- This topic has 840 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
justme.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2009 at 8:58 AM #446737August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM #445968
PKMAN
ParticipantEven if her house suffers 50% decline in value, she could still sell it and at least be debt-free. Like the stock market, sometimes you just have to cut your loss and move on.
She could move back in Queens or live in a cheaper area of Connecticut. I’ve done both (Flushing and New Haven) and it’s not bad at all.
My sister and her husband both work in NYC (live in Queens) and make less than $200K combined. They have 3 kids (all about the same age of this woman’s), paid off their mortgage in about 10 years and are living comfortably.
Earning $300K annually and broke is not acceptable in any city, even ones with higher cost-of-living than NYC (Tokyo, London, etc.). Things that she considers necessity are things that most of us can do without or can be trimmed down. It’s her choice to live in an affluent upper-class community. It’s her choice to have her kids feel the peer-pressure of much wealthier kids. It’s her choice to not want to leave a surrounding and lifestyle that she’s accustomed to.
No need to feel sorry for the choices she made and the predicament that she’s in right now. Most of us would gladly trade job (and pay) with her and would be able to find a much more cost-effective solution to carry on our lives without being broke.
August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM #446161ParticipantEven if her house suffers 50% decline in value, she could still sell it and at least be debt-free. Like the stock market, sometimes you just have to cut your loss and move on.
She could move back in Queens or live in a cheaper area of Connecticut. I’ve done both (Flushing and New Haven) and it’s not bad at all.
My sister and her husband both work in NYC (live in Queens) and make less than $200K combined. They have 3 kids (all about the same age of this woman’s), paid off their mortgage in about 10 years and are living comfortably.
Earning $300K annually and broke is not acceptable in any city, even ones with higher cost-of-living than NYC (Tokyo, London, etc.). Things that she considers necessity are things that most of us can do without or can be trimmed down. It’s her choice to live in an affluent upper-class community. It’s her choice to have her kids feel the peer-pressure of much wealthier kids. It’s her choice to not want to leave a surrounding and lifestyle that she’s accustomed to.
No need to feel sorry for the choices she made and the predicament that she’s in right now. Most of us would gladly trade job (and pay) with her and would be able to find a much more cost-effective solution to carry on our lives without being broke.
August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM #446499ParticipantEven if her house suffers 50% decline in value, she could still sell it and at least be debt-free. Like the stock market, sometimes you just have to cut your loss and move on.
She could move back in Queens or live in a cheaper area of Connecticut. I’ve done both (Flushing and New Haven) and it’s not bad at all.
My sister and her husband both work in NYC (live in Queens) and make less than $200K combined. They have 3 kids (all about the same age of this woman’s), paid off their mortgage in about 10 years and are living comfortably.
Earning $300K annually and broke is not acceptable in any city, even ones with higher cost-of-living than NYC (Tokyo, London, etc.). Things that she considers necessity are things that most of us can do without or can be trimmed down. It’s her choice to live in an affluent upper-class community. It’s her choice to have her kids feel the peer-pressure of much wealthier kids. It’s her choice to not want to leave a surrounding and lifestyle that she’s accustomed to.
No need to feel sorry for the choices she made and the predicament that she’s in right now. Most of us would gladly trade job (and pay) with her and would be able to find a much more cost-effective solution to carry on our lives without being broke.
August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM #446571ParticipantEven if her house suffers 50% decline in value, she could still sell it and at least be debt-free. Like the stock market, sometimes you just have to cut your loss and move on.
She could move back in Queens or live in a cheaper area of Connecticut. I’ve done both (Flushing and New Haven) and it’s not bad at all.
My sister and her husband both work in NYC (live in Queens) and make less than $200K combined. They have 3 kids (all about the same age of this woman’s), paid off their mortgage in about 10 years and are living comfortably.
Earning $300K annually and broke is not acceptable in any city, even ones with higher cost-of-living than NYC (Tokyo, London, etc.). Things that she considers necessity are things that most of us can do without or can be trimmed down. It’s her choice to live in an affluent upper-class community. It’s her choice to have her kids feel the peer-pressure of much wealthier kids. It’s her choice to not want to leave a surrounding and lifestyle that she’s accustomed to.
No need to feel sorry for the choices she made and the predicament that she’s in right now. Most of us would gladly trade job (and pay) with her and would be able to find a much more cost-effective solution to carry on our lives without being broke.
August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM #446751ParticipantEven if her house suffers 50% decline in value, she could still sell it and at least be debt-free. Like the stock market, sometimes you just have to cut your loss and move on.
She could move back in Queens or live in a cheaper area of Connecticut. I’ve done both (Flushing and New Haven) and it’s not bad at all.
My sister and her husband both work in NYC (live in Queens) and make less than $200K combined. They have 3 kids (all about the same age of this woman’s), paid off their mortgage in about 10 years and are living comfortably.
Earning $300K annually and broke is not acceptable in any city, even ones with higher cost-of-living than NYC (Tokyo, London, etc.). Things that she considers necessity are things that most of us can do without or can be trimmed down. It’s her choice to live in an affluent upper-class community. It’s her choice to have her kids feel the peer-pressure of much wealthier kids. It’s her choice to not want to leave a surrounding and lifestyle that she’s accustomed to.
No need to feel sorry for the choices she made and the predicament that she’s in right now. Most of us would gladly trade job (and pay) with her and would be able to find a much more cost-effective solution to carry on our lives without being broke.
August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM #445973werewolf34
ParticipantOn a positive note, at least she works.
I know plenty of older women who want to be kept ladies. Check out Georges in LJ
August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM #446166ParticipantOn a positive note, at least she works.
I know plenty of older women who want to be kept ladies. Check out Georges in LJ
August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM #446504ParticipantOn a positive note, at least she works.
I know plenty of older women who want to be kept ladies. Check out Georges in LJ
August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM #446576ParticipantOn a positive note, at least she works.
I know plenty of older women who want to be kept ladies. Check out Georges in LJ
August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM #446756ParticipantOn a positive note, at least she works.
I know plenty of older women who want to be kept ladies. Check out Georges in LJ
August 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM #445983CBad
ParticipantWell said, PKMAN.
And if she didn’t work, the husband would have just been paying more alimony and child support.
And just maybe if she hadn’t worked or worked part time and had focused on putting her husband and children first, the divorce wouldn’t have happened. Just speculating. As a mother, I simply cannot understand the point of having children if this is what your life is like with them. Someone else does the bulk of the child care (and I’m sure always has since birth, infant, toddler, and preschool years) and you assist in taking them to activities and watching them perform sometimes. What’s the point? Get a dog. Plus, when did she ever spend time with her husband throughout this daily schedule? Not surprising that it ended in divorce. Lots of women HAVE TO work just to make ends meet for their family but she wasn’t one of them. I bet the husband’s new wife pays a lot more attention to him and his needs. Again, just speculating….
August 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM #446176ParticipantWell said, PKMAN.
And if she didn’t work, the husband would have just been paying more alimony and child support.
And just maybe if she hadn’t worked or worked part time and had focused on putting her husband and children first, the divorce wouldn’t have happened. Just speculating. As a mother, I simply cannot understand the point of having children if this is what your life is like with them. Someone else does the bulk of the child care (and I’m sure always has since birth, infant, toddler, and preschool years) and you assist in taking them to activities and watching them perform sometimes. What’s the point? Get a dog. Plus, when did she ever spend time with her husband throughout this daily schedule? Not surprising that it ended in divorce. Lots of women HAVE TO work just to make ends meet for their family but she wasn’t one of them. I bet the husband’s new wife pays a lot more attention to him and his needs. Again, just speculating….
August 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM #446514ParticipantWell said, PKMAN.
And if she didn’t work, the husband would have just been paying more alimony and child support.
And just maybe if she hadn’t worked or worked part time and had focused on putting her husband and children first, the divorce wouldn’t have happened. Just speculating. As a mother, I simply cannot understand the point of having children if this is what your life is like with them. Someone else does the bulk of the child care (and I’m sure always has since birth, infant, toddler, and preschool years) and you assist in taking them to activities and watching them perform sometimes. What’s the point? Get a dog. Plus, when did she ever spend time with her husband throughout this daily schedule? Not surprising that it ended in divorce. Lots of women HAVE TO work just to make ends meet for their family but she wasn’t one of them. I bet the husband’s new wife pays a lot more attention to him and his needs. Again, just speculating….
August 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM #446586ParticipantWell said, PKMAN.
And if she didn’t work, the husband would have just been paying more alimony and child support.
And just maybe if she hadn’t worked or worked part time and had focused on putting her husband and children first, the divorce wouldn’t have happened. Just speculating. As a mother, I simply cannot understand the point of having children if this is what your life is like with them. Someone else does the bulk of the child care (and I’m sure always has since birth, infant, toddler, and preschool years) and you assist in taking them to activities and watching them perform sometimes. What’s the point? Get a dog. Plus, when did she ever spend time with her husband throughout this daily schedule? Not surprising that it ended in divorce. Lots of women HAVE TO work just to make ends meet for their family but she wasn’t one of them. I bet the husband’s new wife pays a lot more attention to him and his needs. Again, just speculating….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.