Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It still comes down to what they can come to an agreement on.
Basically, they need to find acceptable middle ground with all the options in front of them.
One, they have to accept what they can afford within the financial limitations of her taking a lower paying position. This might mean less luxuries, or travel, or a less fancy home, maybe renting longer, or buying a condo/townhouse instead of a seperate house, or going for a longer commutting time, or any combination.
Two, they find another way for her to advance her career in the direction she would prefer without taking as big of a hit in earnings.
Three, she sets her career aspirations aside until they tackle some of the expenses of their desires (maybe remain working a few years, put of a child for a couple years, and focus on paying a lot into the house to cut down the principle, then refinance for a much lower payment when they do have a child or she wants to explore the new career).
There really could be tons of potential scenarios, but they need to talk it out, see what are their top priorities, and work from there to find middle ground.
I shouldn't have to describe the implication of what I said. Work + commute takes most of the day.
Quote:
I can make plenty of meals that take less than half of an hour
Not really good ones with a few side dishes, and you have to have all the ingredients in the house first.
I mean, I just made good-quality mac n' cheese from scratch the other day and it took me an hour. But that was just mac n' cheese, no veggies. And that didn't include shopping time or dish-washing time.
right, which costs money. For 4 years it costs a lot of money. You have to subtract that from the combined salary.
And you have to lower the mom's salary too, because, regardless of the fact that there is government-mandated family leave time, the fact of the matter is this WILL work against her in terms of advancement. You can complain that it's discrimination all you want, but it happens.
Not to mention that it's far from ideal for baby not to be held and fed directly by Mommy. You don't have to be a full-on attachment parenting advocate to understand that the neurophysiology at work is there. (In other words, I think constant holding until like the age of 3 is overboard, but otherwise they're right)
right, which costs money. For 4 years it costs a lot of money. You have to subtract that from the combined salary.
And you have to lower the mom's salary too, because, regardless of the fact that there is government-mandated family leave time, the fact of the matter is this WILL work against her in terms of advancement. You can complain that it's discrimination all you want, but it happens.
Hmm, my mom worked 60 hours a week and became the head of her floor-taught seminars and traveled all while having kids. Didn't seem to hurt her advancement any (made/makes over 100k). People make it work, if they want kids and a career. I see it every day in my current office.
Didn't seem to hurt her advancement any (made/makes over 100k)
Was she self-employed by any chance?
And any way what worked for your mom and people in your office isn't a litmus for the entirety of society. Statistics don't lie. Taking maternity leave repeatedly shows up as an indicator of lessened advancement in the work place.
And any way what worked for your mom and people in your office isn't a litmus for the entirety of society. Statistics don't lie. Taking maternity leave repeatedly shows up as an indicator of lessened advancement in the work place.
No, she wasn't self employed. Its easy to tell if the corporation you are working for is accommodating to those with families. I know 4 women who have recently gone on maternity leave and who were out for 10-16 weeks and came right back to work. Now, if you're talking a 2+ year absence that's an entirely different story. Regular allotted maternity leave is not frowned upon in most corp environments. Its also not going to be an issue of showing up as a gap in employment on your resume.
Most women know if they plan on staying home for long stints to raise kids, they are going to face this issue. Everyone else takes 2 months and comes back.
Taking 5 years off until the child is in kindergarden is certainly not going to help a woman's career or advancement either.
Yes, noted. Obviously
But it also WON'T waste a ton of money, a ton of money that when subtracted from the combined income, along with other added expenses, significantly lowers any actual (if there even is any) gain from those life choices.
What I'm saying is, people put way too much focus on money and not enough on lifestyle. People get burned out and stressed out as hell because they're killing themselves at work and then also trying to raise a family when they get home (as opposed to decompressing first from the day), and they wonder why. Well, duH!
But people's mentality, you know. It's like god forbid you don't have a formal dining room that you never actually use.
I say, let the Mrs. (or me, the man, but I'm skeptical of that) stay home and have a life more relaxed, take care of the kids and raise them well so you have healthier kids, cook very tasty meals, save money on stupid anoying costs like tailoring, and make friends for us to hang out with. In other words, make life better for us.
With all that, I'll be willing to give up having rooms in my house which I'd never actuallty use. Or having a house altogether, the only advantage of which is you can garden, which I don't even like to do* (*actually, I do, I just don't like the time it takes)
Not to mention there are plenty of jobs which could be done from home, some form of tutoring, calligraphy, etc. That housewives typically do to add some money to the income
Yes, noted. Obviously
But it also WON'T waste a ton of money, a ton of money that when subtracted from the combined income, along with other added expenses, significantly lowers any actual (if there even is any) gain from those life choices.
What I'm saying is, people put way too much focus on money and not enough on lifestyle. People get burned out and stressed out as hell because they're killing themselves at work and then also trying to raise a family when they get home (as opposed to decompressing first from the day), and they wonder why. Well, duH!
But people's mentality, you know. It's like god forbid you don't have a formal dining room that you never actually use.
I say, let the Mrs. (or me, the man, but I'm skeptical of that) stay home and have a life more relaxed, take care of the kids and raise them well so you have healthier kids, cook very tasty meals, save money on stupid anoying costs like tailoring, and make friends for us to hang out with. In other words, make life better for us.
With all that, I'll be willing to give up having rooms in my house which I'd never actuallty use.
It's a common misconception that kids whose parents worked a lot are lacking in so many departments. My mother may have worked 60hr weeks, but my father was always home at 5 making home made meals, making sure hw was done, clothes were washed and the house was clean.
Even though he was the bread-winner, he only worked a normal 9-5 and he picked up watching kids after work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
