Fair division of household responsibilities vs. income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

This is the dumbest post of all time. I am an attorney making almost 6 figures. Time is money. But I don’t think my spouse should have to do all the household chores because my time is so valuable. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Managing a household with young kids is very difficult when parents are working a combined 100 hours a week unless they're in an outsource-everything income bracket, and you're not. I don't think your husband is totally off that this is solvable if you get a higher-paying or part-time job.

But what about his job choices? Are there choices he could be making that are either higher-paying or fewer hours? That set of options - yours and his - is what I'd talk about. Maybe there is a compromise where you work this job for a set amount of time, and he steps up at home (or you spend some of your savings on more outsourcing) with the agreement that it's temporary. Or he starts job-searching in good faith to see what's out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

This is the dumbest post of all time. I am an attorney making almost 6 figures. Time is money. But I don’t think my spouse should have to do all the household chores because my time is so valuable. Get a grip.

Seven figures. What if you were making seven figures like the OP?

[Anonymous]

Some of these posts are wild. I really have no interest in my husband earning $3 million a year. That’s not something that matters in my values because we have enough money (and would continue to have enough money even if he earned the same salary as me). If he was a surgeon saving lives or president of the United States I would support him because that’s important to me. But just more $= better is a ridiculous take.

I want my kids to have two parents they know and believe can care for them. I get one partner in life and what I’m looking for is not money.

[Anonymous]

So then you agree that OP should quit and raise her kid full time because being a parent is the most important thing and they don't need her income.

Right?

[Anonymous]

And also you think single moms shouldnt be allowed to raise their kids because kids should have two parents. Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And also you think single moms shouldnt be allowed to raise their kids because kids should have two parents. Correct?

Are you the person who has been responding with all the marginal value of time nonsense? You have a remarkable lack of logic. You think because PP thinks that kids should have two parents, then if they have one parent the parent should raise them?