How much is need though? We know two couples where both H and W are medical doctors. Couple A lives in a very upper middle-class house and sent both of their children to private high schools and then to Boston College full pay. Couple B lives in an upper-class house and sent all three of their children to private high schools and then to equally pricey private colleges, full pay.
When H’s father was employed as a lawyer and his mother stayed home to raise the 5 kids, they lived in a much more modest home. They sent the kids to a mix of private and public schools at a much less relative cost than is the case now. Most of the “power couples” we know could live on one income, albeit more modestly. This dynamic is in part responsible for the growing divide between the richest and the poorest.
^Our first house was built in 1917. It was 1100 square feet - tiny! As soon as our first child was born, we felt like we’d outgrown it. There were several identical houses on our street. My neighbor told us that several of the families had raised three or four kids in those houses! I cannot even imagine doing that. If we had stayed in that house, our living expenses sure would have been a lot lower!
Part of the problem is that when women went into the work place in large numbers and increasing numbers of families had wto wage earners, housing prices went up accordingly. Why wouldn’t they? In many suburbs there isn’t space to build more homes. Suddenly, you have two wage families bidding on these homes – its simple supply and demand. Housing is the main expense for most families. It leads to a situation where two salaries become almost necessary. I know there are countless examples where people make it work with one. But, that nearly always involves one spouse working at these crazy jobs.
This wasn’t the case in the past. You could afford a home in a suburb with one parent working a reasonable job. I think that might be gone.
The 1100-1500 ft^2 houses were the “American dream” houses of families in the 1950s-1970s (that was the size of houses that were built in large housing tracts back then).
Today’s expectations and tastes are presumably quite a bit more luxurious. (Many of the houses built back then have been expanded.)
^^^^^My parents raised 5 kids in a slightly larger house than the one you describe. I remember a lot of chaos, clutter (not all that much storage available in such a small home), personal conflict partly related to being in such close quarters, etc. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
I really value and enjoy the spaciousness of our home. I could certainly survive without it, but I’m glad I don’t have to.
There’s nothing wrong with two parents having fulfilling careers. The issue comes when parents are working crazy hours in high-stress jobs, leaving them little time and energy for home life. In a single income home the non-working parent can take up the slack, but that requires one parent (usually the women) to sacrifice their career.
So many of my law school friends are single, female and 50. They spent their thirties working a million hours. Law school does not tell you about the huge sacrifice that mostly women will bear at large firms. When you have kids, something has got to give. My husband is not a lawyer but I worked as a prosecutor so that I could go home at 5 pm most of the time and only worked weekends preparing for trial as his job required many hours at night. There were many times that I put the kids to bed and worked until midnight on questions for the next day. I was raised in a generation when we did not think about this. I handled most of the doctor’s appointments, dentist appointments etc. I finally went out on my own so that I could have more flexibility. (I could come home and meet the bus at 3 pm then get dinner started and work after we put the kids to bed) It is about choices but you rarely if ever have someone ask a “dad” whether they plan to have more kids and whether they are taking off again because a child is sick. Life in big firms does not seem to have changed much in 30 years so why do they expect more women at the top?
I’m seeing a lot of support for the model of one parent working lots of hours and the other being a SAHP or working very part time. The problem is that this works- until it doesn’t. In the event of a divorce, death, disability or downsizing - what happens?
I’m not knocking being a SAHP, I was one for 10 + years. But it was a huge risk. In my case none of the 4 D’s happened, so I was fortunate. But I paid a big price in the workplace. If I had a do over, I would have kept working.
What should big law firms (or smaller ones for that matter) do? Time demands are those of their clients not the firms themselves. Rates being charged are not for 9-5, weekdays only work. Expectation now is much closer to 24/7 if not 24/7. Will world end if deal doesn’t close tomorrow? No. But you tell that to your client and it likely becomes a former client very quickly.
I know both men and women who have made that work. And both men and women who couldn’t or didn’t want to. I agree that people should go into careers/jobs understanding the realities.
^When our oldest child was young, DH would work all day at an office. I would take DS to the office, drop him off with DH, and then work at the same office, as a freelancer, until midnight.
It’s not just IB and big law that have long, demanding hours—my H made a career change and went to work with a startup (not high tech) that was very successful. He worked 24/7 and I took up the slack. I went from full-time to part-time (publishing) because it became more difficult to work full-time after our second child was born. If I were to do it over again, I would not work part-time–I’d stay full-time and figure out the best way to make it work for my family. IMO (and maybe its changing and it might depend on the profession) but many bosses don’t take part-time professionals seriously. The assumption is that the part-timer can’t be a fully contributing member of the team because he/she has too many outside responsibilities. Also, there is often the perception that he/she is just working for extra pin money or to keep busy.
D2 babysits for a couple who are both lawyers. The H works at an US Attorney’s office and the wife is at a big law. Both of them take turns in being home by 5 to be with the kids. I think 30 years ago it would not have happened at a big law. D2’s good friend is moving to Mexico due to her H’s job. The friend is working at a law firm and the firm is allowing her to work remotely for few years. Again, I don’t think it would have happened 30 years ago.
D1 will be able to take 6 months off for maternity leave some day and her H will also be able to take paternity leave.
I think employers are making more accommodations for their employees.
30 years ago technology did not exist to work remotely. Pluses and minuses with that. You are not tied to a physical location which is a plus. But you can also do work from anywhere at any time which is a minus (or at least can be). The standard “I will look at it when I get in the office in the morning” doesn’t necessarily fly anymore.
And 6 months off can be a challenge depending on the job. Your clients/customers will continue to have needs met during that time. Much of value in given careers is based on relationships. Person working with clients/customers in your absence will have more of a current relationship with them than you do. And place you work needs to have additional capacity to absorb your absence. Not easy particularly the smaller the shop.
@OhiBro Thanks for the reply. However when you state
I again see things differently than you.
Instead of buying into some kind of sinister(?) political conspiracy, I choose to see it in a positive light. I see “encouraging” women to pursue STEM careers as fulfilling a need for more STEM-educated employees and correcting a historical bias.
It would be doing many STEM-women a disservice to assume they are being manipulated and coerced, because of someone else’s agenda.
“There’s nothing wrong with two parents having fulfilling careers. The issue comes when parents are working crazy hours in high-stress jobs, leaving them little time and energy for home life. In a single income home the non-working parent can take up the slack, but that requires one parent (usually the women) to sacrifice their career.”
My career was in finance (not IB) and I spent my career predominately with male coworkers, like 85-90%. None of my male coworkers’ wives worked. However, many also weren’t super content either and I know more than one were taking prescription meds for mood enhancement - not uncommon in my upper middle class community of traditional, one income, dad works families despite all the trappings of success. The grass isn’t always greener, nor would I say it is always best for the kids to have a home situation where one parent isn’t a happy camper.
I worked long hours M-F (rarely on weekends fortunately). At some point, however, we were fortunate that my spouse was willing and could afford to be the stay at home parent. I still managed to prioritize being active in my kids’ classrooms, room mom, team manager, etc. but that took it’s toll on my own self-care, little sleep, etc. squeezing it all in, trying to have it all.
One good thing about those “greedy” jobs is they pay well so if you are fiscally prudent and live below your means (most don’t), cashing out early is an option and one we took.
I will say that in some industries, it is not much easier several decades on for a woman to be treated equally. There are still plenty of barriers and glass ceilings. I’ve been surprised and disappointed with how little has actually changed.
As poor immigrants we could not even dream of a one-income household. Without any safety net, we were responsible for the wellbeing of the kids and the parents. I would be overridden with guilt, stress and anxiety staying home while my spouse worked long hours in office to support the family and studied nights and weekends for his PT graduate degree (graduating as a valedictorian from a very large and competitive school). I also had long hours, but we made it work just like all other families in our immigrant community - it did not seem like a big deal when there were no choices, and all of us were much more well-off than we could ever imagine. However, I believe that most families can support themselves on one average professional income. Even today our European friends (who raised their families in smallish apartments) are amazed at American living standards and expectations.
