Dual 400k incomes vs single 400k income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

You can pay help for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One curved argue that two 200 K incomes has some advantages over a single $400k.

There is implicit stability and having two earners, so that if one gets laid off, sick or disabled there’s still some money coming in.

It can also breed a more equitable relationship, but it’s not a requirement many breadwinner families are equitable

But in general most$400k Jobs are very demanding with long hours of stress and travel versus you could have two almost lifestyle jobs if they are split, like two Fed workers. I don’t really buy the claim that some people work 80 hours, but it is possible that the aggregate labor of our worked and both cases is very similar.

In general though, I feel feel like a single breadwinner is the better arrangement. But we are dual income, so maybe it’s just grass greener.

Every time I say something like this, someone inevitably comes out to say that, actually, they work *less* the more they earn. Also, apparently, 7-figure WFH jobs are a thing. I'm skeptical that these are anything but outliers, but who knows?

Yep!!

Outliers or just liars.

Maybe my job is an outlier. I worked more in the $300-600k range than I do now at low 7 figures. For me it’s because I’m way more senior now and I direct the work rather than “doing the work”. Yes, I am accountable for far more and with that comes stress. But on a day to day basis, I can set my own schedule, and choose what I want to focus on. Oh, and it’s not WFH, it’s hybrid - 50/50 office vs WFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One curved argue that two 200 K incomes has some advantages over a single $400k.

There is implicit stability and having two earners, so that if one gets laid off, sick or disabled there’s still some money coming in.

It can also breed a more equitable relationship, but it’s not a requirement many breadwinner families are equitable

But in general most$400k Jobs are very demanding with long hours of stress and travel versus you could have two almost lifestyle jobs if they are split, like two Fed workers. I don’t really buy the claim that some people work 80 hours, but it is possible that the aggregate labor of our worked and both cases is very similar.

In general though, I feel feel like a single breadwinner is the better arrangement. But we are dual income, so maybe it’s just grass greener.

Every time I say something like this, someone inevitably comes out to say that, actually, they work *less* the more they earn. Also, apparently, 7-figure WFH jobs are a thing. I'm skeptical that these are anything but outliers, but who knows?

Yep!!

Outliers or just liars.

Maybe my job is an outlier. I worked more in the $300-600k range than I do now at low 7 figures. For me it’s because I’m way more senior now and I direct the work rather than “doing the work”. Yes, I am accountable for far more and with that comes stress. But on a day to day basis, I can set my own schedule, and choose what I want to focus on. Oh, and it’s not WFH, it’s hybrid - 50/50 office vs WFH.

Congratulations?!

You know how to brag anonymously online?.... not sure what you want us to do/think about this info....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

Quite a few want a WIFE (similar to the way they collect cars or other things) to stay home and look after his kids (also viewed like a collectable item). Having a good life with a SAHW is a status symbol. So long as the wife keeps up her end of the bargain- always be beautiful, calm, put together, thin, never age, only produce perfect children, be a gracious host, organize everything, be totally deferential, never have a loud or controversial opinion, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One curved argue that two 200 K incomes has some advantages over a single $400k.

There is implicit stability and having two earners, so that if one gets laid off, sick or disabled there’s still some money coming in.

It can also breed a more equitable relationship, but it’s not a requirement many breadwinner families are equitable

But in general most$400k Jobs are very demanding with long hours of stress and travel versus you could have two almost lifestyle jobs if they are split, like two Fed workers. I don’t really buy the claim that some people work 80 hours, but it is possible that the aggregate labor of our worked and both cases is very similar.

In general though, I feel feel like a single breadwinner is the better arrangement. But we are dual income, so maybe it’s just grass greener.

Every time I say something like this, someone inevitably comes out to say that, actually, they work *less* the more they earn. Also, apparently, 7-figure WFH jobs are a thing. I'm skeptical that these are anything but outliers, but who knows?

Yep!!

Outliers or just liars.

Maybe my job is an outlier. I worked more in the $300-600k range than I do now at low 7 figures. For me it’s because I’m way more senior now and I direct the work rather than “doing the work”. Yes, I am accountable for far more and with that comes stress. But on a day to day basis, I can set my own schedule, and choose what I want to focus on. Oh, and it’s not WFH, it’s hybrid - 50/50 office vs WFH.

Congratulations?!

You know how to brag anonymously online?.... not sure what you want us to do/think about this info....

Wasn’t trying to brag, but I can see how it may across as that. I was responding to PPs who felt such jobs were lies - wanted to provide an alternative perspective that salary and stress may not be linear after a certain level of seniority at work/being past the most intense parenting phase at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much better is life? Most guys I know who make 300-500k are married to SAHM’s or their wife makes 100k or less. Seeing all these high earning dual income couples on here I wonder, is your lifestyle that much better?

My husband makes $480K and I make $340K. We are mid-30s and have three kids. I’m much happier working remotely and having a nanny to help with caretaking during the day then being stay at home. But if other people prefer a lifestyle where one parent stays at home that’s great. The one size fits all approach isn’t realistic with this type of thing though. There isn’t a better situation. It’s what works best for each family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

Quite a few want a WIFE (similar to the way they collect cars or other things) to stay home and look after his kids (also viewed like a collectable item). Having a good life with a SAHW is a status symbol. So long as the wife keeps up her end of the bargain- always be beautiful, calm, put together, thin, never age, only produce perfect children, be a gracious host, organize everything, be totally deferential, never have a loud or controversial opinion, etc.

Parents stay at home for many reasons, but this type of marriage sounds more like monogamous sugaring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much better is life? Most guys I know who make 300-500k are married to SAHM’s or their wife makes 100k or less. Seeing all these high earning dual income couples on here I wonder, is your lifestyle that much better?

It's better for me. I've stayed home and feel uncomfortable to live off another person's income as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

Quite a few want a WIFE (similar to the way they collect cars or other things) to stay home and look after his kids (also viewed like a collectable item). Having a good life with a SAHW is a status symbol. So long as the wife keeps up her end of the bargain- always be beautiful, calm, put together, thin, never age, only produce perfect children, be a gracious host, organize everything, be totally deferential, never have a loud or controversial opinion, etc.

Did you learn this trope from TikTok? Why would any rich person want a totally deferential spouse when their life is surrounded by yes men, since the rich person is likely everyone's boss, have people fawning over them for being successful, and have secretaries and assistants that they can already boss around? Do you really think what a rich person wants the most is a maid for a spouse?

And why would any woman agree to this bargain? There's no point to being rich if you have to ask your husband for every little thing because you have to be totally deferential. You're literally enslaving yourself to live on a pretty plantation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

Quite a few want a WIFE (similar to the way they collect cars or other things) to stay home and look after his kids (also viewed like a collectable item). Having a good life with a SAHW is a status symbol. So long as the wife keeps up her end of the bargain- always be beautiful, calm, put together, thin, never age, only produce perfect children, be a gracious host, organize everything, be totally deferential, never have a loud or controversial opinion, etc.

Did you learn this trope from TikTok? Why would any rich person want a totally deferential spouse when their life is surrounded by yes men, since the rich person is likely everyone's boss, have people fawning over them for being successful, and have secretaries and assistants that they can already boss around? Do you really think what a rich person wants the most is a maid for a spouse?

And why would any woman agree to this bargain? There's no point to being rich if you have to ask your husband for every little thing because you have to be totally deferential. You're literally enslaving yourself to live on a pretty plantation.

I don't know WHY people want this, but I know they do. Read many other threads on this forum.

I agree this wouldn't be the life for me, but it is desirable for both men and women, not all but some.

BTW - bosses surround themselves with 'yes men' all the time and they don't want to be challenged at home. There are lots of people like this on the planet. Trump is a prominent one! Melania is basically silent. He divorced Ivana because she had some opinions and even worse than opinions, she aged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it better to have a HHI of $400k but full control of your spouse, or $800k but have to pretend to be a partner?

My spouse makes about $365 inclusive of bonus and stock, and I make about $80-90K, so about $450K a year and no debt except for mortgage (college is coming but we'll likely pay cash for one child). I assure you: he does not have "full control" of me. We are equal partners. He even handles sick days and medical appointments about half the time - imagine that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it better to have a HHI of $400k but full control of your spouse, or $800k but have to pretend to be a partner?

My spouse makes about $365 inclusive of bonus and stock, and I make about $80-90K, so about $450K a year and no debt except for mortgage (college is coming but we'll likely pay cash for one child). I assure you: he does not have "full control" of me. We are equal partners. He even handles sick days and medical appointments about half the time - imagine that!

I can imagine it! I can also imagine that other families have a different balance than yours. I think extrapolating your situation to everyone else's is naive and myopic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

How many breadwinners do you know have the following mindset: "I'm so happy I can make all this money so my other half can become a personal Uber driver for our children rather than having a job they find fulfilling"?

Quite a few want a WIFE (similar to the way they collect cars or other things) to stay home and look after his kids (also viewed like a collectable item). Having a good life with a SAHW is a status symbol. So long as the wife keeps up her end of the bargain- always be beautiful, calm, put together, thin, never age, only produce perfect children, be a gracious host, organize everything, be totally deferential, never have a loud or controversial opinion, etc.

Did you learn this trope from TikTok? Why would any rich person want a totally deferential spouse when their life is surrounded by yes men, since the rich person is likely everyone's boss, have people fawning over them for being successful, and have secretaries and assistants that they can already boss around? Do you really think what a rich person wants the most is a maid for a spouse?

And why would any woman agree to this bargain? There's no point to being rich if you have to ask your husband for every little thing because you have to be totally deferential. You're literally enslaving yourself to live on a pretty plantation.

I don't know WHY people want this, but I know they do. Read many other threads on this forum.

I agree this wouldn't be the life for me, but it is desirable for both men and women, not all but some.

BTW - bosses surround themselves with 'yes men' all the time and they don't want to be challenged at home. There are lots of people like this on the planet. Trump is a prominent one! Melania is basically silent. He divorced Ivana because she had some opinions and even worse than opinions, she aged.

Not even Melania is deferential. She lawyered up recently and negotiated a post-nuptial agreement to get more assets for herself and for her son. The only people who think being surrounded by yes men is desirable and that being a yes man is desirable are teenagers who listen to Andrew Tate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it better to have a HHI of $400k but full control of your spouse, or $800k but have to pretend to be a partner?

My spouse makes about $365 inclusive of bonus and stock, and I make about $80-90K, so about $450K a year and no debt except for mortgage (college is coming but we'll likely pay cash for one child). I assure you: he does not have "full control" of me. We are equal partners. He even handles sick days and medical appointments about half the time - imagine that!

I can imagine it! I can also imagine that other families have a different balance than yours. I think extrapolating your situation to everyone else's is naive and myopic.

How is extrapolating your imagination that a high earner would seek to control the lesser earner to be a general fact the wise decision in this case? Your opinion should be based on fact, not ~imagination~. Moreover, your assertion suggests that successful people are unable to handle a difference in opinion, which is literally the opposite of any person who becomes successful as no one is born into the position of CEO. It also normalizes one spouse controlling the other just because they make more money, since according to you, this is generally how it goes.