What I’m noticing from millennial high achieving moms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

Curing cancer/ being an award-winning scientist for $160k a year is a bigger flex in my book than being a glorified salesperson for loads of money. I agree that scientists need to be paid more.

NP here and I agree. I would way rather be friends with the NIH scientist than the tech industry PP who sold out and spends her days maximizing clicks on ads. How pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

How gross. I think there's a lot of insecurity here - you regret "selling out" and wish you had meaningful work to do. As a former management consultant who went into government and LOVE my job now, I don't regret leaving the private sector one bit. I don't need much money to have a good life. But you will never get back all your hours as an excel monkey slaving away to make megacorp richer.

[Anonymous]

Is “I’m Ivy educated” the new “I’m a vegan”? I’m not Ivy educated
(I AM a vegan ), but the older I get the more sad and pathetic I find people who still feel the need to brag about what school they went to decades ago, usually with the expectation that the rest of us are supposed to be awed and impressed and defer to whatever opinion they’re about to unload on us.

This entire thread reeks of insecurity. “High achieving” could mean anything, depending on the individual and their own values and priorities.

[Anonymous]

1-3, plus marathons could apply to any generation GenX and younger among "high achieving" moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

Curing cancer/ being an award-winning scientist for $160k a year is a bigger flex in my book than being a glorified salesperson for loads of money. I agree that scientists need to be paid more.

+1 and I'm curious how old the PP is because an interesting thing happens around 45 and people starting thinking about meaning and purpose in life in a deeper way and what I see are people who went into fields they are passionate about where their work has very clear and tangible value (cancer research being a good example but can also think of civil engineers and teachers at all levels and pretty much anyone in the medical field) have a higher level of happiness and contentment over their choices. Whereas many people who went the more corporate route for money reasons (myself included) hit a wall and the money itself does not make up for the feeling that you are just shuffling paperwork around for no reason except to make yourself and others rich. I left my job and am now "underemployed" and focused on my kids. I know others who took sabbaticals and mental health breaks. When 50 starts to loom into view you start to get a little philosophical and for some of us the jobs in consulting and tech lose all their allure and just become paychecks. Big ones yes but just paychecks nonetheless.

The person I know with the most job satisfaction in our mid to late 40s is a nurse anesthetist who dropped out of med school after a year to change tracks and has never regretted it. Good pay plus work life balance plus a feeling that her work genuinely matters and is appreciated by colleagues and patients. I have probably outearned her by multiples in the last 20 years and I envy her. Husband is a real estate agent. They have a really nice life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

Curing cancer/ being an award-winning scientist for $160k a year is a bigger flex in my book than being a glorified salesperson for loads of money. I agree that scientists need to be paid more.

Sure it’s great to be an award winning scientist.

But needing to use daycare instead of a nanny. Not owning a home. Not being able to afford a nice wardrobe or date nights. No luxury vacations.

Sounds like a lot of sacrifice! I personally wouldn’t want to give up my nanny and fun vacations to be a scientist or any other low earning but prestigious job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

Curing cancer/ being an award-winning scientist for $160k a year is a bigger flex in my book than being a glorified salesperson for loads of money. I agree that scientists need to be paid more.

Sure it’s great to be an award winning scientist.

But needing to use daycare instead of a nanny. Not owning a home. Not being able to afford a nice wardrobe or date nights. No luxury vacations.

Sounds like a lot of sacrifice! I personally wouldn’t want to give up my nanny and fun vacations to be a scientist or any other low earning but prestigious job.

It's true, as an Ivy League PhD-holding government researcher (although not working on curing cancer specifically) my house is small, my wardrobe is affordable, and my kids go to day care. My life is not a "flex." But I didn't grow up surrounded by rich people, and I do prioritize vacations, so a normal middle class life doesn't feel like "a lot of sacrifice," and i get to have a cool job. It's all relative!

[Anonymous]

For those who actually understood the purpose of the thread, it seems that what I’m seeing is validated by others. Basically, for women with phd, jd, md, engineering degrees/ Ivy League grad/ high achievers are more likely now to be working with young kids than in the past despite having high earner husbands and having more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who actually understood the purpose of the thread, it seems that what I’m seeing is validated by others. Basically, for women with phd, jd, md, engineering degrees/ Ivy League grad/ high achievers are more likely now to be working with young kids than in the past despite having high earner husbands and having more kids.

Haha this. I feel like a lot of posters just used this thread as another way to trash WOHMs like out DHs don't earn enough.

Also to the PP horrified by an NIH income, I know lots of dual fed families and they are pretty happy. Shockingly they have kids, own homes, and even go on vacations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

Go away with your fake news .
No doctor ever told you epidural would slow down anything. You forget most of us are moms and we know. We had babies. Lie to us about something else

Unbelievable. You had a baby so you are now a world renowned expert.

Epidurals can delay delivery by 15” to an hour for some women. My baby’s heart rate was concerning so the doctor said it was not worth the possibility of a delay no matter how slight. No epidural and they used forceps. I was lucky I didn’t have to get an emergency C-section.

PP your ignorance is an embarrassment. Next time only speak for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

Lol. Why are you guys talking about epidurals on this thread?