The working parent grind is so exhausting.

[Anonymous]

There is always more than one way to solve a problem OP. Seems like you need to figure out how you can set that bag of bricks down and breathe again. I have faith in you, do what you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to public school and there were no school sponsored sports until middle school. In ES we did sports through the rec center. That’s how it works now here.

What are you talking about? My kids went to public schools 16 years ago, but much before that they were doing all kinds of classes - swim, singing, painting, gymnastics, spanish, crafts, baby yoga - from the time they were 3. On top of that, they were also doing the regular running around, playing with friends, learning colors, shapes, counting, alphabets and other montessori type stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless husnand and wife both have high paid meaningful jobs or both low paid jobs that need both incomes it is selfish to both work
with young kids at home.

Needing both incomes is not binary, and a lot of wage growth comes after your first kid is born, but only if you stick to working. I would not have had kids if it meant not working, and you can look to South Korea for an example of how that plays out.

That’s a myth for most. My wife’s career hit a dead end at 34. Working 14 years on Wall Street. Same major bank she was in mgt. training program. She left at 35 and had kids 35, 37 and 42. She was never making it to next level. Her career was at tail end by 32. It is up or out. In banking, Wall Street, big 4 by 36, 90 percent of people career is over. Continue to work is silly if spouse has big job

I worked with lots of “career women” who did not figure it out till 45 and missed the boat on kids.

I slowly climbed my Wall Street job from 120k at 32 to 300k at 42. It ain’t over when a bald middle age men says it’s over.

NP: People are going to have individual experiences of career, finances, and the level of risk leaving the rat race may have for them personally. For many people, leaving a career at the top, having saved a ton and invested well in the 410K, insurance, etc., having a supportive spouse who makes enough, is not risky at at all. If you are lucky enough to get to that point, the question is: what do you want to do for yourself and your family. Only you can answer that in a way that is true to you. At this level, it is a privilege to have that choice. Some people will say, I want to keep earning money even though we as a family already have more than enough. Others will say at this point, time is more important than more, more, more of the material stuff. Still others will say, it's not about the money, but my personal fulfillment/the importance of the work I do/the benefit to society from my unique talents, which overrides everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless husnand and wife both have high paid meaningful jobs or both low paid jobs that need both incomes it is selfish to both work
with young kids at home.

Needing both incomes is not binary, and a lot of wage growth comes after your first kid is born, but only if you stick to working. I would not have had kids if it meant not working, and you can look to South Korea for an example of how that plays out.

That’s a myth for most. My wife’s career hit a dead end at 34. Working 14 years on Wall Street. Same major bank she was in mgt. training program. She left at 35 and had kids 35, 37 and 42. She was never making it to next level. Her career was at tail end by 32. It is up or out. In banking, Wall Street, big 4 by 36, 90 percent of people career is over. Continue to work is silly if spouse has big job

I worked with lots of “career women” who did not figure it out till 45 and missed the boat on kids.

I slowly climbed my Wall Street job from 120k at 32 to 300k at 42. It ain’t over when a bald middle age men says it’s over.

NP: People are going to have individual experiences of career, finances, and the level of risk leaving the rat race may have for them personally. For many people, leaving a career at the top, having saved a ton and invested well in the 410K, insurance, etc., having a supportive spouse who makes enough, is not risky at at all. If you are lucky enough to get to that point, the question is: what do you want to do for yourself and your family. Only you can answer that in a way that is true to you. At this level, it is a privilege to have that choice. Some people will say, I want to keep earning money even though we as a family already have more than enough. Others will say at this point, time is more important than more, more, more of the material stuff. Still others will say, it's not about the money, but my personal fulfillment/the importance of the work I do/the benefit to society from my unique talents, which overrides everything else.

There are so many narrowing factors here. Saved a ton? What if you paid off student loans and tried to buy a house? For most families there wasn't much left over after that. Invested well in 401k? What does that even mean? Most funds are just generic S&P or similar indexes to follow. The supportive spouse who makes enough is the key -- you need a breadwinner, and honestly most women who have that never did the actual working parent juggle -- they tapped out early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a young boomer at 65.

Most of my college friends worked throughout their careers. They are accountants, nurses, journalists, HR pris, teachers, lawyers. They used daycare, they lived close to their jobs. They had modest houses, sometimes a biweekly cleaning service, and their kids all watched a lot of TV and played with other kids from their schools without a ton of supervision. There was not a lot of travel sports. Just school sports.

In short we lived much more middle class lives and weren't micromanage the hothouse flowers you are bringing up today.

My DH played it differently. We postponed kids until our early 40s, doing a bunch of travel and house projects then one of us switched to part time after they were born. By that time we had power in our jobs and could set up our schedules to suit us.

You are out of touch. There are no modest homes close to most people's jobs.

Starting at 40s for kids, statistically that means fewer people even get to have kids as its a huge gamble, and on average kids get to have parents for a much shorter part of their lives and likely won't get any grandparent help with childcare.

You real secret was making more than average and buying when houses were cheap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless husnand and wife both have high paid meaningful jobs or both low paid jobs that need both incomes it is selfish to both work
with young kids at home.

Needing both incomes is not binary, and a lot of wage growth comes after your first kid is born, but only if you stick to working. I would not have had kids if it meant not working, and you can look to South Korea for an example of how that plays out.

That’s a myth for most. My wife’s career hit a dead end at 34. Working 14 years on Wall Street. Same major bank she was in mgt. training program. She left at 35 and had kids 35, 37 and 42. She was never making it to next level. Her career was at tail end by 32. It is up or out. In banking, Wall Street, big 4 by 36, 90 percent of people career is over. Continue to work is silly if spouse has big job

I worked with lots of “career women” who did not figure it out till 45 and missed the boat on kids.

I slowly climbed my Wall Street job from 120k at 32 to 300k at 42. It ain’t over when a bald middle age men says it’s over.

NP: People are going to have individual experiences of career, finances, and the level of risk leaving the rat race may have for them personally. For many people, leaving a career at the top, having saved a ton and invested well in the 410K, insurance, etc., having a supportive spouse who makes enough, is not risky at at all. If you are lucky enough to get to that point, the question is: what do you want to do for yourself and your family. Only you can answer that in a way that is true to you. At this level, it is a privilege to have that choice. Some people will say, I want to keep earning money even though we as a family already have more than enough. Others will say at this point, time is more important than more, more, more of the material stuff. Still others will say, it's not about the money, but my personal fulfillment/the importance of the work I do/the benefit to society from my unique talents, which overrides everything else.

There are so many narrowing factors here. Saved a ton? What if you paid off student loans and tried to buy a house? For most families there wasn't much left over after that. Invested well in 401k? What does that even mean? Most funds are just generic S&P or similar indexes to follow. The supportive spouse who makes enough is the key -- you need a breadwinner, and honestly most women who have that never did the actual working parent juggle -- they tapped out early.

Not to mention, this assumes that women start having kids at 30+, or more likely 35+ (how are you going to leave your career "at the top" otherwise?) Which may not be for the best if one of your life goals is to have kids. I had mine at 26 and 30 and, while I didn't have loans to pay off, I did get a PhD, so it wasn't until 29 that I started making $100k. I'm currently 40 and making $250k. There's no way I'm giving that up, even though there are days I'm just over work (though I think some of that is just being mid career.) Husband and I have a great relationship with my kids, don't think it would have been better if I stayed at home (of course, we lucked out to not have medical issues etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to public school and there were no school sponsored sports until middle school. In ES we did sports through the rec center. That’s how it works now here.

What are you talking about? My kids went to public schools 16 years ago, but much before that they were doing all kinds of classes - swim, singing, painting, gymnastics, spanish, crafts, baby yoga - from the time they were 3. On top of that, they were also doing the regular running around, playing with friends, learning colors, shapes, counting, alphabets and other montessori type stuff.

I’m saying that the public schools where I live and grew up (Baltimore County) didn’t have school sponsored sports until MS. Before then, you did rec sports. The same is true now.

Sure, you could do activities before then but they weren’t school sponsored. My son did Crab Kickers or something like that which was soccer for 4-5 yr old, Gymboree, etc but those were private companies. The kids aren’t here in public schools do mostly rec sports unless they are UMC and then they do travel sports and have private lessons on the side. A total waste of money but if you have it….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a young boomer at 65.

Most of my college friends worked throughout their careers. They are accountants, nurses, journalists, HR pris, teachers, lawyers. They used daycare, they lived close to their jobs. They had modest houses, sometimes a biweekly cleaning service, and their kids all watched a lot of TV and played with other kids from their schools without a ton of supervision. There was not a lot of travel sports. Just school sports.

In short we lived much more middle class lives and weren't micromanage the hothouse flowers you are bringing up today.

My DH played it differently. We postponed kids until our early 40s, doing a bunch of travel and house projects then one of us switched to part time after they were born. By that time we had power in our jobs and could set up our schedules to suit us.

You are out of touch. There are no modest homes close to most people's jobs.

Starting at 40s for kids, statistically that means fewer people even get to have kids as its a huge gamble, and on average kids get to have parents for a much shorter part of their lives and likely won't get any grandparent help with childcare.

You real secret was making more than average and buying when houses were cheap

My home is modest and it is close to my job. You need to move away from DC and you’ll find older homes near where you work. I live in eastern Baltimore County in a small 3 bedroom brick home with smallish front and back yards in a neighborhood built in the 50s. I bought it in 2018 for $235k. I’m a single parent and a teacher.

[Anonymous]

i don’t know how we did it, as two working parents with young kids pre covid, working out of the home, multiple drop offs etc. somehow we got through. covid brought wfh, but also a depressed mood all around. my kids hated online school, and suffered for it emotionally and academically. now i work 3 days from home, my kids are in middle and hs, and honestly we can breathe. my husband works from from home.

I think some measure of wfh, or one parent not working if you can swing it, is ideal. also closer school and work commutes are key. also, it gets better as the kids get older. my older one can drive, though we only have one car and generally drop them both at school still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a young boomer at 65.

Most of my college friends worked throughout their careers. They are accountants, nurses, journalists, HR pris, teachers, lawyers. They used daycare, they lived close to their jobs. They had modest houses, sometimes a biweekly cleaning service, and their kids all watched a lot of TV and played with other kids from their schools without a ton of supervision. There was not a lot of travel sports. Just school sports.

In short we lived much more middle class lives and weren't micromanage the hothouse flowers you are bringing up today.

My DH played it differently. We postponed kids until our early 40s, doing a bunch of travel and house projects then one of us switched to part time after they were born. By that time we had power in our jobs and could set up our schedules to suit us.

You are out of touch. There are no modest homes close to most people's jobs.

Starting at 40s for kids, statistically that means fewer people even get to have kids as its a huge gamble, and on average kids get to have parents for a much shorter part of their lives and likely won't get any grandparent help with childcare.

You real secret was making more than average and buying when houses were cheap

There are indeed cheaper homes near work away from the D.C. area.

You are the out of touch one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of ugliness in this thread, and I’m choosing to believe most of it is from trolls or people who are intentionally antagonistic.

Many women who are moms of young kids today came into the work world as things were becoming increasingly flexible. Now we see a backlash and retraction on flexibility. It might have been easy for people 10-15 or more years ago to deal with this because this is how it always was. Now, we have seen it can be different and that business owners and political leaders who are typically rich men are choosing to take flexibility away from the masses.

Right! I’m a millennial and this is the first time in my entire working life that I have zero flexibility. And at the same time, dh also lost all flexibility. Like we can’t even telework when very contagious. We aren’t even allowed to work telework while on business trips.

Dh and I likely wouldn’t have had a second or third child if we knew our lives would be this miserable. We had pleasant lives just 1.5 years ago and had no issue juggling. Something has to give and it feels like schools are our biggest pain points. It’s just insane to me how they get to cancel for the threat of snow. Or for every election and random holiday. More consistent schooling is needed. And 8 hours a day of school. Kids are consistently falling behind while also having no time for recess or lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a young boomer at 65.

Most of my college friends worked throughout their careers. They are accountants, nurses, journalists, HR pris, teachers, lawyers. They used daycare, they lived close to their jobs. They had modest houses, sometimes a biweekly cleaning service, and their kids all watched a lot of TV and played with other kids from their schools without a ton of supervision. There was not a lot of travel sports. Just school sports.

In short we lived much more middle class lives and weren't micromanage the hothouse flowers you are bringing up today.

My DH played it differently. We postponed kids until our early 40s, doing a bunch of travel and house projects then one of us switched to part time after they were born. By that time we had power in our jobs and could set up our schedules to suit us.

You are out of touch. There are no modest homes close to most people's jobs.

Starting at 40s for kids, statistically that means fewer people even get to have kids as its a huge gamble, and on average kids get to have parents for a much shorter part of their lives and likely won't get any grandparent help with childcare.

You real secret was making more than average and buying when houses were cheap

My home is modest and it is close to my job. You need to move away from DC and you’ll find older homes near where you work. I live in eastern Baltimore County in a small 3 bedroom brick home with smallish front and back yards in a neighborhood built in the 50s. I bought it in 2018 for $235k. I’m a single parent and a teacher.

Oh I agree, teachers are a great job if you are interested in living in the sticks where housing is cheaper. But teachers starting out make around $60k -- how do you swing a home mortgage that is 4x your salary and still have money for things like paying for car, medical, etc?

PITI: $1800
Take home after taxes: $3900
EVERYTHING ELSE has to fit into $2000 discretionary (car payments, fuel, groceries, CHILDCARE)
Are you saving anything for emergencies, let alone college?

And your salary is capped at $72k unless you achieve a masters or National Ceritification which costs money and time (things a single parent you don't have).

Do you get child support or government subsidies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a young boomer at 65.

Most of my college friends worked throughout their careers. They are accountants, nurses, journalists, HR pris, teachers, lawyers. They used daycare, they lived close to their jobs. They had modest houses, sometimes a biweekly cleaning service, and their kids all watched a lot of TV and played with other kids from their schools without a ton of supervision. There was not a lot of travel sports. Just school sports.

In short we lived much more middle class lives and weren't micromanage the hothouse flowers you are bringing up today.

My DH played it differently. We postponed kids until our early 40s, doing a bunch of travel and house projects then one of us switched to part time after they were born. By that time we had power in our jobs and could set up our schedules to suit us.

You are out of touch. There are no modest homes close to most people's jobs.

Starting at 40s for kids, statistically that means fewer people even get to have kids as its a huge gamble, and on average kids get to have parents for a much shorter part of their lives and likely won't get any grandparent help with childcare.

You real secret was making more than average and buying when houses were cheap

There are indeed cheaper homes near work away from the D.C. area.

You are the out of touch one.

Than you have crap jobs. Sure if you are a teleworking job and know you can build a career never going into the office, you will have the cheaper pay that matches those cheaper houses (which often leaves you work off because of the magic of percentages).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to public school and there were no school sponsored sports until middle school. In ES we did sports through the rec center. That’s how it works now here.

What are you talking about? My kids went to public schools 16 years ago, but much before that they were doing all kinds of classes - swim, singing, painting, gymnastics, spanish, crafts, baby yoga - from the time they were 3. On top of that, they were also doing the regular running around, playing with friends, learning colors, shapes, counting, alphabets and other montessori type stuff.

I’m saying that the public schools where I live and grew up (Baltimore County) didn’t have school sponsored sports until MS. Before then, you did rec sports. The same is true now.

Sure, you could do activities before then but they weren’t school sponsored. My son did Crab Kickers or something like that which was soccer for 4-5 yr old, Gymboree, etc but those were private companies. The kids aren’t here in public schools do mostly rec sports unless they are UMC and then they do travel sports and have private lessons on the side. A total waste of money but if you have it….

My kids learn sports properly with structured lessons and dedicated practice time. It’s not travel sports but it’s definitely more serious than after schools options. They are progressing, engaged and happy. I think it’s a great experience to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave up on my career.

My husband makes literally ten times more money than I would ever make in a year and I was just so sick of constantly being completely stressed out, all the time.

And it only got worse when the kids got to high school, that's when I just gave up.

Yeah, that’s not the typical working parent scenario. If your partner is making $800k+ you definitely don’t need to work.

Senior partners at my firm (1mm+) get fired regularly, or whenever the CEO throws a tantrum over shitty quarterly stock performance. I actually feel safer quitting if my partner has a boring 250k job that flies under the radar.