Flexibility or Money?

lorist202

The previous post about part-time work reminded me of my ongoing personal dilemma and I'm seeking opinions.

My job is currently part-time, with my working 4 days/week, and all the flexibility I want.  I have no formal benefits, and my rate of pay is lousy for my industry.  I have health/dental through DH.

I have the opportunity to go full time at any point.  This would include benefits (401k, flex spending, holiday pay, PTO/Vaca time, life ins., etc.), but I'm unsure if my rate of pay would change.  I would be unable to access time off for 3 mos. following f/t appointment date.

Meanwhile, we're TTC, and I'll likely SAH for a year after the next LO.  Considering I have an active toddler, the thought of being preg and working full time scares me.  Plus, my little guy will only be 2 once, and I enjoy all the time I can spend with him. 

On the other hand, if I work full time, I can save some good money to have for the year that I SAH, and maybe even send DS to school 1-2 mornings per week to play and socialize with the other kiddos (and give me some alone time with baby).

Thoughts?

AZ123

In your particular situation, I would go full time and save for the next baby so that when you SAH you aren't financially strapped and can more fully enjoy both kids and enjoy SAH.

But overall, I have chosen flexibility v. money. It is a temporary situation while the kids are young and it isn't going to hurt my career or future job potentials. It also doesn't hurt us financially.

I always look at the bigger picture of what's best for my family v. what I personally want.

Bella427

I just chose flexibility over money last week.   Unless your DH's job is very flexible, no way would I agree to 3 months of no time off. 

Karla CS

3 months of no time off COULD be pretty difficult while pregnant.  Think back to all the appointments, you may have morning sickness, etc. If you know your company would be flexible for things like that but what they're really meaning is "no vacation time off", then it's not a huge deal. If they mean rigid, you have to be there 8-5, no exceptions, then that could lead to a bigger problem.

If you know you'll have some flexibility, I would say go full-time while you can and squirrel away as much as possible. 

rjeller32

AZ123:

In your particular situation, I would go full time and save for the next baby so that when you SAH you aren't financially strapped and can more fully enjoy both kids and enjoy SAH.

But overall, I have chosen flexibility v. money. It is a temporary situation while the kids are young and it isn't going to hurt my career or future job potentials. It also doesn't hurt us financially.

I always look at the bigger picture of what's best for my family v. what I personally want.

I would go F/T too. You don't want to end up strapped for funds when you are a SAHM, I have done that for the past year, and just got lucky enough to find a F/T job that pays well, although I am out 3 months of PTO. But I am lucky that they will allow unpaid time off for appts and such for my LO's. I am just glad to have weekends with my girls. 

 

iverske9

I work full time right now, have a 21 month year old and expecting another. It will be tough but it is doable. I would save the money so I wouldn't worry as much when I SAH.

9fraulein

I would do full time. 

plusoneblog

I would probably also go full time. I feel like it would be easier knowing it is temporary. And as I am sure you know, there can be a lot of unexpected expenses once baby arrives.

JessAnnJ

I guess I'm in the minority, but if your rate of pay is not changing then the extra day a week might not make a huge difference financially. The stress difference would probably be large. The 401k and insurance doesn't really matter if you essentially plan on quitting your job in a year or so to SAH and you are already getting insurance through your husband.