me as I am to have have him, and we are great parents - if I do say so myself. We have worked through the good and the bad, we work together, through it all to make it all work so everyone is in our family is getting what they need, is happy and fulfilled. They may not get everything they want - because that is not our priority - but they get what they emotionally need to have a happy and fulfilled life.

My husband did trade me in for another model (older model btw) after I had been a SAHM for 12 years. I never had a problem re-entering the workforce and just recently started my own business. I agree I would probably have more money for retirement than I do, but then again, who knows for sure? All I hear from most people is how much money they have lost in their 401k's or other investments. I invested in my children and have no regrets what so ever. Everyone needs to do what they think is best for their OWN family and quite trying to convince others here their way is best. Just my humble opinion.

I'm so glad you mention the need for dads to be at home too! I think many families put pressure on dad to be the primary wage earner and then he doesn't have down time or time with the kids. I would much rather work part time (which I do and will continue to do) so that we can have consistent time together. We have two little boys and Daddy is their hero. I can't imagine not contributing to our family income and putting even more pressure on my sweet husband. He handles enough as it is!

Why on earth would you assume women who stay at home with their children have lousy, low paying, jobs? Once I took into consideration the cost of a professional wardrobe, quality childcare for 2 young children, gas, taxes, lunches, etc. I would have been making close to minimum wage. When I went back to work it was in a totally different field and I make more now than I did then even after adjusting for inflation.