Advice Needed: parents who both work long hours

[Anonymous]

You and your husband are ridiculous, selfish jerks. Let me break it to you—your fancy cars and private schools aren’t worth anything. Happiness is the key and you don’t seem to have any—you’re trying to “have it all,” but you really don’t have anything.

If you continue on this path, you’re going to raise messed up kids who dislike you. Kids need parents, not housekeepers. You are in for a rude awakening when your kids are teens, nannies don’t cut it, at all.

Finally, your DH is suspect. My husband is a biglaw partner at a major firm who makes 5-10x what your DH makes and he does NOT work so much that he can’t see his kids from 8am-9pm. Our kids play multiple sports, instruments, go to art classes, etc. and he is right there for all the game attending, dropping off, homework, etc. Sure, he might have to take a call during a game or read documents while watching a practice, but he is there. It’s actually strange that your DH is in the office until 9pm every night...this is not the norm, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I want to clear up the notion that I only spend 30 mins per day with my kids which is not at all true. They are up by 7am latest and we spend an hour an a half together until I drop the older one at school at 8:30 and our nanny arrives. I stop working at 5:30pm so I think have another 2 hours with my youngest who goes to bed at 7:30pm, and my oldest who goes to bed at 8 gets 2.5 hours. Where I struggle is that I then need to handle everything else too - cooking, clean up, laundry, schedules, projects, etc. And I choose to stop working at 5:30 and then go back online later most nights so I can spend the time with my kids.

I am genuinely curious - are there moms who work full time and get to spend more time with their kids than this? Even if you work 9-5 with commuting it’s probably about the same I would imagine.

We also don’t work for what would be considered biglaw firms (although my firm is bigger than DH’s). DH is already a partner and makes around $500K per year all in. He has even more earning potential with his recent promotion but isn’t there yet. I make around $250K and made it clear I don’t want to be on partner track because those attorneys work much more than I do.

We also don’t live an overly extravagant lifestyle at all. DH went to private school and is not open to public regardless of how good it is. That’s the only think that would make a reasonable different in our expenditures. So when you add that up, plus FT nanny, summer camp and classes, our families both lives across the country so 2X per year flights, one vacation per year, etc... it really doesn’t go as far as it should. We also save quite a bit as we want to make sure college and possible grad school are covered for our kids.

OP you are effing ridiculous. You make $750k/year and “it doesn’t go as far as it should”?! Wtf. You are LOADED and completely out of touch. I can’t even.

It sounds like you don't live a life similar to OP's. That's ok, but you don't have to act like it's completely unreasonable that OP's expenses are what they are. $750K/year is about $375K/year take home. Being in that tax bracket means you get hit with the highest rates and don't have the benefits of the truly rich (i.e. people living off interest or dividends), since it's all salary.

Nanny is probably $75K given that she's working 45 hours per week, which means 5 hours of overtime, which is 1.5 times normal rates. $25/hour times 40 hours/week is $52K. $37.50/hour (overtime) times 5 hours/week is $9,750, which is $61,750. Then you have to add in the employer's share of Medicare and SS on to that, plus bonus, gifts, etc.

Private school tuition for two is $125K, which would be $55K per kid plus donations, teacher's gifts, etc.

Mortgage is probably at least $75K a year.

So now we're at $275K/year on $375K take home salary. It's not a stretch to assume that 401k contributions plus 529 contributions take up another maybe $75K, plus two car payments totaling $20K a year, and you've practically eaten up the salary. Never mind clothes, country club memberships, sports, vacations, etc.

I'm not saying that's the way anyone should want to live, or even that it makes good financial sense, but it's not completely ludicrous to imagine the lifestyle OP is leading.

“never mind the country club fees”

I mean, you can roll your eyes all you want. I didn't say any of those expenses were necessary, I was just saying it's not that hard to imagine where OP's money is going. I get that you may not have a country club membership, and that's fine, but there are LOTS of people who do, and guess what? They cost money.

so you think we should empathize with OP because she has to work 60 hrs/week to pay for country club fees and is feeling stressed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

Wife of the big law partner here: my husband does dinner and bedtime with the kids every night. I clean while he does bath and stories. From 5:30-7 he is 100% with the kids. It's definitely possible. Her husband needs to pitch in more.

that’s great but not the case for all partners (and what about all the years trying to make partner?) Especially if there are clients in different time zones. And sorry, it still sounds miserable that the only family time is 1.5 hrs every night while you clean then he gets back on the phone. Miserable life, prioritizing money over all else.

Actually that is the case for all partners because the point of becoming partner is having more control over your schedule.
And if a parent works 9-5, has a 30 minute commute and kids go to bed at 7 how is that parent spending more time with their kids that this parent? The difference is working after bedtime. Very few people have the mental fortitude to do that (sounds like you included) which is why so few people make partner.

It’s very rare. Partners serve the clients, and the type of people who grind their way to partner are generally the types to put work above all else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are double biglaw. DH just made partner this past year. I wish I had any advice or answers. It’s exhausting. In-house opportunities are rare. Government is hard to get. I thought I’d have all these wonderful “exit options” from my firm and with all these resume rubber stamps but that’s not how it’s gone.

If your husband is a partner, you don’t need to worry about your income at all or vice versa. Stop chasing money and find a way for one of you to prioritize your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

I worked 24/5 for someone with very high HHI. There is no way that they were home for bedtime 4 nights per week, let alone dinner; the reality is that several times I was notified during the day that they would not be home that night at all, because they needed to fly somewhere. Add in that they left the house before the kids got up...

We prioritized individual facetime the parent and the kids everyday, as long as each child wanted to talk. We talked about how the parent got their job, why they did it, and what changes would happen in both the family and the outward world if the parent didn't have that job. And the parent prioritized being home every Friday night early enough to take the kids out to dinner, then spending the vast majority of the weekend focused on the kids together or individually.

In another family, I was 24/7. The parent was away for 2 months, and there was no other option. They prioritized daily check-ins with me along with daily talks with each of the children.

The hard fact is that we (society) have jobs that take parents away from their children, sometimes for long stretches of time. Most parents won't choose that, but those who do make sure that someone else cares for their children when they aren't available. We don't get upset when a single parent deploys and the children live with relatives for a few months. Why is everyone jumping to rake OP over the coals? We have jobs that require long hours, and it's ridiculous to assume that only people without children and empty nesters will take them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

I worked 24/5 for someone with very high HHI. There is no way that they were home for bedtime 4 nights per week, let alone dinner; the reality is that several times I was notified during the day that they would not be home that night at all, because they needed to fly somewhere. Add in that they left the house before the kids got up...

We prioritized individual facetime the parent and the kids everyday, as long as each child wanted to talk. We talked about how the parent got their job, why they did it, and what changes would happen in both the family and the outward world if the parent didn't have that job. And the parent prioritized being home every Friday night early enough to take the kids out to dinner, then spending the vast majority of the weekend focused on the kids together or individually.

In another family, I was 24/7. The parent was away for 2 months, and there was no other option. They prioritized daily check-ins with me along with daily talks with each of the children.

The hard fact is that we (society) have jobs that take parents away from their children, sometimes for long stretches of time. Most parents won't choose that, but those who do make sure that someone else cares for their children when they aren't available. We don't get upset when a single parent deploys and the children live with relatives for a few months. Why is everyone jumping to rake OP over the coals? We have jobs that require long hours, and it's ridiculous to assume that only people without children and empty nesters will take them.

because a single parent who deploys has no other options and is a public servant, and presumably will be back in the states eventually to parent normally. whereas OP is proposing to do it indefinitely for $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I want to clear up the notion that I only spend 30 mins per day with my kids which is not at all true. They are up by 7am latest and we spend an hour an a half together until I drop the older one at school at 8:30 and our nanny arrives. I stop working at 5:30pm so I think have another 2 hours with my youngest who goes to bed at 7:30pm, and my oldest who goes to bed at 8 gets 2.5 hours. Where I struggle is that I then need to handle everything else too - cooking, clean up, laundry, schedules, projects, etc. And I choose to stop working at 5:30 and then go back online later most nights so I can spend the time with my kids.

I am genuinely curious - are there moms who work full time and get to spend more time with their kids than this? Even if you work 9-5 with commuting it’s probably about the same I would imagine.

We also don’t work for what would be considered biglaw firms (although my firm is bigger than DH’s). DH is already a partner and makes around $500K per year all in. He has even more earning potential with his recent promotion but isn’t there yet. I make around $250K and made it clear I don’t want to be on partner track because those attorneys work much more than I do.

We also don’t live an overly extravagant lifestyle at all. DH went to private school and is not open to public regardless of how good it is. That’s the only think that would make a reasonable different in our expenditures. So when you add that up, plus FT nanny, summer camp and classes, our families both lives across the country so 2X per year flights, one vacation per year, etc... it really doesn’t go as far as it should. We also save quite a bit as we want to make sure college and possible grad school are covered for our kids.

OP, my suggestion is to find a live-in nanny/household manager who is okay doing the daily cooking and kitchen clean-up, household laundry, childcare, Saturday date night (because if you don't prioritize it, your marriage will start to suffer), etc. She should be doing all the groceries and other ordering, scheduling, supervising schoolwork and school projects, taking vehicles in for maintenance, scheduling and handling repairs, etc. Due to the hours you'll want (your hours, plus time before and after), live-in makes the most sense.

[Anonymous]

I have to think this was a troll yanking everyone's chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

I worked 24/5 for someone with very high HHI. There is no way that they were home for bedtime 4 nights per week, let alone dinner; the reality is that several times I was notified during the day that they would not be home that night at all, because they needed to fly somewhere. Add in that they left the house before the kids got up...

We prioritized individual facetime the parent and the kids everyday, as long as each child wanted to talk. We talked about how the parent got their job, why they did it, and what changes would happen in both the family and the outward world if the parent didn't have that job. And the parent prioritized being home every Friday night early enough to take the kids out to dinner, then spending the vast majority of the weekend focused on the kids together or individually.

In another family, I was 24/7. The parent was away for 2 months, and there was no other option. They prioritized daily check-ins with me along with daily talks with each of the children.

The hard fact is that we (society) have jobs that take parents away from their children, sometimes for long stretches of time. Most parents won't choose that, but those who do make sure that someone else cares for their children when they aren't available. We don't get upset when a single parent deploys and the children live with relatives for a few months. Why is everyone jumping to rake OP over the coals? We have jobs that require long hours, and it's ridiculous to assume that only people without children and empty nesters will take them.

because a single parent who deploys has no other options and is a public servant, and presumably will be back in the states eventually to parent normally. whereas OP is proposing to do it indefinitely for $$$.

So, in other words, you're willing to ignore that a single parent military family has the same or less time for the children to be with the parent (when the parent isn't deployed), all because they don't make as much money.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

if her DH thinks this, he shouldn't have had children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I want to clear up the notion that I only spend 30 mins per day with my kids which is not at all true. They are up by 7am latest and we spend an hour an a half together until I drop the older one at school at 8:30 and our nanny arrives. I stop working at 5:30pm so I think have another 2 hours with my youngest who goes to bed at 7:30pm, and my oldest who goes to bed at 8 gets 2.5 hours. Where I struggle is that I then need to handle everything else too - cooking, clean up, laundry, schedules, projects, etc. And I choose to stop working at 5:30 and then go back online later most nights so I can spend the time with my kids.

I am genuinely curious - are there moms who work full time and get to spend more time with their kids than this? Even if you work 9-5 with commuting it’s probably about the same I would imagine.

We also don’t work for what would be considered biglaw firms (although my firm is bigger than DH’s). DH is already a partner and makes around $500K per year all in. He has even more earning potential with his recent promotion but isn’t there yet. I make around $250K and made it clear I don’t want to be on partner track because those attorneys work much more than I do.

We also don’t live an overly extravagant lifestyle at all. DH went to private school and is not open to public regardless of how good it is. That’s the only think that would make a reasonable different in our expenditures. So when you add that up, plus FT nanny, summer camp and classes, our families both lives across the country so 2X per year flights, one vacation per year, etc... it really doesn’t go as far as it should. We also save quite a bit as we want to make sure college and possible grad school are covered for our kids.

OP you are effing ridiculous. You make $750k/year and “it doesn’t go as far as it should”?! Wtf. You are LOADED and completely out of touch. I can’t even.

It sounds like you don't live a life similar to OP's. That's ok, but you don't have to act like it's completely unreasonable that OP's expenses are what they are. $750K/year is about $375K/year take home. Being in that tax bracket means you get hit with the highest rates and don't have the benefits of the truly rich (i.e. people living off interest or dividends), since it's all salary.

Nanny is probably $75K given that she's working 45 hours per week, which means 5 hours of overtime, which is 1.5 times normal rates. $25/hour times 40 hours/week is $52K. $37.50/hour (overtime) times 5 hours/week is $9,750, which is $61,750. Then you have to add in the employer's share of Medicare and SS on to that, plus bonus, gifts, etc.

Private school tuition for two is $125K, which would be $55K per kid plus donations, teacher's gifts, etc.

Mortgage is probably at least $75K a year.

So now we're at $275K/year on $375K take home salary. It's not a stretch to assume that 401k contributions plus 529 contributions take up another maybe $75K, plus two car payments totaling $20K a year, and you've practically eaten up the salary. Never mind clothes, country club memberships, sports, vacations, etc.

I'm not saying that's the way anyone should want to live, or even that it makes good financial sense, but it's not completely ludicrous to imagine the lifestyle OP is leading.

And it's also possible to imagine the very small violin I am playing. Nevermind the clothes, country club memberships, and vacations? GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I want to clear up the notion that I only spend 30 mins per day with my kids which is not at all true. They are up by 7am latest and we spend an hour an a half together until I drop the older one at school at 8:30 and our nanny arrives. I stop working at 5:30pm so I think have another 2 hours with my youngest who goes to bed at 7:30pm, and my oldest who goes to bed at 8 gets 2.5 hours. Where I struggle is that I then need to handle everything else too - cooking, clean up, laundry, schedules, projects, etc. And I choose to stop working at 5:30 and then go back online later most nights so I can spend the time with my kids.

I am genuinely curious - are there moms who work full time and get to spend more time with their kids than this? Even if you work 9-5 with commuting it’s probably about the same I would imagine.

We also don’t work for what would be considered biglaw firms (although my firm is bigger than DH’s). DH is already a partner and makes around $500K per year all in. He has even more earning potential with his recent promotion but isn’t there yet. I make around $250K and made it clear I don’t want to be on partner track because those attorneys work much more than I do.

We also don’t live an overly extravagant lifestyle at all. DH went to private school and is not open to public regardless of how good it is. That’s the only think that would make a reasonable different in our expenditures. So when you add that up, plus FT nanny, summer camp and classes, our families both lives across the country so 2X per year flights, one vacation per year, etc... it really doesn’t go as far as it should. We also save quite a bit as we want to make sure college and possible grad school are covered for our kids.

OP you are effing ridiculous. You make $750k/year and “it doesn’t go as far as it should”?! Wtf. You are LOADED and completely out of touch. I can’t even.

It sounds like you don't live a life similar to OP's. That's ok, but you don't have to act like it's completely unreasonable that OP's expenses are what they are. $750K/year is about $375K/year take home. Being in that tax bracket means you get hit with the highest rates and don't have the benefits of the truly rich (i.e. people living off interest or dividends), since it's all salary.

Nanny is probably $75K given that she's working 45 hours per week, which means 5 hours of overtime, which is 1.5 times normal rates. $25/hour times 40 hours/week is $52K. $37.50/hour (overtime) times 5 hours/week is $9,750, which is $61,750. Then you have to add in the employer's share of Medicare and SS on to that, plus bonus, gifts, etc.

Private school tuition for two is $125K, which would be $55K per kid plus donations, teacher's gifts, etc.

Mortgage is probably at least $75K a year.

So now we're at $275K/year on $375K take home salary. It's not a stretch to assume that 401k contributions plus 529 contributions take up another maybe $75K, plus two car payments totaling $20K a year, and you've practically eaten up the salary. Never mind clothes, country club memberships, sports, vacations, etc.

I'm not saying that's the way anyone should want to live, or even that it makes good financial sense, but it's not completely ludicrous to imagine the lifestyle OP is leading.

They're not paying private school tuition for 2 right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I want to clear up the notion that I only spend 30 mins per day with my kids which is not at all true. They are up by 7am latest and we spend an hour an a half together until I drop the older one at school at 8:30 and our nanny arrives. I stop working at 5:30pm so I think have another 2 hours with my youngest who goes to bed at 7:30pm, and my oldest who goes to bed at 8 gets 2.5 hours. Where I struggle is that I then need to handle everything else too - cooking, clean up, laundry, schedules, projects, etc. And I choose to stop working at 5:30 and then go back online later most nights so I can spend the time with my kids.

I am genuinely curious - are there moms who work full time and get to spend more time with their kids than this? Even if you work 9-5 with commuting it’s probably about the same I would imagine.

We also don’t work for what would be considered biglaw firms (although my firm is bigger than DH’s). DH is already a partner and makes around $500K per year all in. He has even more earning potential with his recent promotion but isn’t there yet. I make around $250K and made it clear I don’t want to be on partner track because those attorneys work much more than I do.

We also don’t live an overly extravagant lifestyle at all. DH went to private school and is not open to public regardless of how good it is. That’s the only think that would make a reasonable different in our expenditures. So when you add that up, plus FT nanny, summer camp and classes, our families both lives across the country so 2X per year flights, one vacation per year, etc... it really doesn’t go as far as it should. We also save quite a bit as we want to make sure college and possible grad school are covered for our kids.

OP you are effing ridiculous. You make $750k/year and “it doesn’t go as far as it should”?! Wtf. You are LOADED and completely out of touch. I can’t even.

It sounds like you don't live a life similar to OP's. That's ok, but you don't have to act like it's completely unreasonable that OP's expenses are what they are. $750K/year is about $375K/year take home. Being in that tax bracket means you get hit with the highest rates and don't have the benefits of the truly rich (i.e. people living off interest or dividends), since it's all salary.

Nanny is probably $75K given that she's working 45 hours per week, which means 5 hours of overtime, which is 1.5 times normal rates. $25/hour times 40 hours/week is $52K. $37.50/hour (overtime) times 5 hours/week is $9,750, which is $61,750. Then you have to add in the employer's share of Medicare and SS on to that, plus bonus, gifts, etc.

Private school tuition for two is $125K, which would be $55K per kid plus donations, teacher's gifts, etc.

Mortgage is probably at least $75K a year.

So now we're at $275K/year on $375K take home salary. It's not a stretch to assume that 401k contributions plus 529 contributions take up another maybe $75K, plus two car payments totaling $20K a year, and you've practically eaten up the salary. Never mind clothes, country club memberships, sports, vacations, etc.

I'm not saying that's the way anyone should want to live, or even that it makes good financial sense, but it's not completely ludicrous to imagine the lifestyle OP is leading.

“never mind the country club fees”

I mean, you can roll your eyes all you want. I didn't say any of those expenses were necessary, I was just saying it's not that hard to imagine where OP's money is going. I get that you may not have a country club membership, and that's fine, but there are LOTS of people who do, and guess what? They cost money.

so you think we should empathize with OP because she has to work 60 hrs/week to pay for country club fees and is feeling stressed?

I never said you had to empathize with OP. Seriously, can you people read? All I was commenting on was where OP's money went. People were acting like salaries of $750K meant $650K of extra money and I was trying to explain where the money went. I never said anyone needed to empathize with OP. I wouldn't want her life, and in fact I did leave my BigLaw job for one where I make less money but I see my kids and enjoy my life more. But I can't not fathom where the money is going, which was my sole point. I'm sorry you can't understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

Wife of the big law partner here: my husband does dinner and bedtime with the kids every night. I clean while he does bath and stories. From 5:30-7 he is 100% with the kids. It's definitely possible. Her husband needs to pitch in more.

that’s great but not the case for all partners (and what about all the years trying to make partner?) Especially if there are clients in different time zones. And sorry, it still sounds miserable that the only family time is 1.5 hrs every night while you clean then he gets back on the phone. Miserable life, prioritizing money over all else.

Actually that is the case for all partners because the point of becoming partner is having more control over your schedule.
And if a parent works 9-5, has a 30 minute commute and kids go to bed at 7 how is that parent spending more time with their kids that this parent? The difference is working after bedtime. Very few people have the mental fortitude to do that (sounds like you included) which is why so few people make partner.

It’s very rare. Partners serve the clients, and the type of people who grind their way to partner are generally the types to put work above all else.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so irritated that everyone keeps blaming op for her job. She has reasonable hours and good salary for Law. She doesn’t need to mommy track anymore than she already has.

The problem is that her husband is working crazy hours. He needs to take more of a break in the evenings and help out more. OP is not the problem. And they need tips for how to outsource more. That’s really what Op was asking. She does not need to mommy track more.

no, it is her job because she’s the one complaining. her husband, correctly, thinks that since they earn 750k HHI he doesn’t need to come home for dinner. Someone else will handle it. That person can be OP or it can be a housekeeper or au pair. Very, very few people earning 500k are going to drop everything to do dishes and bedtime from 6-9 every night. Her choice. Leaving aside her DH, I think any job that makes you regularly work several hours after your young kids’ bedtime is unsustainable.

I worked 24/5 for someone with very high HHI. There is no way that they were home for bedtime 4 nights per week, let alone dinner; the reality is that several times I was notified during the day that they would not be home that night at all, because they needed to fly somewhere. Add in that they left the house before the kids got up...

We prioritized individual facetime the parent and the kids everyday, as long as each child wanted to talk. We talked about how the parent got their job, why they did it, and what changes would happen in both the family and the outward world if the parent didn't have that job. And the parent prioritized being home every Friday night early enough to take the kids out to dinner, then spending the vast majority of the weekend focused on the kids together or individually.

In another family, I was 24/7. The parent was away for 2 months, and there was no other option. They prioritized daily check-ins with me along with daily talks with each of the children.

The hard fact is that we (society) have jobs that take parents away from their children, sometimes for long stretches of time. Most parents won't choose that, but those who do make sure that someone else cares for their children when they aren't available. We don't get upset when a single parent deploys and the children live with relatives for a few months. Why is everyone jumping to rake OP over the coals? We have jobs that require long hours, and it's ridiculous to assume that only people without children and empty nesters will take them.

One thing I will point out is that, as a partner, her DH is now in a position to actually shape his workplace and effect change. One wonders if he is doing so or if he's just continuing to perpetuate the situation.