Anonymous wrote:Try it. We are in a similar financial situation and I work 30 hours a week for 155k. We have three kids, 5, 7 and 1. We have a nanny and it works well. You can afford to outsource all cleaning, etc, so weekends and evenings are true quality time. I get home at 5 and the big kids get home at 4, so I am not missing too much. It is worth 155K, IMO.

Not the same. You work 30 hours. She is talking about working 50. I'm guessing 30 hours a week for $155 would be a no-brainier for OP at this point.

Anonymous wrote:That would be too many hours for our household to consider - I don't mean your fifty, but the 100+ total. We wouldn't want two travelers (we both work full time).

How will your husband treat you and your job? If his will be considered the more important one by you both, then I wouldn't do it.

This. Since having kids, neither DH nor I is willing to work more than 40 hours in a typical week. We make less than we could and we are more than okay with that.

Is this Bain or other? If the travel is 4 days a week like most consulting firms that is gonna suck.

Personally though id do it. Find a great nanny.

You could literally start trusts of $100k for each kid in jus 2 years. That will easily fund college or give them a big advantage in 20+ years.

what does your dh say about it? it affects him too.

the opportunity cost either way is huge.

Try it. We are in a similar financial situation and I work 30 hours a week for 155k. We have three kids, 5, 7 and 1. We have a nanny and it works well. You can afford to outsource all cleaning, etc, so weekends and evenings are true quality time. I get home at 5 and the big kids get home at 4, so I am not missing too much. It is worth 155K, IMO.

What about DH? If you took the job, could he cut back on his work hours and travel? Would he want to?

If you didn't take the job now, would you be able to find another job you liked as well, with fewer hours/less travel?

Would you and he be able to schedule your travels so that they didn't both happen at the same time? If you and he were both scheduled to travel at the same time, who wouldn't go, or would you both go?

Will DH adjust to the new reality that he will also have to be responsible for running the household?

How old are your kids? (did i miss that)

I would take it and see how it goes, but I don't want to SAH, I like PT.

I would turn it down and my kids are much older than yours.

Anonymous wrote:Why don't I believe this?

+1

OP- are you definitely done having children or might you have a 3rd? If more children are a possibility I would definitely turn it down.

How realistic is it that you would be able to cut back hours/ not travel after a year??? Is there anyone else at the firm you are considering that does that? If there is, I would try and talk with that person and see what they thought.

I might take it if I was reasonably confident that I would be able to cut back in a year-- but honestly probably not. Is there a way you would use your skills in a volunteer type position so as to stay fresh in your field? (ie if you are a lawyer- start doing pro- bono, an administrator type, get involved with a non-profit board.)

I wouldn't take a job that involves travel if my husband also had to travel for his. I have a friend who's dealing with this now. Theyve got a nanny who stays overnight when needed, but I don't think that's easy to find. And her kids ended up getting really sick while he husband was gone and she was scheduled to fly out to the West Coast. That would be too much stress for me.

I would always want to be able to earn enough to support myself and my children at a tolerable level, independently of any other person's salary. That said, I have deliberately stayed away from traveling while my child is young. I think that may be the deciding factor here, since your husband already travels.

Why don't I believe this?

I would turn it down...unless it won't be there when your kids get older.

If it is now or never, I might just take it.

That way, your kid's college fund is set.

That job is what many (most?) biglawyers-to-SAHMs faced.