SAHM’s and corporate wives

[Katy]

This video about “stay at home moms” who actually secretly work and the comments beneath have sparked some big discussion with my family today. Have you witnessed similar experiences? Do you think it’s exploitation? Should we be insisting to our daughters that any type of regular work for a family business have a title and a paycheck? 
 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6gjK0rObkF/?igsh=MTZtbjlmMXVpZXF5bw==

 

[SanDiegoMom]

I've never seen it, but I don't hang around with people that have a nanny.  Either I knew stay at home moms, homeschooling moms, or now that we live in a higher col area, dual income families.  Sounds like a pretty niche issue.  I'm going to insist my daughters do whatever works in their marriage as long as it's right for them, with the understanding that they are smart enough to marry husbands that will value them. 

[fairfarmhand]

I have mixed feelings about it. Because typically I’m a do what needs to be done and in family we don’t keep score. And that is ideally right. 
 

but I see too many women who divorce and have no resume. No ss credits. Nothing to prove they helped in the business. No investments/retirement. And that puts her in a precarious position.

[SanDiegoMom]

Just now, fairfarmhand said:

 

but I see too many women who divorce and have no resume. No ss credits. Nothing to prove they helped in the business. No investments/retirement. And that puts her in a precarious position.

Good point

I was a stay at home mom and homeschooling mom as it really worked best for the military life.  He's retired and I got a part time job and now have something on the resume and can pivot if I needed. That being said, my resume only had homeschooling and I had a friend be my reference, and I still got my job based on that.  So its not NOTHING, but it's still more of a risk.

 

[Ting Tang]

We are self-employed and I stay at home.  My husband is a farmer, and it is his family's farm business.  He gets upset that I am not involved enough.  But basically, I would be screwed on my own if we got divorced.  I am always thinking I should find a way to earn money again, but I can never figure out the what or how parts.  My degree is better utilized in a more urban or at least a suburban area.  Jobs here do not pay well at all.  I think some women are probably content and happy, and maybe it will all work out.  There are many times I believe my husband doesn't really like me, and he hates when I say that.  When my dad passed away, I drove myself to the hospital three hours away and back, and he still wasn't home when I got back, and it was nighttime.  But when his mom's sister was passing this week, he thought he should drive his mother to see her half and hour away. Things like that.  I'm not unhappy all the time, but I have definitely done some mental work to separate my own happiness from how I think he feels about me.  So.... yeah...these women do work, but it's not really a good situation for everyone.  

[Clarita]

I've never thought of this. I mean DH works for a company so if I'm helping DH out with that job we 100% expect me to get a paycheck for it. I suppose in our household we teach our children to also expect that. I don't know how to feel if it was some sort of family business. The only people I knew very well that had family businesses, that business was big enough that all involved got a paycheck and title. (I mean at some size I think it's illegal?)

[bolt.]

I think that, if it's a family business, and multiple adults (spouses, adult children) regularly and reliably work for it -- either they should each/all have a job title and a salary, or they should both be legal co-owners either 50/50 (most spouses) or maybe with defined percentages of ownership.

Sometimes, like a farm, everybody works and everybody lives off the 'profits' as well as they can: and that's fine if everybody is a legal co-owner. It's not fine if everybody works, but only one person owns things. In that case any non-owners should get wages.

I can't imagine working for a 'family business' for free if it was really a sole proprietorship of my spouse and I had no legally defensible stake in the fruit of my own labour.

In my jurisdiction, even the money that results from the paid labour of an employed spouse is considered 50/50 co-owned by an at-home supporting spouse (unless it was not consentual). This is because the at-home contribution to the earning potential of the employed spouse is acknowledged under the law.

[Faith-manor]

I am 100% pro title, pro job description. My mom worked for 45 years in my father's business, no wages, no title, no nothing. She did all the accounting. And he controlled the money too making absolutely disastrous decisions that left them destitute. She never had any agency. Just watching it play out when I was a teen convinced me I would not agree to anything like that. 

Ting Tang, if I remember other things you have shared correctly, I would encourage you to work outside the home even if the job wages are low, and save that money. I have seen so very many women left in bad situations when the farm that is their spouse's, bellies up, or someone dies and the trust/will cuts out the farm working spouse. These kinds of things can be very fraught, and his callousness towards you when your father died makes me worried.

[Clarita]

I asked my husband about it. So apparently there are tax advantages for the family to do this, because corporate taxes on employees and just income taxes in general.

Doing this does not preclude the wives from stating that they worked for their husbands as an accountant or lawyer or whatever for future employment. It just reduces the overall taxes for the family business and the family. So the husband can have the wife's best interest at heart and technically be doing this. (i.e. give his wife a portion of his salary and vouch for the wife's future company that she indeed did certain work for his company etc.) These may be details that the nanny may not be privy to.

Of course he could be a jerk and take advantage as well. 

[SKL]

OK the whole premise that a husband's business is "for himself" is idiotic.  Are the wife and kids eating and living under the same roof as the husband?  Are the business earnings paying for the vehicles, taxes, college funds, vacations ... even the nanny?  He's working for the whole family, and so is she.

There will be various reasons why a couple may make a business decision not to have both spouses "on payroll."

For that matter, there may not even be a "payroll" in a family business to begin with.  Small business owners don't necessarily get their compensation that way.  (I don't get a paycheck, for example.)

(Besides which, how does this nanny know who is and isn't being compensated and how?  Like it's any of her business?)

(And, the mom "had" to stay home with the kids?  No she didn't.  She chose to do that.)

Does Ms. Nanny think it would be better for the moms to sit around at home and NOT do anything that would be useful on a resume?  That would be more fair and helpful?

And I mean, at least these ladies have a nanny to take care of the kids while they work at home.  How is that not the sweet life?

I do agree that it's important for women and men to have a resume in case they need it.  Divorce, death, disability, business failure, etc. can mean Mom needs to go to work.  That said, nothing is preventing work-at-home moms from including their business experience on their resumes.

Edited May 19 by SKL

[SKL]

Also, depending on the state, divorce laws recognize that the income earned and assets built up during a marriage belong to both spouses, because everyone knows that supporting a family is a joint effort, however the specific jobs are allocated.

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Clarita said:

I asked my husband about it. So apparently there are tax advantages for the family to do this, because corporate taxes on employees and just income taxes in general.

Doing this does not preclude the wives from stating that they worked for their husbands as an accountant or lawyer or whatever for future employment. It just reduces the overall taxes for the family business and the family. So the husband can have the wife's best interest at heart and technically be doing this. (i.e. give his wife a portion of his salary and vouch for the wife's future company that she indeed did certain work for his company etc.) These may be details that the nanny may not be privy to.

Of course he could be a jerk and take advantage as well. 

That still does nothing for social security credits though. 

[Heartstrings]

I think it’s an important thing to keep in mind, and to educate kids on, when it comes to trad wife content.  A *lot* of mom influencers make big money off of “not working” and sell that lie to young men and women.  They just don’t count the hours creating content, editing it and marketing it as work.  Some of the trad wife influencers are making more money than their husbands or even employing the husbands in the “family business” of pretending the wife doesn’t work.  

[Frances]

The only family I personally know at the level of having a nanny was almost the opposite of this. The guy had his own business first, but later when they moved for her career, he worked for someone else who was wanting to slowly ease out of the day to day running of the business he built. 
 

In this family, the guy was older and especially after he retired but definitely after he was no longer running his own business, he was all about supporting his wife and her career. Today she is the CFO of a major healthcare system in CA.

[Clarita]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

That still does nothing for social security credits though. 

That would be part of the "savings" for the family. There is a tax to pay for you to get those credits. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/credits.html

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Clarita said:

That would be part of the "savings" for the family. There is a tax to pay for you to get those credits. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/credits.html

And it's not like the wife has no chance to receive social security benefits.  Even if she never officially "works," she can get half of her husband's benefit.  And you only need to "work" for 10 years to earn enough credits for your own social security benefits.  Even a mom who leaves the workplace to raise young children should be able to get 10 years of work experience some way between ages 16 and 67, if she wants to.  Besides which, someone rich enough to hire a nanny AND support a family is probably rich enough to put aside retirement funds to make up the difference.

[busymama7]

2 hours ago, Clarita said:

That would be part of the "savings" for the family. There is a tax to pay for you to get those credits. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/credits.html

I am primarily a stay at home mom but also practice home birth midwifery on a VERY limited basis.  Like 5-10 births a year including the ones I assist other midwives (so not much money).  Our accountant is paying into social security for me to get my credits because I only worked part time from 16-20 when I had my oldest.  Well I did work full time for about 6 months I think.  But anyways, having someone who knows what to do has been so valuable.  It helps me to know that that is taken care of.  My mom worked as a teacher for one year before staying home with 6 kids, (and had some jobs during highschool and college) but I'm the youngest and when I was in high school she went back to work very part time to get the rest of her credits.   My dad is a government employee with fantastic benefits but it still was helpful for her to get her own.  

[Eos]

9 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

I'm not unhappy all the time, but I have definitely done some mental work to separate my own happiness from how I think he feels about me.

Not to derail the thread but I do hope you can see how unhealthy this is.

8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I would encourage you to work outside the home even if the job wages are low, and save that money. I have seen so very many women left in bad situations when the farm that is their spouse's, bellies up, or someone dies and the trust/will cuts out the farm working spouse. These kinds of things can be very fraught, and his callousness towards you when your father died makes me worried.

I know from the homeschooling side you are also questioning, Ting Tang, and I echo what Faith-manor says here.

[Carrie12345]

We spent years going back and forth on whether or not Dh should start his own business. Ultimately, he’s decided to stay with other companies. Had he gone solo, I would not have done any labor without at least a 1099 (except as a very big sounding board, which I’ve always been anyway.) 

I understand that most small businesses need a lot of financial sacrifice in the beginning, but I am also a firm believer that a business that cannot afford the labor required to succeed in the long term simply isn’t meant to be. And I have multiple business plan outlines in my filing cabinet (not related to dh’s field) to prove my commitment to that principle… unless/until I have more capital to carry them through. And that includes making dd a part owner with salary for one of them.

All that said, I believe women should make their own decisions about such things. I know I’ve busted my hump in other ways over the years to prop up our household economy without records of my service and sacrificed for the good of the home/family. I know it doesn’t “count” to most of the outside world. But we built the life we wanted to live instead of one we weren’t thrilled about just in case.

The pros and cons must be weighed by the individual.

[Hannah]

8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

 

Ting Tang, if I remember other things you have shared correctly, I would encourage you to work outside the home even if the job wages are low, and save that money. 

I 100% agree. It will also be a big boost to your self esteem. 
Even if you can’t find anything locally, look at the freelance sites.

I have a friend who now makes good money ghostwriting. Mostly fiction. She started by taking literally any work she could find on Upwork and Guru and grew from there over the last 5 years. Now she has learned to be extremely efficient doing 8000 words per day. She built a reputation on turning in quality work within agreed deadlines.

Another friend gave up teaching and works in the season going from farm to farm to scan for pregnancy.

you could look at other skills you may have that you didn’t think could make money. Present a craft lesson at a local wool or art shop. Indoor plants? Gardening? The options are endless if you start looking.

You need to start working however small to get better paying work.

 

[DawnM]

10 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

I have mixed feelings about it. Because typically I’m a do what needs to be done and in family we don’t keep score. And that is ideally right. 
 

but I see too many women who divorce and have no resume. No ss credits. Nothing to prove they helped in the business. No investments/retirement. And that puts her in a precarious position.

When I was young my father instilled in me that I needed some sort of skill to fall back on.   He said he didn't care if I actually used it or not, but we don't know our futures and anything could happen.  I have seen young widows with nothing to fall back on when their spouse dies, and I have seen men become ill and not be able to work.   It is not just divorce.   

 

[Pawz4me]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

And it's not like the wife has no chance to receive social security benefits.  Even if she never officially "works," she can get half of her husband's benefit.  And you only need to "work" for 10 years to earn enough credits for your own social security benefits.  Even a mom who leaves the workplace to raise young children should be able to get 10 years of work experience some way between ages 16 and 67, if she wants to.  Besides which, someone rich enough to hire a nanny AND support a family is probably rich enough to put aside retirement funds to make up the difference.

But to qualify for SSDI (Social Security disability insurance) one has to have recent work credits of their own. You can't qualify for SSDI on a spouse's record. And if a serious illness develops SSDI can be massively important, both for the income and because a person who receives SSDI qualifies for Medicare after two years on SSDI. That can be another huge money saver. That people in the US who are stay-at-home parents or who have to quit a job for any sort of caretaking can fail to qualify for SSDI needs to be changed.

[DawnM]

9 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I am 100% pro title, pro job description. My mom worked for 45 years in my father's business, no wages, no title, no nothing. She did all the accounting. And he controlled the money too making absolutely disastrous decisions that left them destitute. She never had any agency. Just watching it play out when I was a teen convinced me I would not agree to anything like that. 

Ting Tang, if I remember other things you have shared correctly, I would encourage you to work outside the home even if the job wages are low, and save that money. I have seen so very many women left in bad situations when the farm that is their spouse's, bellies up, or someone dies and the trust/will cuts out the farm working spouse. These kinds of things can be very fraught, and his callousness towards you when your father died makes me worried.

Not only that, but there is also the issue of social security.   Provided it is around when our kids get to 65, you have to pay into it to get it.   It is worth working at least until you can qualify to receive something.   

[TexasProud]

37 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Not only that, but there is also the issue of social security.   Provided it is around when our kids get to 65, you have to pay into it to get it.   It is worth working at least until you can qualify to receive something.   

Yeah, you don't have to work to receive Social Security benefit. From the SS website:
Even if they have never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be eligible for benefits if they are at least 62 years of age and you are receiving retirement or disability benefits.

In my case, I worked for a couple of years in teaching in ps for Texas, but they only pay teacher retirement.  We withdrew it and invested it when we moved to OK.  I did teach for a couple of years in OK that did do SS.  Then nothing for 20 years....well, nothing that was paid.  Part of my decision whether or not to go back to work was looking at SS and at this point. I couldn't work enough (at what I am qualified to do) to even get close to getting the 1/2 I will automatically get with my husband.  And he qualified for the max social security payment before he retired.  We are not taking it yet. 

Edited May 19 by TexasProud

[TexasProud]

Here is my one and only case study, which is my step-brother. (My mom married his dad after I married my husband. At that point, his boys were 5 and 10. My mom started all over.)My step brother lives a life I cannot completely understand.

I know he has managed mutual funds. He also owns a ton of other small businesses.  They had a nanny when their kids were small. They don't anymore. I know she helps out with his various businesses.  But I also know he has a lawyer  and a CPA on retainer that he uses.  He has a ton of people doing things for him, arranging his schedule, etc.   He got frustrated when we were trying to get POA for my mom and step-dad.  He expected things to take 20 minutes, but you have to spend time and the thinking when people are sick, and have some dementia isn't linear and isn't efficient.  

I know right now he is doing tons of stuff for his dad.  But his wife is handling all of the finances.  She did all of the research for the assisted living places.  She now manages the bank account for my step-dad, bill paying, etc.  I am betting she does the same for their family.  They have built a lake house and then built the one next door to sell.  How much she is involved, I really don't know.  But their two children are HEAVILY involved in soccer.  The dad still plays soccer and has dreams of one or both of them playing on the Olympics.  They hired a coach for his son's 5 year old team....   Currently, they both go to some kind of school in the Metroplex that is based on soccer.  They have classes, some work at home, and then lots and lots of soccer.  He plays on a club team now, maybe a pre-olympic team.  I am not sure.  I think the boy is in middle school now and the girl in upper elementary.  They play on a variety of teams and it takes both my step-brother and his wife to get them to all of the tournaments and games that take place all over the Metroplex and beyond.   

My step-sister-in-law is a strong person.  I don't feel like she is being taken advantage of.  If they got divorced she would be entitled to half.  I don't remember what she got her degree in....some kind of business degree at Baylor where they both went. She would be absolutely fine if it dissolved. 

Again, that is my only case study.  I am not close to this step-brother and it is a whole other class of living (They live in Highland Park for those of you that know Texas.) We rarely socialized together before my mom died, and now not at all. 

[DawnM]

16 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, you don't have to work to receive Social Security benefit. From the SS website:
Even if they have never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be eligible for benefits if they are at least 62 years of age and you are receiving retirement or disability benefits.

In my case, I worked for a couple of years in teaching in ps for Texas, but they only pay teacher retirement.  We withdrew it and invested it when we moved to OK.  I did teach for a couple of years in OK that did do SS.  Then nothing for 20 years....well, nothing that was paid.  Part of my decided whether or not to go back to work was looking and at this point. I couldn't work enough (at what I am qualified to do) to even get close to getting the 1/2 I will automatically get with my husband.

This isn't going to help everyone though, unless they are married to the person for at least 10 years before a divorce.  And some spouses don't pay in, some spouses don't make enough, etc.......you are in a good situation because you have a high income husband and have been married a long time.

My DH's plan is for me to take SS whenever I want, but for DH to wait to max out, that way, if he dies first, I get a larger amount when he dies.

[Pawz4me]

14 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, you don't have to work to receive Social Security benefit. From the SS website:
Even if they have never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be eligible for benefits if they are at least 62 years of age and you are receiving retirement or disability benefits.

In my case, I worked for a couple of years in teaching in ps for Texas, but they only pay teacher retirement.  We withdrew it and invested it when we moved to OK.  I did teach for a couple of years in OK that did do SS.  Then nothing for 20 years....well, nothing that was paid.  Part of my decided whether or not to go back to work was looking and at this point. I couldn't work enough (at what I am qualified to do) to even get close to getting the 1/2 I will automatically get with my husband.

But divorced people can only draw on the former spouse's SS record if they were married for at least ten years and haven't remarried. If the ex-spouse was a very high earner the other (now divorced) spouse may find themself in a position of not being able to remarry because they'd lose a large SS benefit. 

[Scarlett]

46 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

But divorced people can only draw on the former spouse's SS record if they were married for at least ten years and haven't remarried. If the ex-spouse was a very high earner the other (now divorced) spouse may find themself in a position of not being able to remarry because they'd lose a large SS benefit. 

She could draw off of current/new spouse though. Or are you just saying it might be less if new spouse is not as high of an earner?

[Pawz4me]

Just now, Scarlett said:

She could draw off of current/new spouse though. Or are you just saying it might be less if new spouse is not as high of an earner?

Yes. For example, you could go from being married to a super high earner (high SS spousal benefit) to being married to someone who had a sporadic work record or perhaps had earned a steady but meager income. Now I probably wouldn't be bothered if I had to choose to live with someone versus marrying them in order to keep a high spousal SS benefit, but I know a lot of religious people who would be. And that would be a tough situation for them.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Yes. For example, you could go from being married to a super high earner (high SS spousal benefit) to being married to someone who had a sporadic work record or perhaps had earned a steady but meager income. Now I probably wouldn't be bothered if I had to choose to live with someone versus marrying them in order to keep a high spousal SS benefit, but I know a lot of religious people who would be. And that would be a tough situation for them.

Anytime a person considers a romantic relationship/marriage financial should be part of the decision making. 

[Lecka]

I think this is an important issue to know about, but people have to make their own choices in life.

I am a daughter who is not doing things the way my family thinks I should be doing them, and it’s been frustrating to me at a lot of times.

I feel like it’s possible to swing too far to the side of “I have to protect myself, I have to make sure I have an exit plan.”

 

[Pawz4me]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Anytime a person considers a romantic relationship/marriage financial should be part of the decision making. 

Absolutely. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this discussion -- it seems that a person who is reliant on the spousal benefit for SS purposes could end up having to make a difficult choice. It's just one of so many "what if" things people need to keep in mind.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Absolutely. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this discussion -- it seems that a person who is reliant on the spousal benefit for SS purposes could end up having to make a difficult choice. It's just one of so many "what if" things people need to keep in mind.

My stepmom has not remarried her now long-term partner because her benefits through my dad are much higher. 

[Pawz4me]

13 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Yes. For example, you could go from being married to a super high earner (high SS spousal benefit) to being married to someone who had a sporadic work record or perhaps had earned a steady but meager income. Now I probably wouldn't be bothered if I had to choose to live with someone versus marrying them in order to keep a high spousal SS benefit, but I know a lot of religious people who would be. And that would be a tough situation for them.

Quoting myself to add some numbers for perspective --

For this year the highest possible SS benefit for someone at their full retirement age of 67 is $3,822. The spousal benefit, half of that, is $1,911.

So suppose someone who was divorced from a high earner who would be eligible for that benefit wanted to marry someone whose SS benefit was $2,000. The spousal benefit for that would be $1,000 which would result in a monthly "loss" of $911. If the spouse lived another 20 years that amounts to a loss of $216,000. That's a huge amount of money to give up.

[Ting Tang]

I would love to find a way to earn money.  I think it would need to be done at home because my husband works such odd and unpredictable hours and because I would not earn enough to cover daycare of four kids, even partial before/after school care.  It's certainly not a healthy situation, but I hope it is temporary.  If it were just me, my decision would be much easier.

I used to make a few dollars on the Amazon Turk page. I wonder if that still exists? lol

When you are not getting credit for work done, it is certainly a risk.  You'd have to truly believe and be in the right marriage. Sometimes women think they are, and they are not.  

[Scarlett]

38 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I think this is an important issue to know about, but people have to make their own choices in life.

I am a daughter who is not doing things the way my family thinks I should be doing them, and it’s been frustrating to me at a lot of times.

I feel like it’s possible to swing too far to the side of “I have to protect myself, I have to make sure I have an exit plan.”

 

I agree with this completely.  I feel like if you have been married less than 10 years and get divorced you are young enough to start over.  Is it ideal? Of course not.  Divorce sucks. If you are married to a man who is not paying in ss at all well that is kind of a different and bigger problem.  
And if you divorce a big earner like I did and a new potential mate makes less then you have to decide if the relationship is worth having less money.  It was worth it to me.  I also gave up alimony.   It I came out ok.  And I am happy and healthy and with someone who is good to me.  

[TexasProud]

Yes, honestly, though I have no stats to back this up.  But for high earners, they are less likely to divorce under 10 years.  They WANT their wife to supervise the care of the kids and things.  The divorce for those high earners tend to happen when they are in midlife, starting to feel their age and want to start over with a trophy wife.  That would probably be somewhere around year 20 or so.  So I still stand by the fact that they would get half.  But yes, it would affect if they want to remarry.  But like Scarlett, many would think it might be worth it.  Money isn't everything.  Again, we are talking the upper rich here. If you are talking about someone who makes 150,000, that is totally different.  But if your net worth is in the tens of millions, which is the category that nanny talked about, yeah, they will do just fine. 

[DawnM]

45 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I agree with this completely.  I feel like if you have been married less than 10 years and get divorced you are young enough to start over.  Is it ideal? Of course not.  Divorce sucks. If you are married to a man who is not paying in ss at all well that is kind of a different and bigger problem.  
And if you divorce a big earner like I did and a new potential mate makes less then you have to decide if the relationship is worth having less money.  It was worth it to me.  I also gave up alimony.   It I came out ok.  And I am happy and healthy and with someone who is good to me.  

If you marry young, then yes.   But even if you marry young, it is hard to start over when you have young children and no marketable skills.

But many do remarry and those relationships can fall apart too, and typically then they are older.

[TechWife]

Back to the video. At the end she talked about perceptions & the different ways men & women are asked about how they’ve accomplished what they have. I think women need to stop answering that question with personal information (like having a nanny) and keep it professional. Years ago there was a female politician, who shall remain unnamed, who was asked the name of her clothing designer. She refused to answer the question, saying it wasn’t relevant. She set a boundary. 

[Scarlett]

55 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yes, honestly, though I have no stats to back this up.  But for high earners, they are less likely to divorce under 10 years.  They WANT their wife to supervise the care of the kids and things.  The divorce for those high earners tend to happen when they are in midlife, starting to feel their age and want to start over with a trophy wife.  That would probably be somewhere around year 20 or so.  So I still stand by the fact that they would get half.  But yes, it would affect if they want to remarry.  But like Scarlett, many would think it might be worth it.  Money isn't everything.  Again, we are talking the upper rich here. If you are talking about someone who makes 150,000, that is totally different.  But if your net worth is in the tens of millions, which is the category that nanny talked about, yeah, they will do just fine. 

Exactly.
 

i  just now watched the video.  Certainly my first husband wasn’t in the super rich category and I was still ok. 
 

Also as far as losing a higher ss or alimony obviously I would not have done that if new husband did not have a job. Because I wouldn’t be interested in a man without a job. 

[SKL]

Keep in mind that the situation under discussion is a very temporary one.  Nanny only got a brief snapshot of the lives of some very rich ladies in their short season of parenting small children.  We have 50+ years to earn those credits.  Some are usually earned before having kids.   If the couple has mutually decided to forgo some of the credits in favor of this arrangement, that doesn’t mean there’s no plan to catch up or set up a better financial option.

[Murphy101]

Omg. I’ve been saying this for 30 years.  When people idealize the June Cleaver life I’m like that is NOT what you think it is. June Cleaver worked her ass off so her husband could pursue his career without worry. He never once had to think about who was going to pick up the kids or if he had enough vacay time if Timmy got sick and he needed to rearrange his work schedule. He just didn’t. And I love my husband. I do. Really I do. But he has never been able to fully grasp that I live my entire life on contingency and because of that he doesn’t have to have any contingency plan at all.  He never has had to do that. And keep in mind whenever possible my husband was the man who cleaned house and changed diapers and such. He was not an uninvolved father. But even so. His involvement was entirely based on what I told him needed to be done. If I didn’t say I needed him to be home bc I had plans? Then he never presumed that he needed to take the reins unless and until I handed them to him. 
 

I know several literal millionaires. And a couple billionaires. Their wives are the core of their success as men. And let’s be clear. They love their wives. But if their wives ever stopped being that kind of wife? They’d have serious marriage problems. And when the women get together this is talked about.  Most women are okay with the sacrifice. But some aren’t. Especially as they hit 45/50 and realize they did such a good job being behind the scenes that their family didn’t value it either.  There’s a reason so many women seem to transform themselves at 45-50.  They aren’t really transforming, they just aren’t staying in the background anymore.  

[SKL]

Am I the only person now wondering about the husbands of some of my rich female friends and acquaintances?  One in particular dropped out of the workforce to care for their home and their special needs kid.  Of course his wife has earned millions so presumably they have given his future some thought.

[SKL]

One could also say if isn’t fair that a SAHM of a strong earner is likely to get more social security than a woman who worked full-time many years at modest pay.

[Pawz4me]

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

Am I the only person now wondering about the husbands of some of my rich female friends and acquaintances?  One in particular dropped out of the workforce to care for their home and their special needs kid.  Of course his wife has earned millions so presumably they have given his future some thought.

No, of course not. It's why tried to keep all my replies gender neutral, using "divorced person" or "spouse" or "spousal benefit." I know/have known quite a few men who are stay-at-home-dads, and a couple who quit jobs in order to be caregivers. I also know several women who earn more than their husbands ever will. It goes both ways. We need protections regardless.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

Back to the video. At the end she talked about perceptions & the different ways men & women are asked about how they’ve accomplished what they have. I think women need to stop answering that question with personal information (like having a nanny) and keep it professional.

I agree. 

Though I don't see many instances of these gender-tilted question and answer sessions, unless the context makes it relevant.  For example, I used to be involved with nonprofits that are specific to women in certain industries.  These organizations are designed specifically to support women - single, married, with and without children.  And I think we can agree that on average, male managers aren't hyper aware of the issues specific to moms.  So yes, it comes up in women-to-women settings. 

But on the other hand, there have been many times when I've heard men mention how beneficial their wife's support has been.

Now generally, if I'm asking a successful business person what were the key factors in his/her success, I don't want to hear "marry a slave."  I am probably listening because I too want to succeed in business, so tell me something to help me with that.  Was it your MBA?  Older mentors in your field?  Great communication and follow-up?  Daily 5am meditation (please no)?  I've heard both men and women list things like taking a morning run and then arriving at work an hour early.  I don't need to know who set their alarm or did their laundry or took their car to the shop in order to make all this happen.  Of course, if the business hinges on a talent the wife provides, then sure, tell me about that ... better yet, why isn't she the one being interviewed?  But that doesn't apply to back office things like small-business accounting - you could easily hire that done, so it's a choice to either pay some of your revenue to an outsider, or keep the task and the money in the family.  All other things equal, paying a part-time accountant is going to be cheaper than supporting a wife, kids, and nanny.

Ultimately, I'll bet that if any of those WAHMs that the quoted nanny worked for preferred, they could have gone out and gotten a job with a paycheck, and their dh might have actually found that less stressful than having the whole family's financial well-being dependent on one small business.

(Speaking as a woman who's been a business owner, WAHM, and nanny employer, but not a wife.)

[prairiewindmomma]

Both of my grandmothers worked the family businesses from the 1950s on and were titled and salaried. One moved in posh circles, the other in trade worker circles. One had a nanny and housekeeper, the other just a housekeeper. I dont know that their respective communities knew that either worked.

There are real benefits for the family for a 1099 worker to incorporate and name family members to the board. 

Also, I didnt watch the video but the idea of a nanny publicly talking about a family she worked for, even if she didnt name them, is so distasteful. A nanny works in a private setting and is witness to a lot of sensitive things. There will be some in the community she worked in who will recognize her and associate her with the families she worked for. I have no problems with whistleblowing types of situations where breeching the privacy shield is necessary but generally a nanny or other domestic staff should respect the dynamic they are in.  Many other professions outside of caregiving also require some circumspectness. Most attorneys wont even hint at their client list, let alone disclose anything about their clients’ situations without client permission.

[Katy]

2 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Both of my grandmothers worked the family businesses from the 1950s on and were titled and salaried. One moved in posh circles, the other in trade worker circles. One had a nanny and housekeeper, the other just a housekeeper. I dont know that their respective communities knew that either worked.

There are real benefits for the family for a 1099 worker to incorporate and name family members to the board. 

Also, I didnt watch the video but the idea of a nanny publicly talking about a family she worked for, even if she didnt name them, is so distasteful. A nanny works in a private setting and is witness to a lot of sensitive things. There will be some in the community she worked in who will recognize her and associate her with the families she worked for. I have no problems with whistleblowing types of situations where breeching the privacy shield is necessary but generally a nanny or other domestic staff should respect the dynamic they are in.  Many other professions outside of caregiving also require some circumspectness. Most attorneys wont even hint at their client list, let alone disclose anything about their clients’ situations without client permission.

You really think it is immoral for someone ten years removed from a situation who now lives in a different location to analyze the morality of such a situation? How is that any different than what we do here? 

I asked my grandmother her opinion. She said she was first aware of this as a child in the 1940’s when the women of the family were discussing the economic problems of the war and wives not owning any property, despite working harder and longer hours than their husbands. And in her own business (CPA who sold her own business to a big accounting firm) she frequently saw the same dynamic. She said most of the women identified as stay at home moms because that’s what they wanted to do, but they frequently handled ALL bookkeeping, ordering, office management, customer service, contracts, vendors, and anything else that needed to be dealt with for the first 3-5 years, minimum. Some much longer. 

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Am I the only person now wondering about the husbands of some of my rich female friends and acquaintances?  One in particular dropped out of the workforce to care for their home and their special needs kid.  Of course his wife has earned millions so presumably they have given his future some thought.

I know exactly 2 of those. And here’s the thing. Neither of them place themselves in that role like women have and I’ve never heard nor seen of it being expected of men like it often is of women. And I’ve asked them if the other sahds they know do and they say no.  The concept of working for free basicly just to support of the other’s career just. does. not. happen. They get a title and a paycheck in those exact same scenarios.  I can’t think of any that haven’t. 

[Murphy101]

 

3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Also, I didnt watch the video but the idea of a nanny publicly talking about a family she worked for, even if she didnt name them, is so distasteful. A nanny works in a private setting and is witness to a lot of sensitive things. There will be some in the community she worked in who will recognize her and associate her with the families she worked for. I have no problems with whistleblowing types of situations where breeching the privacy shield is necessary but generally a nanny or other domestic staff should respect the dynamic they are in.  Many other professions outside of caregiving also require some circumspectness. Most attorneys wont even hint at their client list, let alone disclose anything about their clients’ situations without client permission.

She’s years removed from that employment and if they wanted a NDA, then I’m sure they would have gotten one. Aside from all of that - she isn’t even speaking negatively about them.  She didn’t say anything at all disrespectful of them.  But also, as she points out, this is extremely common. There’s no way that description is enough to out anyone.