Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what your daily newspaper reading has to do with anything. What people were saying is that sometimes titles sound more important than they are, and that often it takes an insider to understand that.

The thing about that reduction in salary is that you are going to take a major lifestyle hit, completely aside from having to sell your mansion and move to a normal sized house. Private school for three children is going to eat a lot of salary. If you're paying $20k a year for 3 kids, the family's income is going to drop by $60,000, without even taking the nephew's tuition into account. Is it possible to live in this area on less than $100,000 a year? Of course it is. A lot of people do it, myself included. Is it possible to live in this area on less than $100,000 a year while still buying luxury cars, weekend golf getaways, tailored suits, big restaurant meals and extracurricular activities? Probably not.

Please consider what is actually important to you before making this decision one way or another.

Therein lies the rub. I think that PP and another poster have alluded to the fact that you want to be supportive, but you cannot carry around resentment if you decide to support your spouse. That is easier said than done when the day-to-day stresses of a much-reduced income really hit you. Even if you live off accumulated savings, it will eventually start to stress you as the accounts are depleted over six years. Be support, for sure, but recognize that even the right decision to support your spouse will lead to stresses in your family life and marriage over those 5-6 years. I wish your family the best in navigating the future.

I plan to look for work as well. However, I have been out of my field for the past eight years as a SAHP, and I am no longer the young guy.

Based on what I used to earn, I would hope with luck and work to find a job paying $60K/year. We will need to hire a part-time nanny to help with the kids.

I don't understand what your daily newspaper reading has to do with anything. What people were saying is that sometimes titles sound more important than they are, and that often it takes an insider to understand that.

The thing about that reduction in salary is that you are going to take a major lifestyle hit, completely aside from having to sell your mansion and move to a normal sized house. Private school for three children is going to eat a lot of salary. If you're paying $20k a year for 3 kids, the family's income is going to drop by $60,000, without even taking the nephew's tuition into account. Is it possible to live in this area on less than $100,000 a year? Of course it is. A lot of people do it, myself included. Is it possible to live in this area on less than $100,000 a year while still buying luxury cars, weekend golf getaways, tailored suits, big restaurant meals and extracurricular activities? Probably not.

Please consider what is actually important to you before making this decision one way or another.

OP here again. Thank you PPs, you have given me a lot to think about.

For those who question the worth of the opportunity, I may be a SAHP, but I am still an intelligent adult who reads the NYT, WSJ, Wapo, and other trade journals and news sources.

This is an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect, of course, but it would be as if your friend told you that their spouse was leaving their current high-paid job to be Attorney General of the State of New York. You would recognize the value of that position even if you were not an attorney or a New Yorker.

DW has been earning at the current high rate for only a few years, but has generally been a high earner for a while now. We have saved aggressively, mainly in retirement and college accounts, but also in investment vehicles which would allow us to draw down a considerable amount of our savings to pay the mortgage, private school, and the expenses related with raising three children (as well as paying a nephew's college tuition -- which we already committed to do).

We need to sell our current house to get the equity out, in order to afford the more modest home closer to the job. It is likely that we will not get back the purchase price, but we put a big down-payment on the house and have paid off the mortgage considerably in the last two years.

For those who think DW is being selfish, I think back to my past 8 years as a SAHP when I have been able to buy the luxury car I wanted, get away with friends for a weekend of golf, pick up the tab for my family and friends at restaurants, buy tailored suits, work on my hobbies. The kids had the benefit of an at-home parent, the best schools and any extracurricular opportunity they desired.

Certainly DW got great personal satisfaction and benefitted from her career, but she has still been working hard all along -- with the long hours and many stresses that brings. When she finally wants to take a job for her own personal goals and ambition, instead of simply to support her family, how can I say no?

DW definitely wants the position not only for the credential, but also because she believes that it will give her the ability to make a positive impact on public policy in her field.

LOL

Easy for me to say, but I say go for it. Rent rather than buy in your new location and rent out the home you just bought 2 years ago. That way you still have the house to return to when the posting is over or things go south. If your spouse has managed to land a 1.75 mil job and is being considered for the prestigious position, they obviously have a lot going for them. I highly doubt you will be eating cat food. Plus I would imagine your savings are hefty given the solid salary your spouse has been earning. If the bottom really falls out, you can sell the house. not ideal, but you dowhat you have to. Finally, if you are genuinely concerned about your QOL or income, you could explore job opportunities. I always feel like when opportunities arise you have to seriously consider them. But if you say yes and you no longer get to live the sweet life, you cannot throw it in your spouse's face later.

PP here .. p.s. does she want to do it for the prestige and the cred?

Or because she genuinely wants to contribute to public service and thinks she can?

If the former -- stay where she is.

How much overhead do you have relative to her current income and your savings?

If you're spending a lot of what she's earning and don't have a big nest egg (which I'd think you should with that income), then that's a different equation than if you're saving a lot and can help soften the income loss.

I read years ago that "the secret to early retirement is low overhead."

Without at all living too frugally or ascetically I tried to stick to it and, indeed, it was the way to an early retirement without the need to cut back much, if at all.

If you're highly leveraged and spending a lot of that $1.75M/yr., that's different.

In general I'd say do it. It doesn't seem like it's foreclosing options long term and if she's in a large law firm, for ex., she has no job security these days anyway so the $1.75M could go away ...

Maybe she's on the short list for the next Chair of the Federal Reserve or similar. Even still, do these people stay in these positions for 6 years? I hope you banked a lot of that $1.75M and are prepared to live like regular folk.

Anonymous wrote:DW currently makes $1.75 million/year, and I am a SAHP. DW has been approached for a well-respected public sector position in their field which would pay between $150-175K/yr. I am fully encouraging them to pursue their ambition, but I would be lying if I said that I am not nervous about how we will continue current QOL, including private school for three children.

But you've saved and invested millions, based on her current salary, right?

Anonymous wrote:While I think she should stay in the higher paying job, I think this is her call. She's been shouldering the financial burden fr years and the other salary is adequate. I think she will resent you if you oppose it.

I think she'd be selfish to take it. SHe's clearly the breadwinner, she doesn't just get to do what she wants and damnt the torpedo, full speed ahead, either.

While I think she should stay in the higher paying job, I think this is her call. She's been shouldering the financial burden fr years and the other salary is adequate. I think she will resent you if you oppose it.

$200K to $90K to do something you like and find fulfilling? Sure. I can get that.

$1.75 Million to $170K? Hell no.

Instead, you could just work the $1.75M job for 3 years, pay yourself $200K a year, bank the other $1.5M or so, and then take the $5+ million that left over and fund a $200k salary doing ANYTHING YOU WANT for the next TWENTY years.

This has to be a troll post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5-6 yrs is a long time. And it must not very high-ranking, because that's on the lower end of the SES pay scale. Some agencies can make adjustments for those coming from very high paying jobs, too.

Hard to help without specifics, and I can understand why you might not want to post those. But I'd be inclined to say no. 1-2 yrs with a guarantee back to my job--yes. (Like some BigLaw partners who take Ambassadorial appontments and then go back). THey have a great lifelstyle, all expenses paid, low salary but everything covered. Sure. But Undersecretary of Chickens and Cows at Dep of Ag....no.

First, let me say that the credential is impressive -- I am not in the sector and even I recognize the prestige of it. DW would not otherwise consider the move. I have no idea why the job pays what it does, especially considering the work and hours involved. Five to six years is a long time, and there are no guarantees in this world, though the position is one that would certainly maintain or likely increase DW's earning potential.

Many posters on this forum say that they would always take personal fulfillment or a real "love" for their work over financial gain, and I agree with that sentiment. It is just a little more difficult when the difference in salary is so big.

if you're not in the industry, you're going by title and what you're wife tells you. Logical, but not necessarily objective (or correct). I think many posters say they'd go from $300k/yr to $200k for fulfillment. Not from nearly $2m to under $200k.


Bottom line is that people without specifics really can't adress this adequately. You should probably discuss with close friends with whom you can share the actual details. If she takes this positoin, you might have to give up SAH.

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage her to do it. It sounds like it will be fulfilling to her, and that you guys already have plans in the works to survive the pay cut. 5-6 years isn't that much time, provided you have planned for it.

In 25 years will she look back with regret that she didn't do it?

Yes, this absolutely hits the nail on the head. I think that DW would regretfully look back and lament that she had let the big "prestige" career achievement pass her by. I do not want the onus of that regret on me.