Big events for each month of the last year - yep, that's right, I go a months without saying anything and then post a novella:
January: Got fired six days into the year. With this auspicious beginning, DH and I both start looking for work.
February: No one has found a job yet. Despite the financial stress and mounting credit card bills, the whole family seems to be generally doing better than 2008 (when we were dealing with many health issues and family struggles, and the girls were not getting the parental attention they needed).
March: Our credit card debt grows and our bank account empties completely. I find a year-long contract position and start March 15th. DH keeps watching the girls and looking for work. The UI check for all my UI payments for the last 2.5 months arrives one week after my first paycheck, just in time to pay for the mortgage for April.
April: Birthday celebrations for all! Grandparents are very generous to our daughters. There's also an anniversary in there, but as usual, no one makes a big fuss about it. DH keeps applying for jobs, and has it down to a fine art. He applies to 3 or 4 jobs a day when they are available, and does this in about 2 to 3 hours a day.
May: We have an unplanned pregnancy, as expected. The only surprise is that it took so long to happen. Although we are both quite worried about how we'll manage the birth in this economy, there is also a subtle resurgence of hope and motivation that our family sorely needed.
June: Stupid car keeps breaking down. I garden when I'm not working.
July: Not only does the stupid car keep breaking down, it's going to need a $2,400 repair in 6 months. We decide it's worth adding to our huge pile of debt to get a new car using Cash for Clunkers. We mitigate our embarressment over having a new car (and the accompanying debt) by getting the vehicle with the lowest Total Cost to Own that we can find, which turns out to be a Honda Fit and quite possibly the car we would have bought anyways if we'd had money. The girls promptly name "her" Bluea.
August: Outdoors projects! A new firepit, one fish pond turns into a sandbox, the garden grows and we eat lots of fresh snow peas. Blueberries come to adorn our front yard. DH starts getting rejection notices occasionally, and we both find this immensely encouraging and take it as a sign that the economy is improving.
September: I realize we're two weeks behind on our mortgage, and try budgeting with Mint.com, which is a really neat service. DH starts getting scheduled for phone interviews that then get cancelled because the job filled before anyone actually interviewed him. My sister gives us a free car that she'd located for us back when we were having car troubles.
October: It's a girl! I make a spreadsheet of all our expected income and predictable expenses through the end of the year, in addition to the budget at Mint.com. DH starts actually getting interviews in person and on the phone, rather than just scheduling and cancelling interviews. The girls have to use last year's Halloween costumes, but still have a great time trick-or-treating with the grandparents.
November: I start putting effort into stocking the freezer so we have food when the baby arrives. DH and I finally agree on a name for the baby. DH gets a job offer for a seasonal tax software support position, and accepts it. I get a holiday bonus for Thanksgiving. We come home from a wonderful Thanksgiving dinner with the step-family in-laws with butternut squash and an excellent bottle of home-made wine.
December: During a cold snap while we can't afford to heat the house, the shower drain freezes solid for about a week. The girls get excited about Christmas despite the lack of decor. I get extra hours at work plus holiday pay, but then lose some money when the family gets sick. We still have enough money to buy work clothes for DH and a few gifts and much needed things. We go to the San Juan Islands to visit the in-laws for Christmas, and a gloriously relaxing time is had by all. DH starts his job the last week of the year, and I start working from home on a schedule that is flexible enough that I can also care for the children. It's a little crazy, but works well enough.
And, looking forward to early 2010, here is what we expect to have happen:
January: DH continues to work while I care for the children and work from home. The baby is due January 22nd, which means 95% chance of being born between January 8th and February 5th. My family tends to run late, so bet on early February. I won't be taking maternity leave at all unless I absolutely physically must. The laptop comes to the hospital with me, and I could conceivably return to my work before I return to my home. DH will probably take a day or two of unpaid sick time to be with me until I leave the hospital.
February: DH could lose his job this month, but I'm guessing he won't. So this month will probably be him working full-time in the office and doing all the housework and cooking (he'll have a good freezer stash to work with) while I work full-time from home and care for the children - including the baby, who will essentially live on the nursing pillow while I work. I suspect I'm going to need some help, especially immediately after the birth.
March: DH could lose his job this month, and it's actually pretty likely that he will. I will definitely lose my job this month, as my contract ends March 15th. I'm supposed to be in the office to train my replacement from March 1st to March 15th. If DH is still working, we will need childcare during that time. I have no idea who or how that will work. Once the contract ends, I will get UI. We shouls also have a $1,000 emergency fund and may have some additional savings. There is a small chance that our mortgage payment might be reduced by $1,000 a month permanently starting about now if our application last October for a Home Mortgage Loan Modification finally goes through, but we aren't counting on it.
April: If DH hasn't lost his job yet, it will end by the 15th of this month. If he does get this far without being laid off, he might get UI. It won't be much, but every little bit helps. Either way, he's going to be looking for any work he can get to keep us from going broke, so I can focus on getting the best job I can. I don't want to end my "UI-paid maternity leave" for anything less than enough to cover our expenses and get us out of debt pretty quickly, too.
May: Our emergency fund and my UI will keep us in the black through this month even if DH's job ends back in March or earlier and even if we put all his income to paying off our credit cards. However, we'll need some additional income between March 15th and the end of May to make it through June in the black. We are pretty optimistic about being able to manage this.
Looking beyond May gets pretty hazy . . . things could end up being really messy financially, in the worst case, which could result in rough times for the whole family. Things could end up being really great, in the best case. So much depends on us finding jobs, and maybe even finding good jobs, and we only have so much control over that. However, I can say that baby Audrey will probably say her first word in 2010, and might even take her first steps near the end of the year. The twins will continue to grow up, and by December they will be 4 years 9 months old. We'll need to start deciding if we will put them into a public school kindergarten in September of 2011 or not. And, of course, we'll be in God's hands no matter what happens, and we will have each other (barring tragedy). There are some things that just don't depend on finances, and I would be a fool not to consider them worth mentioning.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Monday, November 16, 2009
Talking with the kids about birth
Iliana has asked a number of times about whether or not the baby has toys in my womb. I've explained to her that the baby doesn't yet know how to play with toys, and right now she just plays by kicking and moving her body. Of course, Iliana thinks this is sad and wants to get some toys in my womb for the baby to play with.
Both girls have been very curious about the idea of birth. I've been giving them all the information I can as they ask for it, and that seems to be working pretty well. I'm rather surprised by how they seem to handle the most explicit and even gory details just fine. Iliana was surprised to learn that there was a hole there for a baby to come out of. Lenora wanted to know about their birth as well, which was a C-section, and handled the cheerful, frank, and explicit three-sentence summary I gave her just fine - even the bit about the doctors cutting into my womb. She just listened and said, "Oh!" and then went back to playing. Who knows how much she actually retained?
Now I'm just waiting until we're waiting in line at the supermarket and they start explaining what they've learned to some hapless person who just happens to be standing next to us.
Both girls have been very curious about the idea of birth. I've been giving them all the information I can as they ask for it, and that seems to be working pretty well. I'm rather surprised by how they seem to handle the most explicit and even gory details just fine. Iliana was surprised to learn that there was a hole there for a baby to come out of. Lenora wanted to know about their birth as well, which was a C-section, and handled the cheerful, frank, and explicit three-sentence summary I gave her just fine - even the bit about the doctors cutting into my womb. She just listened and said, "Oh!" and then went back to playing. Who knows how much she actually retained?
Now I'm just waiting until we're waiting in line at the supermarket and they start explaining what they've learned to some hapless person who just happens to be standing next to us.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
OAMC tricks
I do occasional once-a-month-cooking days still, but I've started to work out a few tricks to make it a bit easier lately.
The biggest trick I've figured out is that you save a lot of time by not cooking specifically for just the next month. Instead, you cook a lot of similar meals, but you are cooking 1/3rd of the meals you will eat for the next 3 months. Cooking similar meals is a major timesaver, cuts down on the number of ingredients and prep-steps you need to do, and most meals that can be frozen for a month won't have any issues if they are in a deep freezer for another two months.
So far, I've figured out a few groupings of meals that work well for my family and have similar preperation steps: Bean soups and chilis, pizzas, marinades and meats, stir fries, and pasta sauces.
At this point, I've done this style of once-a-month cooking with bean soups and chilis, and with pizzas. I got a lot more done in the same amount of time. Now I'm trying to decide what I want to do for next week. I'm leaning towards marinades, but meat is expensive and our budget is tight right now. I do have a lot of fish already in the freezer, so maybe prepping marinades and marinating the fish and seafood this week, then buy and marinate some beef and chicken next week? Stir-fry could be fun instead, but pasta sauces would probably be really easy and something lighter sounds good right now.
Maybe I'll just reorganize the freezer so it's easier to get to what we already have. That might be more useful in the long run.
My long-term dream is to eventually be able to do this with friends, as a potluck-style party. Something like, have everyone bring 10 cups of pre-soaked beans and one other item off of a list of ingredients, and then enjoy making bean soups together with what everyone brings. Or "bring your own crusts and some toppings" and make pizzas together.
The biggest trick I've figured out is that you save a lot of time by not cooking specifically for just the next month. Instead, you cook a lot of similar meals, but you are cooking 1/3rd of the meals you will eat for the next 3 months. Cooking similar meals is a major timesaver, cuts down on the number of ingredients and prep-steps you need to do, and most meals that can be frozen for a month won't have any issues if they are in a deep freezer for another two months.
So far, I've figured out a few groupings of meals that work well for my family and have similar preperation steps: Bean soups and chilis, pizzas, marinades and meats, stir fries, and pasta sauces.
At this point, I've done this style of once-a-month cooking with bean soups and chilis, and with pizzas. I got a lot more done in the same amount of time. Now I'm trying to decide what I want to do for next week. I'm leaning towards marinades, but meat is expensive and our budget is tight right now. I do have a lot of fish already in the freezer, so maybe prepping marinades and marinating the fish and seafood this week, then buy and marinate some beef and chicken next week? Stir-fry could be fun instead, but pasta sauces would probably be really easy and something lighter sounds good right now.
Maybe I'll just reorganize the freezer so it's easier to get to what we already have. That might be more useful in the long run.
My long-term dream is to eventually be able to do this with friends, as a potluck-style party. Something like, have everyone bring 10 cups of pre-soaked beans and one other item off of a list of ingredients, and then enjoy making bean soups together with what everyone brings. Or "bring your own crusts and some toppings" and make pizzas together.
Kids say the cutest things
I got a few good quotes from the girls recently.
A few weeks back, Lenora offered me some of her food. I thanked her, and she told me that she was feeding the baby!
Lenora is so ready to help nurture and care for her baby sister. Iliana seems to be more ready for a playmate, so I suspect she won't show more than curiousity until the baby gets more active and can interact a bit more. Lenora wanted a baby sister, and Iliana wanted a baby brother. I suspect Iliana has noticed that younger boys tend to be more active than younger girls, and therefore more interesting (to her mindset). Lenora wants something to cuddle and love, so "more active" isn't a good thing to her. Judging by the kicking, this child might be more like Iliana than Lenora. Then again, it might just be that this little girl has more room to move around.
Other cutisms:
When I got home from work on Monday, Iliana ran up to me saying, "Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!" Then she got to me and asked, "Did you buy anything?" I think she wasn't asking for presents, so much as she was realizing that when I come home before their bedtime, I've usually bought groceries. But it was still funny!
At bedtime, Lenora was talking to herself a lot - then suddenly out of nowhere she looks a little concerned and says, "But Mommy, if you keep getting bigger, then maybe you might not be able to fit in the house." I reassured her that the baby would be born and would finish growing outside of me, just like them, and I would go back to my normal size. She didn't seem convinced - I think she then said, "But you might not . . ."
A few weeks back, Lenora offered me some of her food. I thanked her, and she told me that she was feeding the baby!
Lenora is so ready to help nurture and care for her baby sister. Iliana seems to be more ready for a playmate, so I suspect she won't show more than curiousity until the baby gets more active and can interact a bit more. Lenora wanted a baby sister, and Iliana wanted a baby brother. I suspect Iliana has noticed that younger boys tend to be more active than younger girls, and therefore more interesting (to her mindset). Lenora wants something to cuddle and love, so "more active" isn't a good thing to her. Judging by the kicking, this child might be more like Iliana than Lenora. Then again, it might just be that this little girl has more room to move around.
Other cutisms:
When I got home from work on Monday, Iliana ran up to me saying, "Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!" Then she got to me and asked, "Did you buy anything?" I think she wasn't asking for presents, so much as she was realizing that when I come home before their bedtime, I've usually bought groceries. But it was still funny!
At bedtime, Lenora was talking to herself a lot - then suddenly out of nowhere she looks a little concerned and says, "But Mommy, if you keep getting bigger, then maybe you might not be able to fit in the house." I reassured her that the baby would be born and would finish growing outside of me, just like them, and I would go back to my normal size. She didn't seem convinced - I think she then said, "But you might not . . ."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thoughts on Obama's speech
These are my off-the-cuff, as I read the text, reactions to Obama's health care speech.
"Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."
If you are lucky. We found that buying coverage on our own was cheaper for at least my husband and daughters, and these days I'm wondering if there might have been a cheaper option for me as well. But I can accept this as an average.
"More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care."
Yep, this is what I worry about. Pre-existing conditions and job loss.
"Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most."
Okay, this is something I want to see . . . I think. A little clarification might be nice, though. But it sounds like something I think we need.
"We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick."
I think I disagree with this. People should be allowed to take higher deductibles and pay more out of pocket if they choose. A person can reasonably save $20K in their life, and choose to take a $20K deductible to lower their health insurance costs. A person who works hard might be able to save $100K, and some people would rather depend on home equity they've built up than pay for a low-deductible plan. There should not be such a limit, IMO.
"And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
"With no extra charge" worries me. Are they saying that insurance companies shouldn't be reimbursed for this care? That doesn't make sense to me. But I do want to see incentives of SOME kind for people to get preventative care, so this might be something I agree with . . . more clarification is needed.
"the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. . . . We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices."
How is this different from eHealthInsurance.com? That's what we used to shop around for competitively priced insurance. And it worked GREAT for us! I guess I don't see why the government is doing this, what it is adding. Visibility of choice, at least, I guess. There is something to be said for that.
"In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it."
A public option for catastrophic care? Is that what this is? If so, I support it whole-heartedly. And also if it is just for those w/ pre-existing conditions.
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
I call bullshit. I don't think a single state has this requirement. I know lots of people who don't carry auto-insurance. The consequence, of course, is that they aren't legally allowed to drive - but there is a way to avoid it. I have used this option in the past to save money. I know people who never bothered to get their license. Sorry, the analogy proves your opponents' points.
Also, what is the definiton of "basic" health isurance? Catasrophic + preventative care makes more sense. Anything else should NOT be required for sure - there are ways to handle more normal expenses, like savings. And we need to be careful not to over-cover care so that market forces continue to apply.
"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
This had better be true.
"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."
I support this, with some misgivings.
"based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."
I find this plausible. I really don't know that a public option would be able to offer anything better than a private option - unless it's subsidized (duh duh duhhhhhh).
"[Insurance companies] argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."
Yep, I support this. That's my main misgiving.
"And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
Boy, "the long term" - is that ever vague! Ten years? One hundred? Infinity, approaching 4 trillion as an asymptote?
Hrm . . . other than mandated health insurance and possibly limits on out-of-pocket expenses, it actually sounds pretty good to me. I really don't like the insurance mandate, unless it's basically catastrophic care and maybe a little preventative care that gets insured, but I do want to see a non-subsidized public option. And I don't believe we're going to get all this for free, either.
"Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."
If you are lucky. We found that buying coverage on our own was cheaper for at least my husband and daughters, and these days I'm wondering if there might have been a cheaper option for me as well. But I can accept this as an average.
"More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care."
Yep, this is what I worry about. Pre-existing conditions and job loss.
"Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most."
Okay, this is something I want to see . . . I think. A little clarification might be nice, though. But it sounds like something I think we need.
"We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick."
I think I disagree with this. People should be allowed to take higher deductibles and pay more out of pocket if they choose. A person can reasonably save $20K in their life, and choose to take a $20K deductible to lower their health insurance costs. A person who works hard might be able to save $100K, and some people would rather depend on home equity they've built up than pay for a low-deductible plan. There should not be such a limit, IMO.
"And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
"With no extra charge" worries me. Are they saying that insurance companies shouldn't be reimbursed for this care? That doesn't make sense to me. But I do want to see incentives of SOME kind for people to get preventative care, so this might be something I agree with . . . more clarification is needed.
"the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. . . . We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices."
How is this different from eHealthInsurance.com? That's what we used to shop around for competitively priced insurance. And it worked GREAT for us! I guess I don't see why the government is doing this, what it is adding. Visibility of choice, at least, I guess. There is something to be said for that.
"In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it."
A public option for catastrophic care? Is that what this is? If so, I support it whole-heartedly. And also if it is just for those w/ pre-existing conditions.
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
I call bullshit. I don't think a single state has this requirement. I know lots of people who don't carry auto-insurance. The consequence, of course, is that they aren't legally allowed to drive - but there is a way to avoid it. I have used this option in the past to save money. I know people who never bothered to get their license. Sorry, the analogy proves your opponents' points.
Also, what is the definiton of "basic" health isurance? Catasrophic + preventative care makes more sense. Anything else should NOT be required for sure - there are ways to handle more normal expenses, like savings. And we need to be careful not to over-cover care so that market forces continue to apply.
"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
This had better be true.
"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."
I support this, with some misgivings.
"based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."
I find this plausible. I really don't know that a public option would be able to offer anything better than a private option - unless it's subsidized (duh duh duhhhhhh).
"[Insurance companies] argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."
Yep, I support this. That's my main misgiving.
"And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
Boy, "the long term" - is that ever vague! Ten years? One hundred? Infinity, approaching 4 trillion as an asymptote?
Hrm . . . other than mandated health insurance and possibly limits on out-of-pocket expenses, it actually sounds pretty good to me. I really don't like the insurance mandate, unless it's basically catastrophic care and maybe a little preventative care that gets insured, but I do want to see a non-subsidized public option. And I don't believe we're going to get all this for free, either.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Home Loan Modification is still possible!
We applied for a "Making Homes Affordable" home loan modification last June. This is the program where they will give you an obscenely low interest rate and stretch the term of your mortgage loan in order to bring your payments down to 38% of your income, if you meet certain qualifications like at least a 10% decrease in income during the last year. It's designed to keep people from going into foreclosure because of the economy affecting both income and the value of their homes.
Today I called about trying to avoid a late fee and get back on track with our mortgage payments. Tons of car repairs and missed work in the last few months caused us to eat through our emergency budget and then fall behind on mortgage payments. While we were talking, he asked about this program and I said that we applied, but never heard back and that it sounded like our situation was too bad to qualify. He assured me that this didn't make sense, took a look at our file, and found that they had made some mistakes about the requirements and never notified us that we needed to send some more paperwork before our case could be reviewed!
To be reviewed properly for the Home Modification, we need to gather some documents and fax them. Getting the modification will have the following effects for us:
(1) Our mortgage payment will be decreased by about $1K per month
(2) We will pay far less interest over the lifetime of our loan
(3) The length of our loan will likely be extended somewhat (assuming we don't pay ahead)
(4) Our credit score will be damaged (I guess we'd better get debt-free so that doesn't matter!)
(5) We will need to attend debt counseling, which we can probably get for free from the HUD. It will be a bit of a hassle to arrange and attend, but it's a sensible requirement and we'll undoubtedly be able to make good use of the counseling time.
(6) Our "realistic worst case" scenario goes from missing 2 to 3 housing payments over the next year (when my contract ends and I can't work at MS for 100 days) to being able to save ahead so that we have what we need to at least break even during that period. The "realistic worst case" scenario, BTW, is that I finish my contract and DH still isn't working, I get unemployment for 100 days without finding another job, and then return to my old job at the same pay. This is what we assume the future will look like when planning and budgeting. Odds are that things will actually work out better than this, but we aren't counting on it.
So the Home Loan Modification isn't without a downside, but it's a very useful tool for where we are right now.
Today I called about trying to avoid a late fee and get back on track with our mortgage payments. Tons of car repairs and missed work in the last few months caused us to eat through our emergency budget and then fall behind on mortgage payments. While we were talking, he asked about this program and I said that we applied, but never heard back and that it sounded like our situation was too bad to qualify. He assured me that this didn't make sense, took a look at our file, and found that they had made some mistakes about the requirements and never notified us that we needed to send some more paperwork before our case could be reviewed!
To be reviewed properly for the Home Modification, we need to gather some documents and fax them. Getting the modification will have the following effects for us:
(1) Our mortgage payment will be decreased by about $1K per month
(2) We will pay far less interest over the lifetime of our loan
(3) The length of our loan will likely be extended somewhat (assuming we don't pay ahead)
(4) Our credit score will be damaged (I guess we'd better get debt-free so that doesn't matter!)
(5) We will need to attend debt counseling, which we can probably get for free from the HUD. It will be a bit of a hassle to arrange and attend, but it's a sensible requirement and we'll undoubtedly be able to make good use of the counseling time.
(6) Our "realistic worst case" scenario goes from missing 2 to 3 housing payments over the next year (when my contract ends and I can't work at MS for 100 days) to being able to save ahead so that we have what we need to at least break even during that period. The "realistic worst case" scenario, BTW, is that I finish my contract and DH still isn't working, I get unemployment for 100 days without finding another job, and then return to my old job at the same pay. This is what we assume the future will look like when planning and budgeting. Odds are that things will actually work out better than this, but we aren't counting on it.
So the Home Loan Modification isn't without a downside, but it's a very useful tool for where we are right now.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Jobs - wouldn't it be great?
It's no secret I want to work less and stay home more. DH likes this idea too, except for the reality that we haven't yet figured out a realistic way to afford it.
I'm wondering more and more if we could possibly pull off something clever with contract work long-term, so that I spend 6 months at home and DH spends 3 months at home each year, with 3 months where we both work and the children are in care - sort of a reverse-summer-break.
This would actually work as a two-year cycle to maximize the time DH and I can spend at each job. In other words, DH would work for 18 months straight and I would work for 1 year straight, with three months of overlap at each end.
A plan like this has a number of hang-ups, and I've already thought of probably 90% of them and come up with decent solutions for most that I've thought of, with ease. However, there is one thing that absolutely must be in place before we deliberately attempt this, something that I am less sure how to handle:
Debt-free with three to six months expenses in the bank.
This is where this plan gets tough. A plan like the one I described has significant financial risk every three to six months, and we MUST have some buffer space! To get this, DH and I will need to work simultaneously for roughly two years netting $20K per year above our non-debt expenses before we can even start (obviously, we're not including mortgage debt here!). There are other ideas, but none that we can count on (e.g., start a business netting $20 to 30 K a year; have one of us work nights consistently; and so on). Even having us both work has a number of variables we can't control, like that DH has been looking for work for 8 months with no luck already and that childcare could eat through his income if hours don't work out.
Could we handle it? Is it worth it to put our kids in childcare for two years? Is there another way to get these $$?
I'm wondering more and more if we could possibly pull off something clever with contract work long-term, so that I spend 6 months at home and DH spends 3 months at home each year, with 3 months where we both work and the children are in care - sort of a reverse-summer-break.
This would actually work as a two-year cycle to maximize the time DH and I can spend at each job. In other words, DH would work for 18 months straight and I would work for 1 year straight, with three months of overlap at each end.
A plan like this has a number of hang-ups, and I've already thought of probably 90% of them and come up with decent solutions for most that I've thought of, with ease. However, there is one thing that absolutely must be in place before we deliberately attempt this, something that I am less sure how to handle:
Debt-free with three to six months expenses in the bank.
This is where this plan gets tough. A plan like the one I described has significant financial risk every three to six months, and we MUST have some buffer space! To get this, DH and I will need to work simultaneously for roughly two years netting $20K per year above our non-debt expenses before we can even start (obviously, we're not including mortgage debt here!). There are other ideas, but none that we can count on (e.g., start a business netting $20 to 30 K a year; have one of us work nights consistently; and so on). Even having us both work has a number of variables we can't control, like that DH has been looking for work for 8 months with no luck already and that childcare could eat through his income if hours don't work out.
Could we handle it? Is it worth it to put our kids in childcare for two years? Is there another way to get these $$?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
