going broke on 300K/year

[CA renter]

One more, then I’m done… 😉

TG,

I hope you are feeling better! Just wanted you to know that your posts are always very insightful and lots of fun to read. Thanks for being such a level-headed and diplomatic member of our little club here. Not singling you out at all. 😉

[UCGal]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken.

I agree with the statement that women (and men) can’t have it “all”.

There are tradeoffs for everyone – power career vs time with the family. If you have the high power career, the high income, you typically have a lot more time at the office, or chained to the office via your cell/laptop.

I work in a technical field and was well aware that if I took a break from my career when I had my boys, I’d have a harder time getting back in the marketplace at the same level. Technology advances and the perception of being behind the times, technically, is an interview killer.

That may be less true for non engineering positions. My husband has seen women, in architecture, successfully put their career on hold, then re-enter when they’re ready.

My compromise, I cut my hours to 60% for the first year, then 80% of full time after that. My husband did the same thing. This allowed us to only need childcare 2 days/week when they were babies.

Maybe because we were older parents, our professional reputations were well established and our employers were willing to keep us on a part time basis. If we were new in the job force, that would not have been the case.

We gave up some career advancement opportunities… I was told, explicitly, by a former boss that I would never get a promotion while working part time. (I transfered to a different group and got the promotion.)

If you want the power job, and the salary that goes with it… you’ll spend less time with your kids… regardless of your gender. Most power jobs require very long hours… more than the nominal 40 hour work week.

We chose to not have it all. We live in an older house that is not in Carmel Valley. We don’t drive BMWs. We dress our kids in Target brand stuff rather than designer labels. I’m fine not having it all but still having a job I enjoy and also having time with my kids.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But compromises have to be made.

[UCGal]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken.

I agree with the statement that women (and men) can’t have it “all”.

There are tradeoffs for everyone – power career vs time with the family. If you have the high power career, the high income, you typically have a lot more time at the office, or chained to the office via your cell/laptop.

I work in a technical field and was well aware that if I took a break from my career when I had my boys, I’d have a harder time getting back in the marketplace at the same level. Technology advances and the perception of being behind the times, technically, is an interview killer.

That may be less true for non engineering positions. My husband has seen women, in architecture, successfully put their career on hold, then re-enter when they’re ready.

My compromise, I cut my hours to 60% for the first year, then 80% of full time after that. My husband did the same thing. This allowed us to only need childcare 2 days/week when they were babies.

Maybe because we were older parents, our professional reputations were well established and our employers were willing to keep us on a part time basis. If we were new in the job force, that would not have been the case.

We gave up some career advancement opportunities… I was told, explicitly, by a former boss that I would never get a promotion while working part time. (I transfered to a different group and got the promotion.)

If you want the power job, and the salary that goes with it… you’ll spend less time with your kids… regardless of your gender. Most power jobs require very long hours… more than the nominal 40 hour work week.

We chose to not have it all. We live in an older house that is not in Carmel Valley. We don’t drive BMWs. We dress our kids in Target brand stuff rather than designer labels. I’m fine not having it all but still having a job I enjoy and also having time with my kids.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But compromises have to be made.

[UCGal]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken.

I agree with the statement that women (and men) can’t have it “all”.

There are tradeoffs for everyone – power career vs time with the family. If you have the high power career, the high income, you typically have a lot more time at the office, or chained to the office via your cell/laptop.

I work in a technical field and was well aware that if I took a break from my career when I had my boys, I’d have a harder time getting back in the marketplace at the same level. Technology advances and the perception of being behind the times, technically, is an interview killer.

That may be less true for non engineering positions. My husband has seen women, in architecture, successfully put their career on hold, then re-enter when they’re ready.

My compromise, I cut my hours to 60% for the first year, then 80% of full time after that. My husband did the same thing. This allowed us to only need childcare 2 days/week when they were babies.

Maybe because we were older parents, our professional reputations were well established and our employers were willing to keep us on a part time basis. If we were new in the job force, that would not have been the case.

We gave up some career advancement opportunities… I was told, explicitly, by a former boss that I would never get a promotion while working part time. (I transfered to a different group and got the promotion.)

If you want the power job, and the salary that goes with it… you’ll spend less time with your kids… regardless of your gender. Most power jobs require very long hours… more than the nominal 40 hour work week.

We chose to not have it all. We live in an older house that is not in Carmel Valley. We don’t drive BMWs. We dress our kids in Target brand stuff rather than designer labels. I’m fine not having it all but still having a job I enjoy and also having time with my kids.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But compromises have to be made.

[UCGal]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken.

I agree with the statement that women (and men) can’t have it “all”.

There are tradeoffs for everyone – power career vs time with the family. If you have the high power career, the high income, you typically have a lot more time at the office, or chained to the office via your cell/laptop.

I work in a technical field and was well aware that if I took a break from my career when I had my boys, I’d have a harder time getting back in the marketplace at the same level. Technology advances and the perception of being behind the times, technically, is an interview killer.

That may be less true for non engineering positions. My husband has seen women, in architecture, successfully put their career on hold, then re-enter when they’re ready.

My compromise, I cut my hours to 60% for the first year, then 80% of full time after that. My husband did the same thing. This allowed us to only need childcare 2 days/week when they were babies.

Maybe because we were older parents, our professional reputations were well established and our employers were willing to keep us on a part time basis. If we were new in the job force, that would not have been the case.

We gave up some career advancement opportunities… I was told, explicitly, by a former boss that I would never get a promotion while working part time. (I transfered to a different group and got the promotion.)

If you want the power job, and the salary that goes with it… you’ll spend less time with your kids… regardless of your gender. Most power jobs require very long hours… more than the nominal 40 hour work week.

We chose to not have it all. We live in an older house that is not in Carmel Valley. We don’t drive BMWs. We dress our kids in Target brand stuff rather than designer labels. I’m fine not having it all but still having a job I enjoy and also having time with my kids.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But compromises have to be made.

[UCGal]

What an interesting turn this thread has taken.

I agree with the statement that women (and men) can’t have it “all”.

There are tradeoffs for everyone – power career vs time with the family. If you have the high power career, the high income, you typically have a lot more time at the office, or chained to the office via your cell/laptop.

I work in a technical field and was well aware that if I took a break from my career when I had my boys, I’d have a harder time getting back in the marketplace at the same level. Technology advances and the perception of being behind the times, technically, is an interview killer.

That may be less true for non engineering positions. My husband has seen women, in architecture, successfully put their career on hold, then re-enter when they’re ready.

My compromise, I cut my hours to 60% for the first year, then 80% of full time after that. My husband did the same thing. This allowed us to only need childcare 2 days/week when they were babies.

Maybe because we were older parents, our professional reputations were well established and our employers were willing to keep us on a part time basis. If we were new in the job force, that would not have been the case.

We gave up some career advancement opportunities… I was told, explicitly, by a former boss that I would never get a promotion while working part time. (I transfered to a different group and got the promotion.)

If you want the power job, and the salary that goes with it… you’ll spend less time with your kids… regardless of your gender. Most power jobs require very long hours… more than the nominal 40 hour work week.

We chose to not have it all. We live in an older house that is not in Carmel Valley. We don’t drive BMWs. We dress our kids in Target brand stuff rather than designer labels. I’m fine not having it all but still having a job I enjoy and also having time with my kids.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. But compromises have to be made.

[AK]

[quote=CA renter]I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been hanging around a different crowd than I have.

Back in my Army days I met a LOT of people who enlisted so they could support their families … because they were guaranteed some degree of financial and physical security. Don’t try to say they were overgrown boys playing soldier, because many of them did jobs that were dangerous, dirty, and exhausting even in peacetime.

Most of them came from decaying Corn Belt and Rust Belt towns with no economic opportunities to speak of. Many of them said they’d do just about any kind of work if it enabled them to support their families … one even volunteered: “I’d hang chickens if it paid enough!”

So there, you have your single instance. If you want statistics, I’ll be glad to do a study if you come up with the funding 🙂

[AK]

[quote=CA renter]I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been hanging around a different crowd than I have.

Back in my Army days I met a LOT of people who enlisted so they could support their families … because they were guaranteed some degree of financial and physical security. Don’t try to say they were overgrown boys playing soldier, because many of them did jobs that were dangerous, dirty, and exhausting even in peacetime.

Most of them came from decaying Corn Belt and Rust Belt towns with no economic opportunities to speak of. Many of them said they’d do just about any kind of work if it enabled them to support their families … one even volunteered: “I’d hang chickens if it paid enough!”

So there, you have your single instance. If you want statistics, I’ll be glad to do a study if you come up with the funding 🙂

[AK]

[quote=CA renter]I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been hanging around a different crowd than I have.

Back in my Army days I met a LOT of people who enlisted so they could support their families … because they were guaranteed some degree of financial and physical security. Don’t try to say they were overgrown boys playing soldier, because many of them did jobs that were dangerous, dirty, and exhausting even in peacetime.

Most of them came from decaying Corn Belt and Rust Belt towns with no economic opportunities to speak of. Many of them said they’d do just about any kind of work if it enabled them to support their families … one even volunteered: “I’d hang chickens if it paid enough!”

So there, you have your single instance. If you want statistics, I’ll be glad to do a study if you come up with the funding 🙂

[AK]

[quote=CA renter]I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been hanging around a different crowd than I have.

Back in my Army days I met a LOT of people who enlisted so they could support their families … because they were guaranteed some degree of financial and physical security. Don’t try to say they were overgrown boys playing soldier, because many of them did jobs that were dangerous, dirty, and exhausting even in peacetime.

Most of them came from decaying Corn Belt and Rust Belt towns with no economic opportunities to speak of. Many of them said they’d do just about any kind of work if it enabled them to support their families … one even volunteered: “I’d hang chickens if it paid enough!”

So there, you have your single instance. If you want statistics, I’ll be glad to do a study if you come up with the funding 🙂

[AK]

[quote=CA renter]I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been hanging around a different crowd than I have.

Back in my Army days I met a LOT of people who enlisted so they could support their families … because they were guaranteed some degree of financial and physical security. Don’t try to say they were overgrown boys playing soldier, because many of them did jobs that were dangerous, dirty, and exhausting even in peacetime.

Most of them came from decaying Corn Belt and Rust Belt towns with no economic opportunities to speak of. Many of them said they’d do just about any kind of work if it enabled them to support their families … one even volunteered: “I’d hang chickens if it paid enough!”

So there, you have your single instance. If you want statistics, I’ll be glad to do a study if you come up with the funding 🙂

[blahblahblah]

I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?

The US is full of such men from Mexico and Central America. They undergo an expensive, hazardous journey to take dangerous and physically exhausting jobs hundreds or thousands of miles away from their families so that they can send money back home to their wives and children. Brought to you by NAFTA.

[blahblahblah]

I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?

The US is full of such men from Mexico and Central America. They undergo an expensive, hazardous journey to take dangerous and physically exhausting jobs hundreds or thousands of miles away from their families so that they can send money back home to their wives and children. Brought to you by NAFTA.

[blahblahblah]

I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?

The US is full of such men from Mexico and Central America. They undergo an expensive, hazardous journey to take dangerous and physically exhausting jobs hundreds or thousands of miles away from their families so that they can send money back home to their wives and children. Brought to you by NAFTA.

[blahblahblah]

I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?

The US is full of such men from Mexico and Central America. They undergo an expensive, hazardous journey to take dangerous and physically exhausting jobs hundreds or thousands of miles away from their families so that they can send money back home to their wives and children. Brought to you by NAFTA.

[Author]

Posts