Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What people on this board never seem to understand is even if you only have Ivy degrees (which is apparently a prerequisite for sainthood), there are only so many high level jobs in corporations, law firms, and the government. Only so many people who graduated from the exact same schools can be in those jobs. Is it disappointing as crap when it doesn't happen? Absolutely but there is a certain amount of luck and timing that goes with it. I know people who would not have their jobs unless someone retired or got fired. Sure, they had to be ready for it but the position also had to be open.

+1 what is with all these angry DWs expecting c-suite jobs to fall out of trees.

And expecting the husband to be the one to get the job if they have equal educational backgrounds and attainment. In which case why should it not be the wife, if it's to be anyone? I really enjoyed outearning my husband by 2 to 1 when he moved to the government and I stayed in Biglaw for a couple more years. Of course we never saw any of that money since it all went to loans, but still. Now we're both in government and I recently took a promotion that will eventually see us earn the same amount, but I'll still be $20k behind him for the next 6 or 7 years because he started a few years before I did. I secretly resent that a bit and wish I were earning just as much right now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why a gov't employee plus a second income can't afford a home in a decent area and have to rent a tiny apartment unless you have tons of debt we don't know about or a special situation (supporting elderly parents , etc.)

This. DH and I are both government lawyers. We have a "shitshack" 1000 sq ft SFH in Bethesda and send 2 kids to daycare. It's tight because of the daycare but doable. Once day care is not in the picture it will be much more comfortable. And we picked Bethesda for the schools (right or wrong). If you want a huge house in an expensive area on 2 government salaries, you will be disappointed. But there's no reason you can't get a decent, if small, place in a close-in suburb, or a bigger place in a farther-out suburb like Rockville or Fairfax.

There's quite a bit of distance between "shitshack" and "huge house in huge expensive area." Even a shitshack in Bethesda runs you well into the high 6 figures. Then you get into the "slightly okayish house that would be worth 250k elsewhere, but is 1.4 million in Bethsda" category, and so on.

True. Ours was a little under $650k because that's what we could afford as a new GS-14 and GS-13. No driveway, no garage, galley kitchen with no dishwasher, only one full bath when we moved in (we eventually added a shower and sink in the basement which already had a toilet), 2 small-medium bedrooms and one tiny one. Etc. Typical small 1940s colonial around here. Would be worth $250k or less where I grew up outside of Philly, even in an outstanding school district and close to public transit. Which makes me sad every time I think about it. We didn't even have a car for the first 4 years we lived here; now we have one car for family use and both commute by metro.

But the point is it can be done -- it's just a question of trade-offs. If OP doesn't want to trade anything, well, then she's never going to be happy with her situation. Obviously the calculation is different for everyone but DH and I both decided Biglaw was not for us. We each spent a few years there, living in tiny studios while frantically paying off college and law school loans, then jumped to the government, accepted the much more modest money, and never looked back. If OP doesn't want to go that route that's fine of course, but to say one can't afford anything better than what she has on a government lawyer salary plus another salary (which sounds high-earning) is just ridiculous unless there is some other major factor at play, like special needs kids, expensive car or student loans, parents to take care of, etc. More money does not necessarily bring happiness. If her DH is happy where he is, and is making what sounds like $100k at a minimum, that is a pretty good deal. He can go to biglaw and earn 4 times as much and be miserable, and make everyone else miserable too. I saw a lot of friends go this route and it is not worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why a gov't employee plus a second income can't afford a home in a decent area and have to rent a tiny apartment unless you have tons of debt we don't know about or a special situation (supporting elderly parents , etc.)

This. DH and I are both government lawyers. We have a "shitshack" 1000 sq ft SFH in Bethesda and send 2 kids to daycare. It's tight because of the daycare but doable. Once day care is not in the picture it will be much more comfortable. And we picked Bethesda for the schools (right or wrong). If you want a huge house in an expensive area on 2 government salaries, you will be disappointed. But there's no reason you can't get a decent, if small, place in a close-in suburb, or a bigger place in a farther-out suburb like Rockville or Fairfax.

There's quite a bit of distance between "shitshack" and "huge house in huge expensive area." Even a shitshack in Bethesda runs you well into the high 6 figures. Then you get into the "slightly okayish house that would be worth 250k elsewhere, but is 1.4 million in Bethsda" category, and so on.

Dual government family here and we have what I feel is a fantastic house in an awesome school district in bethesda for under 1 mil. Sure, it needs updating, but it's really a great house. And we both get to enjoy it tons with the kids because of our super flex schedules and government lifestyle. And yet the preschool one of my kids is at is filled with families like OP. The money is mind boggling to me. My dh also has that potential if he went private (I don't). But he'd miss out on a lot of time with us... also, my career takes me to parts of the world with true poverty in ways most Americans can't imagine. We have it so good here... And I want my kids to grow up feeling that rather than entitled.

Op--you need to focus on what you do have and how lucky you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why a gov't employee plus a second income can't afford a home in a decent area and have to rent a tiny apartment unless you have tons of debt we don't know about or a special situation (supporting elderly parents , etc.)

This. DH and I are both government lawyers. We have a "shitshack" 1000 sq ft SFH in Bethesda and send 2 kids to daycare. It's tight because of the daycare but doable. Once day care is not in the picture it will be much more comfortable. And we picked Bethesda for the schools (right or wrong). If you want a huge house in an expensive area on 2 government salaries, you will be disappointed. But there's no reason you can't get a decent, if small, place in a close-in suburb, or a bigger place in a farther-out suburb like Rockville or Fairfax.

There's quite a bit of distance between "shitshack" and "huge house in huge expensive area." Even a shitshack in Bethesda runs you well into the high 6 figures. Then you get into the "slightly okayish house that would be worth 250k elsewhere, but is 1.4 million in Bethsda" category, and so on.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why a gov't employee plus a second income can't afford a home in a decent area and have to rent a tiny apartment unless you have tons of debt we don't know about or a special situation (supporting elderly parents , etc.)

This. DH and I are both government lawyers. We have a "shitshack" 1000 sq ft SFH in Bethesda and send 2 kids to daycare. It's tight because of the daycare but doable. Once day care is not in the picture it will be much more comfortable. And we picked Bethesda for the schools (right or wrong). If you want a huge house in an expensive area on 2 government salaries, you will be disappointed. But there's no reason you can't get a decent, if small, place in a close-in suburb, or a bigger place in a farther-out suburb like Rockville or Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the Atlantic that basically said the biggest key to being happy was your circle of friends. If your friends are all out earning you, and you are the type to be competitive, keeping up with the Joneses, you will be miserable.

Truth be told, OP and her husband are definitely making over 200k per year. But she looks towards those couples making double and is resentful. I am somewhat sympathetic, if only because she has offered to move which would dramatically increase their lifestyle and lower their stress levels and he won't have it.

They should see a marriage counselor and hash this all out. Their marriage is doomed on the course they are on. Then their finances and kids will really be destroyed.

FWIW, I think he is in sales, not law. But the idea you just walk into a BigLaw job has never been true and is especially untrue now. I am the hiring partner for a BigLaw firm, we don't hire a lot of laterals unless they were in house and have business ties. Even if we hired a government attorney, the pay is probably $175-200k but he will be expected to work exceptionally more hours with no partner track in sight until he develops a book of business. Point being, he will earn somewhat more, lose his pension, see his family a lot less. Not exactly a great tradeoff.

NP but I would add to this that even if you manage to get that Biglaw job there's no guarantee you'll get to stay or ever make partner.

Anonymous wrote:What's your hhi? Do you have a downpayment saved up?

+1. Now 9 pages in and still no answer regarding HHI.

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the Atlantic that basically said the biggest key to being happy was your circle of friends. If your friends are all out earning you, and you are the type to be competitive, keeping up with the Joneses, you will be miserable.

Truth be told, OP and her husband are definitely making over 200k per year. But she looks towards those couples making double and is resentful. I am somewhat sympathetic, if only because she has offered to move which would dramatically increase their lifestyle and lower their stress levels and he won't have it.

They should see a marriage counselor and hash this all out. Their marriage is doomed on the course they are on. Then their finances and kids will really be destroyed.

FWIW, I think he is in sales, not law. But the idea you just walk into a BigLaw job has never been true and is especially untrue now. I am the hiring partner for a BigLaw firm, we don't hire a lot of laterals unless they were in house and have business ties. Even if we hired a government attorney, the pay is probably $175-200k but he will be expected to work exceptionally more hours with no partner track in sight until he develops a book of business. Point being, he will earn somewhat more, lose his pension, see his family a lot less. Not exactly a great tradeoff.

It's an over-generalization to say everyone who wants to make more is concerned about their friends, neighbors, the Jones. Some of us do just want to travel more, retire earlier, provide certain things for our kids. Pretty sure what my friends/relatives do are not part of that equation for me personally.

There was an article in the Atlantic that basically said the biggest key to being happy was your circle of friends. If your friends are all out earning you, and you are the type to be competitive, keeping up with the Joneses, you will be miserable.

Truth be told, OP and her husband are definitely making over 200k per year. But she looks towards those couples making double and is resentful. I am somewhat sympathetic, if only because she has offered to move which would dramatically increase their lifestyle and lower their stress levels and he won't have it.

They should see a marriage counselor and hash this all out. Their marriage is doomed on the course they are on. Then their finances and kids will really be destroyed.

FWIW, I think he is in sales, not law. But the idea you just walk into a BigLaw job has never been true and is especially untrue now. I am the hiring partner for a BigLaw firm, we don't hire a lot of laterals unless they were in house and have business ties. Even if we hired a government attorney, the pay is probably $175-200k but he will be expected to work exceptionally more hours with no partner track in sight until he develops a book of business. Point being, he will earn somewhat more, lose his pension, see his family a lot less. Not exactly a great tradeoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that attracts me to my DH is his ambition. He wants to move up, earn more money, get us comfortably situated because we want a big family and we want to give them a good life and show them the world.

If he were to suddenly lose this ambition, or if I were to find out that he lied about having it in the first place, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to him. If that makes me a prostitute then you can bite me.

This really has nothing to do with how much Op's husband currently makes or what he does or whether he's saving the country from Trump.

Ambition =\= ability to earn more, move into a more lucrative role. If every ambitious person could earn a CEO's salary, everyone in Washington would be driving Rolls Royces and living at the Ritz.

No sh*t, Sherlock. And yet, ambition can be a positive quality nonetheless.

Anonymous wrote:One thing that attracts me to my DH is his ambition. He wants to move up, earn more money, get us comfortably situated because we want a big family and we want to give them a good life and show them the world.

If he were to suddenly lose this ambition, or if I were to find out that he lied about having it in the first place, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to him. If that makes me a prostitute then you can bite me.

This really has nothing to do with how much Op's husband currently makes or what he does or whether he's saving the country from Trump.

Ambition =\= ability to earn more, move into a more lucrative role. If every ambitious person could earn a CEO's salary, everyone in Washington would be driving Rolls Royces and living at the Ritz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that attracts me to my DH is his ambition. He wants to move up, earn more money, get us comfortably situated because we want a big family and we want to give them a good life and show them the world.

If he were to suddenly lose this ambition, or if I were to find out that he lied about having it in the first place, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to him. If that makes me a prostitute then you can bite me.

This really has nothing to do with how much Op's husband currently makes or what he does or whether he's saving the country from Trump.

One thing that attracts me to my DW is her effort to stay fit and initiate creative sex in the bedroom. She wants to keep the passion in our marriage, stay fit and attractive, and keep our marriage spicy by making sure that the sex doesn't get routine and our bodies get old and out of shape.

If she were to suddenly lose interest in the South Beach diet, sex, and wearing heels, or if I were to find out that she lied and misrepresented herself on the front end of our relationship, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to her. If that makes me a pig then you can bite me.

PP you're responding to here. Pig? Nah. Perfectly fair. Just don't misrepresent yourself while you are dating on this issue.

This "initiate creative sex" wishful post basically represents how most guys imagine the way they would act if suddenly they morphed into women. In the mind of a man, being an attractive/fit female is like being a Corvette Stingray that "wants" to be driven like you stole it. Maybe due to low testosterone levels, few women act/feel that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is like this - a low paying but cool and important field. We talked about these things when we were engaged. When I hinted at "selling out" and taking a high paying job he would truthfully answer... "then you might want to marry someone else." He said it jokingly, but it's 100% true and I'm glad he said it.

Now then, it doesn't mean I don't get super frustrated by the situation, but I went into this with my eyes open. I try to think of all the awesome qualities he brings to my life aside from his salary.

Your husband is wise.

More people need to have a brutally honest conversation about career and financial expectations before marriage. OP got into trouble because her husband mistakenly tried to appease her by acting more ambitious than he apparently is. And OP was not honest about her own sky high expectations* in a husband's earning potential. She should have been upfront with him that she expected him to be making mid-six-figures by now. That may seem crude, but it's better to be honest, upfront.

* The average salary in this country is around $50K.

Eh, you can have the talk, but people change. Mature people recognize that when making a lifetime commitment and bringing kids into the world.

From the original post:

"He said when we were contemplating marriage that if we ever needed him to he would go into private practice and earn more."


It seems that they were not being honest with themselves.

Though, I agree. Very young people often convince themselves that they are not materialistic, and only to "come out of the closet" (in a manner of speaking) after marriage and kids.

The key word in the bolded sentence is "needed".
I'm guessing OP & her husband have very different ideas as to what that word means when used in this particular context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that attracts me to my DH is his ambition. He wants to move up, earn more money, get us comfortably situated because we want a big family and we want to give them a good life and show them the world.

If he were to suddenly lose this ambition, or if I were to find out that he lied about having it in the first place, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to him. If that makes me a prostitute then you can bite me.

This really has nothing to do with how much Op's husband currently makes or what he does or whether he's saving the country from Trump.

One thing that attracts me to my DW is her effort to stay fit and initiate creative sex in the bedroom. She wants to keep the passion in our marriage, stay fit and attractive, and keep our marriage spicy by making sure that the sex doesn't get routine and our bodies get old and out of shape.

If she were to suddenly lose interest in the South Beach diet, sex, and wearing heels, or if I were to find out that she lied and misrepresented herself on the front end of our relationship, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to her. If that makes me a pig then you can bite me.

PP you're responding to here. Pig? Nah. Perfectly fair. Just don't misrepresent yourself while you are dating on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:One thing that attracts me to my DH is his ambition. He wants to move up, earn more money, get us comfortably situated because we want a big family and we want to give them a good life and show them the world.

If he were to suddenly lose this ambition, or if I were to find out that he lied about having it in the first place, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to him. If that makes me a prostitute then you can bite me.

This really has nothing to do with how much Op's husband currently makes or what he does or whether he's saving the country from Trump.

One thing that attracts me to my DW is her effort to stay fit and initiate creative sex in the bedroom. She wants to keep the passion in our marriage, stay fit and attractive, and keep our marriage spicy by making sure that the sex doesn't get routine and our bodies get old and out of shape.

If she were to suddenly lose interest in the South Beach diet, sex, and wearing heels, or if I were to find out that she lied and misrepresented herself on the front end of our relationship, then yes, we would have a problem. I *would* feel less attracted to her. If that makes me a pig then you can bite me.