Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Why do you care? And why do you think you deserve an answer to your questions?

Because OP opened the door to the question. That's why. Piss off.

No she didn’t. She asked for ideas on how to handle her sisters comments. Not questions/judgments from a$$holes like you.

Well, my response is that she "handle her sister's comments" but looking inward and thinking about how maybe her sister has a point. And you're not the boss of me. So I can respond however I want.

I guess you neglect your kids too?

"You're not the boss of me". I call 12 year old troll.

Nope, this is the typical SAHM mentality. She's full of bitterness. Nobody respects her and nobody puts any value on her work, so she's looking for validation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Some people like to set themselves up for success and provide for their families. Some people are content with working until they're 70, being renters their whole life, and hoping their kids student loans aren't too high. Different strokes.

That's all well and good, but you don't need two parents to both have "high paying demanding jobs" while kids are still young in order to do that.

We didn't.

Good for you. In this area - most people do. On my street a normal 3,000 sqft home is $1.7M. The entire street is young parents in their 30s to 40s with kids between newborn to 8/10. To afford that you need a household income of at least $400K. Preferably higher and that's not even considering the costs of nannies, daycares, and/or private education. So you need to be strivers. If you live somewhere that's not the case, good for you. If only one of your partners makes $400K by themselves, also good for you. That's rare. We do what we have to have the lifestyle and opportunities we desire for our kids.

You don't desire it for your kids. You desire it for yourself, and often it comes at your kids' expense. You just can't or won't see it.

Okay? That's your belief. I had my firstborn(s) within 4 months of my friend. I've been able to afford a live-in nanny, doula services, and pre-registered for a private pre-K with educational services for my twins. The friend had to beg her husband to shuffle around income for a part-time nanny 3 times a week and he's still not home as often as she likes because he's the main source of income. Their commute is now an hour each way (on days she's not WFH) and mine has stayed 15 minutes. I can afford to take my child on trips for educational enrichiment abroad and get intensive language tutors when needed. She can't.

Those things are not at my kids' expense, they are providing my children for a better, more well-rounded future. In addition to the personal time I spend caring for and with them. If I was earning the money just for myself I'd spend the $30,000 a year I've allocated beyond the nanny expenses on a Berkin.

And that isn't even including housing. If my friend is spending $40,000 a year on rent and I'm spending that equivalent+ on a mortgage with appreciation baked in every year - who's coming out ahead? Me. Because I planned and made it happen.

LOL if you think a kid having a nanny is better than having a mother.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be honest, OP. As someone who is constantly trying to avoid the pitfalls of similar trade offs, what gets under my skin about your post is your confidence/certainty. It’s not your choices, per se, but how strong your belief is that this is a better deal for your kids and the rest of us who prioritize the early years are misguided. Do you never feel or express self-doubt about this? You’re always blissfully on the same page as your husband? Your sister may be responding to your lack of vulnerability here. It’s hard to be close to someone who has it all figured out—especially regarding something as complicated and emotional as parenthood

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Why do you care? And why do you think you deserve an answer to your questions?

Because OP opened the door to the question. That's why. Piss off.

No she didn’t. She asked for ideas on how to handle her sisters comments. Not questions/judgments from a$$holes like you.

Well, my response is that she "handle her sister's comments" but looking inward and thinking about how maybe her sister has a point. And you're not the boss of me. So I can respond however I want.

I guess you neglect your kids too?

"You're not the boss of me". I call 12 year old troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Why do you care? And why do you think you deserve an answer to your questions?

Because OP opened the door to the question. That's why. Piss off.

No she didn’t. She asked for ideas on how to handle her sisters comments. Not questions/judgments from a$$holes like you.

Well, my response is that she "handle her sister's comments" but looking inward and thinking about how maybe her sister has a point. And you're not the boss of me. So I can respond however I want.

I guess you neglect your kids too?

Hit a nerve??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

We ARE doing it for the money 100% - but not for fancy clothes and art and ridiculous restaurants. its to bank it to buy ourselves full flexibility later. my husband may be missing dinners now - but when the kids are teens we'll be able to spend the whole summer with them hiking through colorado with them (or whatever we feel like) vs a one week vacation at ocean city. I may get home just in time for dinner now, but when they're preteens i can be the one doing all drop offs and pickups to not miss any problems that may be brewing etc. We are sacrificing some family time now for the ability to have so much flexibility in 10 years. Not saying that's a better or worse choice than anyone else for a family, its just ours

Anonymous wrote:I'd just smile and say "Everything's got tradeoffs!" when she goes in either direction about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Some people like to set themselves up for success and provide for their families. Some people are content with working until they're 70, being renters their whole life, and hoping their kids student loans aren't too high. Different strokes.

That's all well and good, but you don't need two parents to both have "high paying demanding jobs" while kids are still young in order to do that.

We didn't.

Good for you. In this area - most people do. On my street a normal 3,000 sqft home is $1.7M. The entire street is young parents in their 30s to 40s with kids between newborn to 8/10. To afford that you need a household income of at least $400K. Preferably higher and that's not even considering the costs of nannies, daycares, and/or private education. So you need to be strivers. If you live somewhere that's not the case, good for you. If only one of your partners makes $400K by themselves, also good for you. That's rare. We do what we have to have the lifestyle and opportunities we desire for our kids.

You don't desire it for your kids. You desire it for yourself, and often it comes at your kids' expense. You just can't or won't see it.

Okay? That's your belief. I had my firstborn(s) within 4 months of my friend. I've been able to afford a live-in nanny, doula services, and pre-registered for a private pre-K with educational services for my twins. The friend had to beg her husband to shuffle around income for a part-time nanny 3 times a week and he's still not home as often as she likes because he's the main source of income. Their commute is now an hour each way (on days she's not WFH) and mine has stayed 15 minutes. I can afford to take my child on trips for educational enrichiment abroad and get intensive language tutors when needed. She can't.

Those things are not at my kids' expense, they are providing my children for a better, more well-rounded future. In addition to the personal time I spend caring for and with them. If I was earning the money just for myself I'd spend the $30,000 a year I've allocated beyond the nanny expenses on a Berkin.

And that isn't even including housing. If my friend is spending $40,000 a year on rent and I'm spending that equivalent+ on a mortgage with appreciation baked in every year - who's coming out ahead? Me. Because I planned and made it happen.

LOL if you think a kid having a nanny is better than having a mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Some people like to set themselves up for success and provide for their families. Some people are content with working until they're 70, being renters their whole life, and hoping their kids student loans aren't too high. Different strokes.

That's all well and good, but you don't need two parents to both have "high paying demanding jobs" while kids are still young in order to do that.

We didn't.

Good for you. In this area - most people do. On my street a normal 3,000 sqft home is $1.7M. The entire street is young parents in their 30s to 40s with kids between newborn to 8/10. To afford that you need a household income of at least $400K. Preferably higher and that's not even considering the costs of nannies, daycares, and/or private education. So you need to be strivers. If you live somewhere that's not the case, good for you. If only one of your partners makes $400K by themselves, also good for you. That's rare. We do what we have to have the lifestyle and opportunities we desire for our kids.

You don't desire it for your kids. You desire it for yourself, and often it comes at your kids' expense. You just can't or won't see it.

Okay? That's your belief. I had my firstborn(s) within 4 months of my friend. I've been able to afford a live-in nanny, doula services, and pre-registered for a private pre-K with educational services for my twins. The friend had to beg her husband to shuffle around income for a part-time nanny 3 times a week and he's still not home as often as she likes because he's the main source of income. Their commute is now an hour each way (on days she's not WFH) and mine has stayed 15 minutes. I can afford to take my child on trips for educational enrichiment abroad and get intensive language tutors when needed. She can't.

Those things are not at my kids' expense, they are providing my children for a better, more well-rounded future. In addition to the personal time I spend caring for and with them. If I was earning the money just for myself I'd spend the $30,000 a year I've allocated beyond the nanny expenses on a Berkin.

And that isn't even including housing. If my friend is spending $40,000 a year on rent and I'm spending that equivalent+ on a mortgage with appreciation baked in every year - who's coming out ahead? Me. Because I planned and made it happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Some people like to set themselves up for success and provide for their families. Some people are content with working until they're 70, being renters their whole life, and hoping their kids student loans aren't too high. Different strokes.

That's all well and good, but you don't need two parents to both have "high paying demanding jobs" while kids are still young in order to do that.

We didn't.

Good for you. In this area - most people do. On my street a normal 3,000 sqft home is $1.7M. The entire street is young parents in their 30s to 40s with kids between newborn to 8/10. To afford that you need a household income of at least $400K. Preferably higher and that's not even considering the costs of nannies, daycares, and/or private education. So you need to be strivers. If you live somewhere that's not the case, good for you. If only one of your partners makes $400K by themselves, also good for you. That's rare. We do what we have to have the lifestyle and opportunities we desire for our kids.

You don't desire it for your kids. You desire it for yourself, and often it comes at your kids' expense. You just can't or won't see it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think your sister has a point. Why DO both you and your husband feel the need to have "high paying demanding jobs" while you still have kids around? You say you aren't doing it just for the money, so why, then? Why is it so critically important that you both have "high paying demanding jobs" as your first priority, with family time being second?

Why do you care? And why do you think you deserve an answer to your questions?

Because OP opened the door to the question. That's why. Piss off.

No she didn’t. She asked for ideas on how to handle her sisters comments. Not questions/judgments from a$$holes like you.

Well, my response is that she "handle her sister's comments" but looking inward and thinking about how maybe her sister has a point. And you're not the boss of me. So I can respond however I want.

I guess you neglect your kids too?