Fascinating article from the New York Times that has been blowing up in my social media feed, because it’s such a familiar situation to us and most other families we know.
Particularly interesting is the quote at the end: “No one explains this to you when you’re 21, but in retrospect, it was not a smart decision” to go into debt for law school.
However I doubt that many people are in the position to know at 21 whether their career path will look like this article or if they will have to rely on their own career and income.
That’s a great article, and is reflective in many ways of my and my spouse’s experience.
I love the opening image of the e-mail automatic reply: “I am working a reduced schedule for the next 18 years and will have limited access to e-mail. I will reply to your message when the nature of American Capitalism changes.” Start date 4/29/2019, End date 4/24/2037…
This article describes my life. We made the same choices and DH was well on his way to the high paying but greedy career when the 2008 recession hit. Those greedy co-workers suddenly had even higher demands and forced many people out, including my DH. He still works in his industry but still at roughly half what he earned in the past. The good news is he was able to be much more involved with our DC than if he had stayed (coached teams, made it to most school events, worked from home some when they were sick, etc). We hope our DC have seen that both Mom and Dad can do things at home and have a career, which is what I think it will take to turn the tide. Also, now that we have 1 in college and a DD20 that drives, I am able ramp up my PT hours a bit in anticipation of being an empty nester with less need to focus more on home and less on the office. I really have had the best arrangement I could have given that I work in a greedy profession as well. However, the overall trade-offs mean we are firmly a donut hole family. We look for value over prestige and refuse to be sucked in to the “rankings-are-everything” game when looking at colleges. Borrowing is limited to the standard federal amount. Our 2008 experience confirmed that there are no guarantees as to future earnings. We had not borrowed much ourselves and had already paid it off by 2008.
The not so great stuff is that I still see push back from those that have put in the hours against my career progressing. I have kept my technical skills strong and actually have a specialty that is in great demand, yet I had to fight hard to be promoted to the next level after being at the same one since before my children were born. The “mom penalty” is very real. Also, my DH is far more open to the idea of retirement than I am. I feel like I am just now able to really do what I love again yet he is burnt out and thinking of having more time for other things. Our compromise for now is we will discuss a firmer retirement goal date in 5 years after our DD20 graduates from UG.
The only thing I would change is what the 2008 recession did to so many. Not everyone was able to adapt and find good in what happened to their careers. Having two incomes did make that adaptation easier.
Isn’t is fairly obvious? Having children is the most significant contributor of imbalance in career and wage opportunities. That is a choice you make and there are trade offs as a result of making that commitment and decision.
Yeah, I didn’t see a lot new in the article. DH and I met in engineering grad school. We both got high grades and did the same kind of research. When we started having kids, he continued to work high-stress, long-hour jobs, while I did drafting part time and stayed home with the kids.
The way we solved the problem was to start our own business and work from home. That meant I could charge a lot more per hour for drafting and engineering that if I worked for someone else. I could take care of the kids during the day and work late at night, also (I didn’t mind since I’m a night owl). We will be celebrating 20 years in business in June.
I have shared this story before. When I did work three days a week for someone else, I had to deal with a lot of contractors. One of them was a real pill. I didn’t advertise my PT status, but he figured it out finally. He actually said to me over the phone, “Oh, you must be a MOOOOMMMM…” his voice dripping with sarcasm. I will never forget that.
Yes, it remains non-obvious because we repeatedly assure children that we care about families and encourage people to work hard to maximize their potential. As long as we maintain that false narrative, articles like this are helpful and necessary.
@roycroftmom
You’ll need to be more specific about this false narrative you speak of. Not sure what you’re referring to.
But, as often is the case, this is a call for more policy to fix bad policy. For example, women get pushed unwillingly into STEM fields just to try to equalize gender gaps. I lost count of the number of women I’ve encountered who have regretted their choice.
Women who simply want to be stay-at-home moms are shunned by political progressives.
Women aren’t encouraged anymore to go into teaching, the one field that is very conducive to raising a family for women who choose to work outside the home.
All very obvious, but silenced by some intolerant folks that simply want to push more bad policy.
Most of the countries with “more enlightened policies” have birth rates much lower than the US. If you exclude births to recent immigrants there the birth rate is even lower. They have solved the career problem by having fewer kids or no kids at all.
In many of the countries that are friendlier to working parents, there are a lot of things baked in that are not in our system.
Long leaves to care for infants. Excellent childcare, and that means not just for preschool, but family breakfasts at school, after school programs, etc. Great public transportation so parent-taxi is unnecessary. Expectation that both parents will work -including later in life, so there is full employment, made possible in part by a reasonable work week and lots of time off(so feeling like you need to retire to have a life isn’t so prevalent), good elder care, health care not linked to employment, etc.
I agree that men are more likely to take the greed jobs when a family has to choose, but I can also say in my working life, I have seen increasing (although still small) cases of the woman taking those jobs. And in many cases, it depends on who wants that job. It’s not really a prize - but it pays the bills.
I am seeing a shift in my social circle that there are many more stay at home fathers.
I think we’ve been fed a false narrative that people can “have it all”. Have the high powered career and raise a family. The reality is that someone needs to be raising the kids. That can take the shape of a variety of things - nannies, day care, extended family, or one parent cutting back at work. Kids don’t raise themselves.
Could we make an argument that the work culture could do more to support working parents in this country? Absolutely. But I’m also not reading anything new in this article.
Oh I never claimed more enlightened policies would boost birth rates, @TomSrOfBoston, just that those women who do choose to have children in countries with such policies will face far different, and frankly fewer, tradeoffs than American women. As for where to find the false narative,@Ohibro, well that is like asking where to find air. It surrounds us, and if you haven’t noticed, perhaps you should randomly stop any 10 women in the street and ask them about it. I’m certain they can educate you.
“I’m also not reading anything new in this article.”
What was new to me was the regret for incurring debt to do a law degree. Are there any circumstances under which you would advise your D to avoid that and follow another career path (like teaching as mentioned above) because she wants to have children and/or is in a relationship with a SO who expects to have a high powered career?
I’m struggling to imagine that happening nowadays, so this seems like something that only occurs in hindsight, much like you might think “if only we hadn’t bought a house at the top of the market in 2007”.
Absolutely I would not incur substantial debt for a law degree unless she knows with certainty she is willing to work in big law, with the massive hours that entails, until it is paid off, which does alas coincide with some of her child bearing years. I billed 2700 hours in my last year in big law, and while I was certainly compensated for it, that would not have been possible for me, personally, if I had young children. The law firm I worked with, considered the most progressive at the time, did offer 7 day a week day care on site (it may have been 24 hour, I don’t recall). Rather a mixed blessing for those parents. It can also be solved by delaying children until much later.
Plus parental leave that is commonly split between the mother and father. My SIL lives in Sweden. When she had her second child she took the first 6 months off, he took the second 6 months. They each received 80% of their full salary after the first 3 months. Swedes are entitled to 480 days but they both wanted to get back to their jobs so they retained some of those days for later use (up to the child’s 8th birthday). When they were ready to both go back to work full time they had high quality community-based child care at a fraction of the cost we pay.
3 months of the Swedish parental leave must be used by the father or its forfeited. Unlike in places in the US which offer paternal leave dads in Sweden are not looked down on for taking parental leave; in fact it’s pretty much the opposite. Dads who don’t take leave are seen as selfish.
@Twoin18
On advising D to avoid debt in favor of another career path, I can’t say my advice is or will be that specific. We have talked to D and S since early teens about family and careers. My kids are just getting ready for college. But our plan is to address all of the above, talking about all of the trade offs and talking about other families as examples, with the hope that they will make their own decision. D may ultimately choose to take on debt for law school, but I would want her to know and feel comfortable in choosing any other path.
It’s unfortunate that the public debate is so one-sided on this. I feel like my views, while maybe not a majority, certainly speak form some portion of the population. But it seems some people are hellbent on turning little girls into men.
Maybe the problem is how you define “Little girls” and “men”, when you actually mean career primary/balanced or parent/nonparent, or some other differentiation that applies regardless of gender.