Post by phunluvin82 on Jan 7, 2013 15:54:43 GMT -5
Well, I only skimmed it so far, but, at age 30 with a 29 yr old DH, I definitely find this part depressing:
"Other people simply cannot move up. They are as far up as they will go. This happens to most people around age 30. Definitely by 35. So the best thing to do is to assume anyone over 30 is making as much as they will make in their life. This is playing it safe, but better safe than sorry, right? (By age 40 almost no one’s salary increases.)"
If you ask DH, he just needs a few more years to make his millions, lol.
Post by emilyinchile on Jan 7, 2013 15:57:50 GMT -5
I love Penelope Trunk. I think you have to take what she says as what it is - averages, statistics, majority scenarios. Of course she's not saying that 100% of people will follow these patterns, but I do think it's interesting and, for many people, realistic to think about these being the likely outcomes.
I don't always agree with what she says, but I think she has some interesting ways of looking at a lot of workplace/professional life issues.
I don't find it offensive. Impractical, and kind of sterile, but not offensive. I mean, there are so many factors in peoples' careers, and diversions between aims and achievements (especially in a slow job market) that it's much more of a gamble than is suggested by the article.
All the same, it's a topic (how to logistically have a family) that I think a lot of young adults treat with "meh, I'll deal with it when I get there" that isn't so easy to just deal with later, and maybe deserves more attention. I'm certainly guilty of "I'll deal with it when we get there." That's why we're having kids a good deal later than we initially intended to. The logistics (and finances) of it all was something of a late 20's realization.
I think this is pretty spot on, but somewhat exaggerated. I find it hilarious as an INTJ married to an ENFP -- we've always said DH would be the SAH parent.
I feel like there is a scenario missing--the one where both partners maintain careers and share parenting duties. We have neither a SAHP nor nannies, and we manage. We have both made certain career sacrifices to make our family work. I don't think I would be happy being either the sole breadwinner or a SAHM. When I was picking someone to have kids with, it was important to me to find someone who was willing to share parenting duties fairly equally and still contribute something to our household financially.
Not very accurate for us. DH has an F in his Myers-Briggs and he does just fine, and would be a terrible SAH parent. I'm glad to know that I'll be able to compartmentalize my hypothetical children though.
The idea that people's earnings stagnate in their 30s is very interesting--I'd like to read more about that.
She could have just typed one sentence, like "talk about this shit before marriage".
That's an incredibly long article to explain a relatively easy concept.
But the point is that it's not just a question of discussing it and agreeing to something, it's a question of what you are likely to end up wanting once you're in the situation based on your core personality.
y4m, if you click over to her site, there are a million links in the post (she always does that, to both her old posts and other sites), and this is the one where she talks about salaries stagnating: blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/02/07/salaries-top-out-at-age-40/
If you want to work full-time when you have kids then you had better plan on having a huge job that you love. Because nothing else will seem worth it to put yourself and your family through what they will have to go through.
Disagree. I like my job well enough, but it's not "huge." I only make about 5K more than my husband. I don't pine to stay home. And I don't feel like I'm "putting my family through" anything.
Granted, INTJ signing in. So maybe I'm just heartless. Still, I find the whole thing pretty reductive.
If you want to work full-time when you have kids then you had better plan on having a huge job that you love. Because nothing else will seem worth it to put yourself and your family through what they will have to go through.
Disagree. I like my job well enough, but it's not "huge." I only make about 5K more than my husband. I don't pine to stay home. And I don't feel like I'm "putting my family through" anything.
Granted, INTJ signing in. So maybe I'm just heartless. Still, I find the whole thing pretty reductive.
I'm feeling like a INTJ failure--no high earnings here. :/
y4m, if you click over to her site, there are a million links in the post (she always does that, to both her old posts and other sites), and this is the one where she talks about salaries stagnating: blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/02/07/salaries-top-out-at-age-40/
One of the most common but least-talked about career moves is to get to a relatively high spot and then see how much you can cut back in terms of effort and still maintain that level of salary and/or prestige. This seems like a reasonable strategy for a wide range of people. So do small experiments with cutting back early in your career because creating enormous efficiencies takes practice. And a nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic is not the training you need for this type of change.
Yes, I'd like to know more about that. I honestly don't know any college educated professionals that peaked at 35. Perhaps blue collar workers?
I am thrown by this as well. Almost everyone I know in their late 40s or older is making substantially more than they were at 35.
I'm 40 and just got a promotion and a 12% increase in salary. My assumption (this is my gut speaking, not based on any facts) is where you are at 50 will be where you will stop. However, when I turn 50, I'll probably bump that up to 55.
Disagree. I like my job well enough, but it's not "huge." I only make about 5K more than my husband. I don't pine to stay home. And I don't feel like I'm "putting my family through" anything.
Granted, INTJ signing in. So maybe I'm just heartless. Still, I find the whole thing pretty reductive.
I'm feeling like a INTJ failure--no high earnings here. :/
Yeah, there's that, too. Not a high earner and closing in on 35. Sad trombone.
I feel like there is a scenario missing--the one where both partners maintain careers and share parenting duties. We have neither a SAHP nor nannies, and we manage. We have both made certain career sacrifices to make our family work. I don't think I would be happy being either the sole breadwinner or a SAHM. When I was picking someone to have kids with, it was important to me to find someone who was willing to share parenting duties fairly equally and still contribute something to our household financially.
This is absolutely how we hope & plan to raise our family.
Neither of us have any desire to be the sole breadwinner or a SAHP.
I am an ESTJ & he is an INFP. I will probably remain the higher earner for a few more years, but his business is booming (he is an artistic/self-employed entrepreneur) so the sky is the limit.
I feel like there is a scenario missing--the one where both partners maintain careers and share parenting duties. We have neither a SAHP nor nannies, and we manage. We have both made certain career sacrifices to make our family work. I don't think I would be happy being either the sole breadwinner or a SAHM. When I was picking someone to have kids with, it was important to me to find someone who was willing to share parenting duties fairly equally and still contribute something to our household financially.
I agree and think its a really big senerio to miss. That's us and I'm very happy.
I also don't know anyone with two nannies, so that whole senerio seems extreme. What qualifies as a woman with a "big job"? How is that different than "a job"? I've advanced, I do well, and I still leave with everyone else in my building at 5 pm and go home to a very nice family life.
And where are the families where one or both partners have a full time job and a part time job to make ends meet? Who work around the clock at crappy jobs just to keep off welfare and keep health benefits and basics. They don't have 2 nannies. Kinda strikes me as a pretty entitled premise - that tries really hard to say "this is everyone - pick which one you want to be".
IMO this rings quite true. Far too many people do not really think about what married life and family life will require. It take much more than love to make a marriage work. It is a partnership on many levels.
Many decisions in life are either/or. Sometimes you can have it all, but generally not all at the same time.
Lots of families make it with two working parents and no one having a 'huge' job. Even if I stick with the gross generalizations the author was making- what about all the women teachers/social workers/nurses/etc. Those are not'huge' jobs, but instead jobs that lend themselves nicely to 2 working parent scenarios.
Post by Willis Jackson on Jan 7, 2013 16:45:13 GMT -5
I'm an INTJ and I pretty much never think about my kids when I'm at work. Granted, I only work 10 hours a week and they're either asleep or with DH during that time, but still.
I absolutely married someone I knew could be a breadwinner because I wanted to be a SAHM. And DH married someone who wanted to SAH.
Also, I agree with this: "There will be people who say you can’t choose who you fall in love with. This is a lie, of course. There are a million people you could fall in love with. If one is impractical, just go find another."
I am blissfully happy with DH, but I know that I could be blissfully happy with someone else, too.
I think this is weird honestly. What if neither parent has a "big" job? DH and I both work full time, sometimes my job requires working more than 40 hours a week, but neither of us have - or will likely EVER have - a "big" job. Which means if we had kids, neither of us could afford to stay home, either. Or even work part time, likely, since our jobs are not part time jobs and a pay cut would kill us. Maybe in 5-10 years but we're 30. So then what?
I also find it unlikely (and frightening?) that pay would stagnate after 30. I've been in the workforce less than 5 years and only gotten minimal increases during that time. I don't think entry level jobs move up as quickly these days, places want lots of experience to promote you to management and that only comes with time. I don't think I have any peers my age who have moved quickly up the chain.
I feel like there is a scenario missing--the one where both partners maintain careers and share parenting duties. We have neither a SAHP nor nannies, and we manage. We have both made certain career sacrifices to make our family work. I don't think I would be happy being either the sole breadwinner or a SAHM. When I was picking someone to have kids with, it was important to me to find someone who was willing to share parenting duties fairly equally and still contribute something to our household financially.
I agree and think its a really big scenario to miss. That's us and I'm very happy.
Also agree you can share career and parenting responsibilities.
However, I think this doesn't apply to couples where frequent travel is required for both partners. Then you need some sort of nanny or family support.
She clarifies in her other blog post that your earnings top out at 40, not 30, which makes more sense to me.
I think this is weird honestly. What if neither parent has a "big" job? DH and I both work full time, sometimes my job requires working more than 40 hours a week, but neither of us have - or will likely EVER have - a "big" job. Which means if we had kids, neither of us could afford to stay home, either. Or even work part time, likely, since our jobs are not part time jobs and a pay cut would kill us. Maybe in 5-10 years but we're 30. So then what?
We had this same discussion last night. I have no clue how we're going to handle this.
I think this is weird honestly. What if neither parent has a "big" job?
I think the blogger's argument is that this setup will breed resentment. At least, that's what I get from this:
If you want to work full-time when you have kids then you had better plan on having a huge job that you love. Because nothing else will seem worth it to put yourself and your family through what they will have to go through.
She could have just typed one sentence, like "talk about this shit before marriage".
That's an incredibly long article to explain a relatively easy concept.
Right?
My boyfriend and I have discussed parenting/work expectations and we aren't even engaged. There are many ways to make having a family work (and Penelope certainly did not exhaust them, as PPs pointed out). But I do think it is important to think about what you want (even if it's likely to change with experience/age) and what's plausible given your financial constraints/career outlook.
Also, not every part time job pays poorly. As an SLP, I can contract out my work and make the same hourly rate as I would FT. Obviously you're paid less overall, but many people with families choose to work three 10 hour days. that would be financially feasible for many dual-income families, particularly if spending is cut.