going broke on 300K/year

[UCGal]

[quote=zzz]May I ask about your dynamics? Are you both communicators? Are you both fairly easy going and agreeable? Is one of you more of the leader and the other a follower and happy with it? Are you both Type A? Just trying to get some insight.[/quote]

I would attribute it to two factors. We were older when we met/married. We both had owned our own homes for years – so we were both used to cooking/cleaning/yardwork/fixing stuff. Probably because of that we both have an attitude of looking around to see what needs doing – and doing it.

Because we were older (I was in my late 30’s he was in his late 40’s), neither of us had expectations of “changing” or “fixing” the other one… since we were both fairly set in our ways. WYSIWYG. That makes a huge difference in how we communicate – we knew the partner we were getting when we got married.

I wouldn’t say were big time communicators. But we are on the same page. Neither of us is big on the need to talk about problems. The “honey, we need to talk….” thing doesn’t happen a lot in our house.

I wouldn’t say either of us are type A, either. We are solid/stable/worker-bee types. Pretty boring.

And I wouldn’t say either of us is the leader. We just agree on all of the big stuff, and compromise on the little stuff. If one person feels stronger about something, the other usually gives in.

We both work in professional jobs (engineer and architect). We both tend to be problem solvers. So far, we haven’t had the career struggle since we’ve both taken the career/income hits when we chose to have kids.

I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.

[Ricechex]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add on this subject, EXCEPT, TG, you are awesome! When you start a blog, please let us know! And, there is nothing wrong with making money on a gift you have. You have the gifts of insight, intelligence, creativity and humor.

[Ricechex]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add on this subject, EXCEPT, TG, you are awesome! When you start a blog, please let us know! And, there is nothing wrong with making money on a gift you have. You have the gifts of insight, intelligence, creativity and humor.

[Ricechex]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add on this subject, EXCEPT, TG, you are awesome! When you start a blog, please let us know! And, there is nothing wrong with making money on a gift you have. You have the gifts of insight, intelligence, creativity and humor.

[Ricechex]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add on this subject, EXCEPT, TG, you are awesome! When you start a blog, please let us know! And, there is nothing wrong with making money on a gift you have. You have the gifts of insight, intelligence, creativity and humor.

[Ricechex]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add on this subject, EXCEPT, TG, you are awesome! When you start a blog, please let us know! And, there is nothing wrong with making money on a gift you have. You have the gifts of insight, intelligence, creativity and humor.

[zzz]

[quote=UCGal]
I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.[/quote]

I think you have simply what the french would call that elusive “Je ne sais quoi”. It just simply works.

It also sounds like you don’t sweat the small stuff. And heck, boring is good!

[zzz]

[quote=UCGal]
I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.[/quote]

I think you have simply what the french would call that elusive “Je ne sais quoi”. It just simply works.

It also sounds like you don’t sweat the small stuff. And heck, boring is good!

[zzz]

[quote=UCGal]
I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.[/quote]

I think you have simply what the french would call that elusive “Je ne sais quoi”. It just simply works.

It also sounds like you don’t sweat the small stuff. And heck, boring is good!

[zzz]

[quote=UCGal]
I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.[/quote]

I think you have simply what the french would call that elusive “Je ne sais quoi”. It just simply works.

It also sounds like you don’t sweat the small stuff. And heck, boring is good!

[zzz]

[quote=UCGal]
I guess this is all fancy talk for saying I found a compatable person… I got lucky.[/quote]

I think you have simply what the french would call that elusive “Je ne sais quoi”. It just simply works.

It also sounds like you don’t sweat the small stuff. And heck, boring is good!

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=CA renter]……I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

I accept that women cannot have it all. Just as men cannot. It’s really not that different.

For example, most men would like relationships with women who are physically exceptional. The desire to engage in such relationships varies over time, just as a woman’s desire to have children varies over time, but it’s quite strong.

Following through on such a desire, for a man, can dramatically reduce his future income and the time available for the things he wants – beer, cable TV, his friends, pool, golf….. just as having kids can dramatically reduce a woman’s future time and income. That’s life.[/quote]

I think it also depends on how you define “all.” I don’t want a wife or kids. So, “having it all” doesn’t include having either. Which makes it much easier to “have it all,” by my definition.

I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. Are you saying that staying single and, essentially, playing the field “can dramatically reduce his future income…” That doesn’t make any sense. I can assure you that marriage (and kids) is far more expensive and time consuming than staying single, even if the man is dating a different woman every week. But maybe I’m not interpreting your comment properly.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=CA renter]……I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

I accept that women cannot have it all. Just as men cannot. It’s really not that different.

For example, most men would like relationships with women who are physically exceptional. The desire to engage in such relationships varies over time, just as a woman’s desire to have children varies over time, but it’s quite strong.

Following through on such a desire, for a man, can dramatically reduce his future income and the time available for the things he wants – beer, cable TV, his friends, pool, golf….. just as having kids can dramatically reduce a woman’s future time and income. That’s life.[/quote]

I think it also depends on how you define “all.” I don’t want a wife or kids. So, “having it all” doesn’t include having either. Which makes it much easier to “have it all,” by my definition.

I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. Are you saying that staying single and, essentially, playing the field “can dramatically reduce his future income…” That doesn’t make any sense. I can assure you that marriage (and kids) is far more expensive and time consuming than staying single, even if the man is dating a different woman every week. But maybe I’m not interpreting your comment properly.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=CA renter]……I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

I accept that women cannot have it all. Just as men cannot. It’s really not that different.

For example, most men would like relationships with women who are physically exceptional. The desire to engage in such relationships varies over time, just as a woman’s desire to have children varies over time, but it’s quite strong.

Following through on such a desire, for a man, can dramatically reduce his future income and the time available for the things he wants – beer, cable TV, his friends, pool, golf….. just as having kids can dramatically reduce a woman’s future time and income. That’s life.[/quote]

I think it also depends on how you define “all.” I don’t want a wife or kids. So, “having it all” doesn’t include having either. Which makes it much easier to “have it all,” by my definition.

I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. Are you saying that staying single and, essentially, playing the field “can dramatically reduce his future income…” That doesn’t make any sense. I can assure you that marriage (and kids) is far more expensive and time consuming than staying single, even if the man is dating a different woman every week. But maybe I’m not interpreting your comment properly.

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=CA renter]……I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]

I accept that women cannot have it all. Just as men cannot. It’s really not that different.

For example, most men would like relationships with women who are physically exceptional. The desire to engage in such relationships varies over time, just as a woman’s desire to have children varies over time, but it’s quite strong.

Following through on such a desire, for a man, can dramatically reduce his future income and the time available for the things he wants – beer, cable TV, his friends, pool, golf….. just as having kids can dramatically reduce a woman’s future time and income. That’s life.[/quote]

I think it also depends on how you define “all.” I don’t want a wife or kids. So, “having it all” doesn’t include having either. Which makes it much easier to “have it all,” by my definition.

I’m not sure what your last paragraph means. Are you saying that staying single and, essentially, playing the field “can dramatically reduce his future income…” That doesn’t make any sense. I can assure you that marriage (and kids) is far more expensive and time consuming than staying single, even if the man is dating a different woman every week. But maybe I’m not interpreting your comment properly.

[Author]

Posts