Do people really let careers get in way of having kids (if they want kids)?

[Anonymous]

I was surprised when talking to a married woman in late 30 who expressed how she hasn’t had kids due to the intensity of her health care work that leaves little time to pump or keep up with motherhood duties. It sounded like she wants to be a mom but has allowed her career to dictate whether she will be a mom or not. I find it strange because I come from a culture where ppl would never let a career get in the way of having kids they want to have and several women in my culture have jobs that are relentless.

Do you know ppl who have decided against kids due to careers? Do they regret it later? Did the satisfaction form their career outweighed the loss of not having children (assuming they want children)?

[Anonymous]

Yes, I know people as most people cannot do it all and something gets neglected and usually it is the kids. I know many parents who just pay nannies and babysitters or leave the kids in day care all day (even when sick) as their careers come first. I respect someone who makes the choice not to have kids as they know the kids will not be their priority.

[Anonymous]

She is an idiot. There is a reason why such idiots should not reproduce. Let her work to death.

[Anonymous]

I know people who decided not to have kids. They both have intense careers and lots of international travelling involved. I'm not sure whether they are happy or not with their choice.

[Anonymous]

I think some people are on the fence and the career makes them lean toward not having them. If you truly want kids, you can have them with any career.

[Anonymous]

Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

Are you kidding? You make $700K a year and complain that $70 is a strain. You can always take care fo your own kids. You don't make any sacrifices. Be real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

Are you kidding? You make $700K a year and complain that $70 is a strain. You can always take care fo your own kids. You don't make any sacrifices. Be real.

NP but when you make $700k a year as earned income, you're probably paying $300k taxes. So yeah, $70k/yr on a nanny is like 20% of your aftertax income. So yeah, that's a big dent in how you otherwise spend/save your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

Are you kidding? You make $700K a year and complain that $70 is a strain. You can always take care fo your own kids. You don't make any sacrifices. Be real.

NP but when you make $700k a year as earned income, you're probably paying $300k taxes. So yeah, $70k/yr on a nanny is like 20% of your aftertax income. So yeah, that's a big dent in how you otherwise spend/save your money.

PS i don't think the PP was complaining. Just saying that the ability to "super nanny" your kids in asia is a lot cheaper and easier than it is in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

Are you kidding? You make $700K a year and complain that $70 is a strain. You can always take care fo your own kids. You don't make any sacrifices. Be real.

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make. Paying $70k from a post tax income is a lot. One of us quitting our jobs to do that work could cost $350k pretax, so not worth it, but I sure do get not wanting to have kids at all and just bring rich DINKs instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op you mention being from a "culture" where women don't let career get in the way of kids. People don't usually use the term "culture" to describe being from western europe or australia - so i'm going to assume you're from asia, africa or south America.

If you're a woman in those geographic regions with a "relentless" career (to quote OP), that means you're wealthy. And a common feature of those regions is that the wealthy have tons of family and tons of cheap, cheap labor to help out. By way of example, my friends who did embassy gigs in indonesia or banking gigs in HK generally had at least 3 live in servants - one cook, one child care, and one housecleaner/child care - and they were all kind of always on the clock. And they cost pennies. That's pretty different than the US where we had around $400k of income when DS was born (which makes us wealthy) but a single 9-5 nanny makes a big dent in that so that we had to watch our budget.

Yup, this. We spend about $70k/yr on the kind of childcare we want for our kids. Even on $700k/yr it’s a LOT and forces us to crack down on other things.

Are you kidding? You make $700K a year and complain that $70 is a strain. You can always take care fo your own kids. You don't make any sacrifices. Be real.

NP but when you make $700k a year as earned income, you're probably paying $300k taxes. So yeah, $70k/yr on a nanny is like 20% of your aftertax income. So yeah, that's a big dent in how you otherwise spend/save your money.

PS i don't think the PP was complaining. Just saying that the ability to "super nanny" your kids in asia is a lot cheaper and easier than it is in the US.

And, that is the point. The OP is talking about a woman who doesn't want a super nanny raising her kids and recognizes the value of active parents. Kids need their parents. At $700K a year they can afford super nanny. They have no concept of how most people live.

[Anonymous]

My SIL does.

She says she want kids and works in big law. According to her, every year she waits she’s more senior and has more benefits and flexibility at her firm. It also stresses her out because more and more women drop out. So far nobody’s stayed more than 1 year after having a baby. She’s one of the few women left. (She’s 35)

[Anonymous]

The people I know who did this don’t really seem to want kids and just blame their careers because it’s the easiest explanation. They didn’t look to marry someone with a flexible career, never tried to look into less intense jobs in their fields, and didn’t really even start thinking about kids until their late thirties.
I don’t know if they tried to have kids and just decided not to persue infertility treatment, or if they decided to never have kids at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My SIL does.

She says she want kids and works in big law. According to her, every year she waits she’s more senior and has more benefits and flexibility at her firm. It also stresses her out because more and more women drop out. So far nobody’s stayed more than 1 year after having a baby. She’s one of the few women left. (She’s 35)

I had a kid then lateraled when I felt I was being punished for having kids as a junior, then had my second and lateraled again. Now I’m very secure that I’m a partner track senior associate.

In contrast one of my exes sacrificed everything for one firm and just lost it all with the partnership vote.