[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]

[quote=AN]
I think many of us who graduated in the last 10 years will have drastically different experience than you. We both seems to agree that salary tend to plateau after a certain point. I think that’s around 10 years experience or so. So, to the older people, wage deflation is real. But to a lot of us who just entered the work force in the last 10 years, drastic wage inflation is also real. It is also very relative to the industry you’re in.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I had my biggest wage increases early in my career.

That said, my coworkers with less experience were also hit with frozen salaries (even if you get a promotion!), eliminated 401k match, bonuses at half of previous years. So the folks in the first 10 years of their career also saw a hit this year.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
I think many of us who graduated in the last 10 years will have drastically different experience than you. We both seems to agree that salary tend to plateau after a certain point. I think that’s around 10 years experience or so. So, to the older people, wage deflation is real. But to a lot of us who just entered the work force in the last 10 years, drastic wage inflation is also real. It is also very relative to the industry you’re in.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I had my biggest wage increases early in my career.

That said, my coworkers with less experience were also hit with frozen salaries (even if you get a promotion!), eliminated 401k match, bonuses at half of previous years. So the folks in the first 10 years of their career also saw a hit this year.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
I think many of us who graduated in the last 10 years will have drastically different experience than you. We both seems to agree that salary tend to plateau after a certain point. I think that’s around 10 years experience or so. So, to the older people, wage deflation is real. But to a lot of us who just entered the work force in the last 10 years, drastic wage inflation is also real. It is also very relative to the industry you’re in.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I had my biggest wage increases early in my career.

That said, my coworkers with less experience were also hit with frozen salaries (even if you get a promotion!), eliminated 401k match, bonuses at half of previous years. So the folks in the first 10 years of their career also saw a hit this year.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
I think many of us who graduated in the last 10 years will have drastically different experience than you. We both seems to agree that salary tend to plateau after a certain point. I think that’s around 10 years experience or so. So, to the older people, wage deflation is real. But to a lot of us who just entered the work force in the last 10 years, drastic wage inflation is also real. It is also very relative to the industry you’re in.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I had my biggest wage increases early in my career.

That said, my coworkers with less experience were also hit with frozen salaries (even if you get a promotion!), eliminated 401k match, bonuses at half of previous years. So the folks in the first 10 years of their career also saw a hit this year.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
I think many of us who graduated in the last 10 years will have drastically different experience than you. We both seems to agree that salary tend to plateau after a certain point. I think that’s around 10 years experience or so. So, to the older people, wage deflation is real. But to a lot of us who just entered the work force in the last 10 years, drastic wage inflation is also real. It is also very relative to the industry you’re in.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that. I had my biggest wage increases early in my career.

That said, my coworkers with less experience were also hit with frozen salaries (even if you get a promotion!), eliminated 401k match, bonuses at half of previous years. So the folks in the first 10 years of their career also saw a hit this year.

[UCGal]

If your friend is buying multiple units s/he should do some serious due dilligence. Request financials from the HOA, do inspections, talk to some current residents.

It looks like some of the units have sold for under $100k in the past year, so the price might not be optimal. And there are currently 2 listings – one for 3 units together, at $350k, the other for a single unit at $95k.

The neighborhood is pretty diverse. (Not a bad thing, just a statement of fact.)

These might pencil out. From the listing for the 3 unit listing, rents for the 3br units go for $1425/month.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5045-A-St-92102/home/21682579

[UCGal]

If your friend is buying multiple units s/he should do some serious due dilligence. Request financials from the HOA, do inspections, talk to some current residents.

It looks like some of the units have sold for under $100k in the past year, so the price might not be optimal. And there are currently 2 listings – one for 3 units together, at $350k, the other for a single unit at $95k.

The neighborhood is pretty diverse. (Not a bad thing, just a statement of fact.)

These might pencil out. From the listing for the 3 unit listing, rents for the 3br units go for $1425/month.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5045-A-St-92102/home/21682579

[UCGal]

If your friend is buying multiple units s/he should do some serious due dilligence. Request financials from the HOA, do inspections, talk to some current residents.

It looks like some of the units have sold for under $100k in the past year, so the price might not be optimal. And there are currently 2 listings – one for 3 units together, at $350k, the other for a single unit at $95k.

The neighborhood is pretty diverse. (Not a bad thing, just a statement of fact.)

These might pencil out. From the listing for the 3 unit listing, rents for the 3br units go for $1425/month.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5045-A-St-92102/home/21682579

[UCGal]

If your friend is buying multiple units s/he should do some serious due dilligence. Request financials from the HOA, do inspections, talk to some current residents.

It looks like some of the units have sold for under $100k in the past year, so the price might not be optimal. And there are currently 2 listings – one for 3 units together, at $350k, the other for a single unit at $95k.

The neighborhood is pretty diverse. (Not a bad thing, just a statement of fact.)

These might pencil out. From the listing for the 3 unit listing, rents for the 3br units go for $1425/month.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5045-A-St-92102/home/21682579

[UCGal]

If your friend is buying multiple units s/he should do some serious due dilligence. Request financials from the HOA, do inspections, talk to some current residents.

It looks like some of the units have sold for under $100k in the past year, so the price might not be optimal. And there are currently 2 listings – one for 3 units together, at $350k, the other for a single unit at $95k.

The neighborhood is pretty diverse. (Not a bad thing, just a statement of fact.)

These might pencil out. From the listing for the 3 unit listing, rents for the 3br units go for $1425/month.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5045-A-St-92102/home/21682579

[UCGal]

That isn’t downtown – if your subject line has the address right – it’s FAR east of downtown – Euclid Ave area – just barely north of the 94 freeway.

I’d need more details to know if it’s a good investment. I didn’t see any of the units in 5030 A in the MLS accept for a short sale that was contingent.

It looks like these are converted apartments. The HOAs are over $200/month, so that needs to figure into the calcs.

[UCGal]

That isn’t downtown – if your subject line has the address right – it’s FAR east of downtown – Euclid Ave area – just barely north of the 94 freeway.

I’d need more details to know if it’s a good investment. I didn’t see any of the units in 5030 A in the MLS accept for a short sale that was contingent.

It looks like these are converted apartments. The HOAs are over $200/month, so that needs to figure into the calcs.

[Author]

Posts