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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

Wow! This says so much about you.

OP, we're at that income. Layoffs come in Corporate America in out industry every 2 years. I've been there 20 years and have seen really good, smart people get chucked to the curb like garbage and they don't rebound that easily. Everyone seems to forget them 2 days later - it's taboo to talk about them. Because there is so much uncertainty in these jobs, we've been saving like crazy, expecting out number to be called one day and not being able to find an equivalent job. Having 2 provides stability and spreads the risk. Your right, I see lots of men (very few women) with SAHPs. They make to their spouse that everything is dandy, but when I have coffee with these men during a layoff round, I can tell you they very acutely feel the pressure to maintain their jobs. They also behave like a$$holes to others in an effort to save themselves (not all of then, just some). I belive it's some people true nature to hurt others when they feel insecure. That's also why there are so many mean posts here - like wounded tigers lashing out.

oh, and yeah the PP did not use paragraph breaks so I glossed over a lot of the block fo text on my phone

Both have benefits. It's not easy having 2 jobs like this. And yes we do have a nanny and a cleaner to help pick up some slack and drive the kids to their activities. I suppose with a SAHP this wouldn't be necessary. Luckily we both WFH 3 days a week.

PP is ridiculous. It’s obv if you can swing the dual $400k ($800k HHI) that has huge advantages in stability, early retirement, expanded savings and wealth to pass on. The problems you state of being laid off presents in both scenarios when at these high paying jobs.

The reality is that few people are willing to sacrifice time with their kids to maintain two of those jobs, and also few families have two earner with that potential (two lawyers, two tech sales, sure, but the lawyer married to the journalist or teacher or what not is common too). But if you can swing $800k for even a few years it makes early retirement a real possibility

You literally just rewrote the entire message of the post that you claimed to be ridiculous. Reading comprehension problems?

If one person lost a 400k income the family still have a 400k income. If 2 earners get 800k for XX years then options open up years later (to downshift or retire early) for BOTH people.

....Hopefully you can read this one with less trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

Wow! This says so much about you.

OP, we're at that income. Layoffs come in Corporate America in out industry every 2 years. I've been there 20 years and have seen really good, smart people get chucked to the curb like garbage and they don't rebound that easily. Everyone seems to forget them 2 days later - it's taboo to talk about them. Because there is so much uncertainty in these jobs, we've been saving like crazy, expecting out number to be called one day and not being able to find an equivalent job. Having 2 provides stability and spreads the risk. Your right, I see lots of men (very few women) with SAHPs. They make to their spouse that everything is dandy, but when I have coffee with these men during a layoff round, I can tell you they very acutely feel the pressure to maintain their jobs. They also behave like a$$holes to others in an effort to save themselves (not all of then, just some). I belive it's some people true nature to hurt others when they feel insecure. That's also why there are so many mean posts here - like wounded tigers lashing out.

Both have benefits. It's not easy having 2 jobs like this. And yes we do have a nanny and a cleaner to help pick up some slack and drive the kids to their activities. I suppose with a SAHP this wouldn't be necessary. Luckily we both WFH 3 days a week.

PP is ridiculous. It’s obv if you can swing the dual $400k ($800k HHI) that has huge advantages in stability, early retirement, expanded savings and wealth to pass on. The problems you state of being laid off presents in both scenarios when at these high paying jobs.

The reality is that few people are willing to sacrifice time with their kids to maintain two of those jobs, and also few families have two earner with that potential (two lawyers, two tech sales, sure, but the lawyer married to the journalist or teacher or what not is common too). But if you can swing $800k for even a few years it makes early retirement a real possibility

You literally just rewrote the entire message of the post that you claimed to be ridiculous. Reading comprehension problems?

If one person lost a 400k income the family still have a 400k income. If 2 earners get 800k for XX years then options open up years later (to downshift or retire early) for BOTH people.

....Hopefully you can read this one with less trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

Wow! This says so much about you.

OP, we're at that income. Layoffs come in Corporate America in out industry every 2 years. I've been there 20 years and have seen really good, smart people get chucked to the curb like garbage and they don't rebound that easily. Everyone seems to forget them 2 days later - it's taboo to talk about them. Because there is so much uncertainty in these jobs, we've been saving like crazy, expecting out number to be called one day and not being able to find an equivalent job. Having 2 provides stability and spreads the risk. Your right, I see lots of men (very few women) with SAHPs. They make to their spouse that everything is dandy, but when I have coffee with these men during a layoff round, I can tell you they very acutely feel the pressure to maintain their jobs. They also behave like a$$holes to others in an effort to save themselves (not all of then, just some). I belive it's some people true nature to hurt others when they feel insecure. That's also why there are so many mean posts here - like wounded tigers lashing out.

Both have benefits. It's not easy having 2 jobs like this. And yes we do have a nanny and a cleaner to help pick up some slack and drive the kids to their activities. I suppose with a SAHP this wouldn't be necessary. Luckily we both WFH 3 days a week.

PP is ridiculous. It’s obv if you can swing the dual $400k ($800k HHI) that has huge advantages in stability, early retirement, expanded savings and wealth to pass on. The problems you state of being laid off presents in both scenarios when at these high paying jobs.

The reality is that few people are willing to sacrifice time with their kids to maintain two of those jobs, and also few families have two earner with that potential (two lawyers, two tech sales, sure, but the lawyer married to the journalist or teacher or what not is common too). But if you can swing $800k for even a few years it makes early retirement a real possibility

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t understand the premise of the question.

Same HHI. two earners or one. Poorly worded.

If that was intended to be the question, it was so poorly worded that it actually posed a completely different question.

I’m the PP, it seemed pretty clear to me (not OP). Maybe because the idea of asking $800k vs $400k would be a ludicrous question.

I figured they meant “dual income $400k HHI vs single income $400k HHI” because there could be some debate there.

DP but both the title (Dual 400k incomes) and the OP ("high earning dual income couples") belie your reading. OP is literally asking if it's better to have one person in the household making 400k or both people in the household making 400k. It is a ludicrous question.

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t understand the premise of the question.

Same HHI. two earners or one. Poorly worded.

If that was intended to be the question, it was so poorly worded that it actually posed a completely different question.

I’m the PP, it seemed pretty clear to me (not OP). Maybe because the idea of asking $800k vs $400k would be a ludicrous question.

I figured they meant “dual income $400k HHI vs single income $400k HHI” because there could be some debate there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

Wow! This says so much about you.

OP, we're at that income. Layoffs come in Corporate America in out industry every 2 years. I've been there 20 years and have seen really good, smart people get chucked to the curb like garbage and they don't rebound that easily. Everyone seems to forget them 2 days later - it's taboo to talk about them. Because there is so much uncertainty in these jobs, we've been saving like crazy, expecting out number to be called one day and not being able to find an equivalent job. Having 2 provides stability and spreads the risk. Your right, I see lots of men (very few women) with SAHPs. They make to their spouse that everything is dandy, but when I have coffee with these men during a layoff round, I can tell you they very acutely feel the pressure to maintain their jobs. They also behave like a$$holes to others in an effort to save themselves (not all of then, just some). I belive it's some people true nature to hurt others when they feel insecure. That's also why there are so many mean posts here - like wounded tigers lashing out.

Both have benefits. It's not easy having 2 jobs like this. And yes we do have a nanny and a cleaner to help pick up some slack and drive the kids to their activities. I suppose with a SAHP this wouldn't be necessary. Luckily we both WFH 3 days a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t understand the premise of the question.

Same HHI. two earners or one. Poorly worded.

If that was intended to be the question, it was so poorly worded that it actually posed a completely different question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse earns $500K and I $250K or so. We both are in tech, My DH lost his job 2-3 years ago, and he could take time to find a new job in 4-5 months. Now I am out of job, but there is very little pressure to find a new one quickly. I work to accelerate our earnings and fast track our retirement. Plus jobs in tech are not stable, so I force both of us retiring together in early to mid 50's once kids are in college and college is paid for.

And yes, I feel our lifestyle is better. We can comfortably save for retirement, take vacations, outsource some of the household stuff. Had nannies when my kids were little who helped with household chores. I would be stressed if only one of us has a job in our prime earning years. Although I can see a rationale for one of us switching to a government job that is stable. Ageism is real in tech, so might as well work and save while you can.

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. At that dual income level you have to worry about searching for things to spend (waste) money on.

But the dual income gives you some household staff to spend time with instead of the wife, which is sometimes preferable

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?