It is very much dependent on outside factors. My working at my before kids job would have hardly pulled the weight. Hmm if DH lost his job it would still be easier for him to get a job, he has more experience and skills then me.
Any change in income is challenging but I don't think that a SAHM is an untapped resource. The SAHMs I know are very resourceful and frugal many of us have more time to research and find deals. We are less stressed. I honestly have found that in staying home has saved me more then if I was working. This is also like saying that families where each parent only has one job is an untapped resource. I know many families where parents work multiple jobs to support there family.
Personally if I was working I would spend more money, Clothes for work, wear on my car, child care, more dinners out because I would be too tired, A house keeper because I barely keep up with it now. As a SAHM I am tapped I am busy. My working could pull us through a tough time but It isn't something that I would want to last.

__________________
Kimberly Proud Mommy to Bethany Rose April 2006 &

Organizer of the Coupon Clippers of Tacoma

Yes* This is how we discuss it in our house is that me being a SAHM is actually a saftey net *of a sort*!!

For example: We are used to living on ONE income!! If DH lost his job then I could go to work and we would be used to lving off ONE income!! If I worked and DH worked and we were using both our income to live on then if ONE of us lost our job we would be in trouble if it took awhile for that person to find a job.

The theory is valid, that is why many experts suggest living on one persons income and putting the second income (if you have two) if saving or retirement!!

Well can see both sides of this issue. Yes, I agree that if only one spouse is working and the couple/family is living on just one income that it would be easier to adapt if the one lost their job and the other could get one. The still living off one income concept does work there. So yes, I would think it would be easier.

Where I disagree with the concept is that I wouldn't "PLAN" to only have one of us work just in case that ever happened. I don't live my life for worst case scenarios. Now I have stayed home with my children, but not because it fit into some great economic plan of ours but because it fit into our lifestyle choices we made. So in that sense I can see calimari's point also.

I think the bottom line is that people just need to make the decision based on what is important to them and keeping what works for their family in mind. But I would never stay home JUST to make it easier in case DH lost his job.

And thanks cookie for an intelligent thought provoking question!!

__________________

Unless of course, you are like DH and I, who even though we BOTH work, we live off of one income. It's called living within your means, and we live well below our means. I know most people don't do that if both are working, and I can see the validity in the theory to some extent. If something happened to either of us, our savings plus the other person's income would make it even out, till the other one could find new employment.

__________________
Chopey

The way I understood the OP is that SAHMs will be able to work to make up the difference for the higher expenses not to replace dh's loss of wages.

If dh were to lose his job there is no way I could make up for his wages. He's in upper management with a masters. I have a bachelors degree but never worked in my field. DH & I would both be working. Right now we are used to one salary.

I believe that concept was stated in the book - The Two Income Trap. I liked this book and thought it stated some interesting theories and presented good practical advice. This book (even though I think it was published several years ago) totally predicted this economic downturn that we're having now. One chapter was completed devoted to a prediction of the mortgage crisis that this country is in currently.

Anyway....yes, I think this is a valid argument. The point is that if a family is living on one income and that one income is lost (through job less, illness, etc.), the non-working spouse can step up and replace the lost income. Or if there are economic hardships (medical bills, emergencies, etc.), that second income could be used to make up the gap. The theory is that families tend to spend what they make, so it would be more difficult for a 2-income family to deal with going to 1-income, but a 1-income family already has a tightened belt.

I do understand that this would not work for all families, especially if there is a huge disparity in salary potential between the spouses. However, in our family I am the "safety net". I have a Masters degree and can find work easily because of the shortage of speech therapist. I am keeping up with my continuing educaiton/licenses so I am ready to go back to work as soon as it becomes necessary. I don't think I could make quite as much money as my husband currently makes, but it would be close. There is an added feeling of security knowing that I am a "safety net" for our family.

I think some are bitter because they are having a hard time finding a job. That is not the case in every area.

I don't think it is a safety net for us or a plan. In our home, my dh has the potential to earn much more than I. It would be a stretch for me to work instead of him. Although I was working in commercial banking before the kids, that is so limited and specialized. I would probably need to work as an office manager or administrative assistant.

I understand the theory. I do not agree with it, except for a few cases - such as the breadwinner maybe NOT making a huge income to begin with, and the SAHM having a degree that could be promptly used again (such as the accountant, above). I do not think that is the case in most families. The examples of the people I know reflect that.

__________________

"The nonworking spouse can suddenly go back to work" is such a huge assumption. If the nonworking spouse can get a job that quickly (and at a reasonable salary), then why can't the first spouse? I guess we're just different..we're a 2 family income and we already live on 1 salary..my whole salary is saved...we have always been very smart with our money. Even an accountant (like myself) could not just jump in and expect a certain income. Yes, there are many good jobs out there that pay well, but if you're "filling in", you may have to take a huge pay cut. I like knowing that we have our safety net already in place. The argument does have some weight, and I do understand the concept, it's just that for many people, it wouldn't work.

__________________
I just wanna live while I'm alive...

With my *potential* to make $6.50 an hour(the highest wage I have ever been paid) and my husband's (new) income of $28 an hour, I am afraid that this is a ridiculous ideal for us. If my husband lost his job, he could go work for the walmart distribution center for $13 an hour(you have to be able to lift over 50 lbs). I am definately no "untapped resource", that's for sure. Even if I worked full time now, with two kids in daycare I would be losing money I also agree that it is a personal decision that everyone must make based on your own family situation, not economics.

__________________
Debbie 3 years
Sadie 2 years
Foster DD "Z" 2 months

Baby #3-Leah Nicole due in July!