ByKat Hours Updated
Comments 223 Comments

Suit of the Week: Brooks Brothers

This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

light blue patterned linen blend suit

For busy working women, the suit is often the easiest outfit to throw on in the morning. In general, this feature is not about interview suits for women, which should be as classic and basic as you get — instead, this feature is about the slightly different suit that is fashionable, yet professional. Also: we just updated our big roundup for the best women's suits of 2025!

I love the incredibly subtle pattern on this linen suit from Brooks Brothers.

At first, I just thought it was a light blue suit — not a problem for me because I love light blue suits, and this is a particularly great color because in certain lights I'm sure it reads more gray than blue. (It's also described as navy/white on the product page.)

But thennnnn I zoomed in, and saw the lovely glen check pattern. Fabulous!

It is a stretch linen blend, which can be great if you still need to look polished and it's a heatwave.

The suit is on SALE, even better — the blazer was $448 but is now marked to $300, and the pants were $198 but are now $138. (The site actually has a lot of markdowns right now, up to 30% off. Nice!)

Sales of note for 7/25/25:

  • Nordstrom – The Anniversary Sale is open for everyone — here's our roundup!
  • Ann Taylor – 25% off your purchase, including new arrivals + up to 60% off sale
  • Banana Republic Factory – Up to 50% off everything + extra 20% off
  • Boden – 10% off new womenswear with code
  • Eloquii – $19+ select styles + extra 45% off all sale
  • J.Crew – Up to 40% off select cashmere + up to 50% off summer styles + up to 70% off all sale styles
  • J.Crew Factory – Extra 60% off cashmere + extra 15% off $100+ and extra 20% off $125+
  • M.M.LaFleur – Daily flash sales — on 7/25 it's 25% off dresses! Try code CORPORETTE15 for 15% off
  • Rothy's – Final Few: up to 50% off
  • Spanx – Free shipping on everything
  • Talbots – Extra 60% off marked down pants, jeans, shorts and more, and extra 50% off all other markdowns

223 Comments

  1. I have to say, the pregnancy gas tank thread really highlighted the stark differences in how different people view relationships.

    1. I always follow the threads about warm households, saying thank you to spouses, etc and it’s very interesting. Some people will go to the mat insisting you shouldn’t do nice things for your spouse. I can’t tell if that’s how they truly live or if they’re just being contrarian because it’s this site.

      1. I do think I get more contrarian here because it’s the internet, lol. But I also think we tend to latch on to really specific examples that aren’t representative of the fuller relationship. I will go to the mat that in a marriage both people should feel like they are giving 100%, and that love fundamentally means service. You can’t be a doormat, but you do need to practice selflessness and actively will the good of the other.

        But we aren’t a copious “thank you” family and we don’t get each other gas. There are about 1000+ different tasks and requests that go into family life, and we all will have a different hierarchy. And we all have bad days, and different interpretations of requests and our own baggage.

        Love is also about giving the benefit of the doubt, and allowing space for human weakness as you grow together (the growth is key, though!)

        1. I agree with this. We are not a “get gas, wash hair” family. We do, however, say thank you for every kindness and do our best to grow together.

        2. Saying “thank you” once for a kindness done for you is not “copious” in any way. I think you need to work on your stubbornness around this. It costs you nothing to thank someone. It’s just basic decency. And a good example for your children.

          1. Here we go again with people who think their way is the only way. You aren’t in my marriage! To us it feels fake to say thank you 20 times a day. I don’t want my spouse to thank me for every kindness. Perhaps we do more kindnesses for each other so it would feel more repetitive than to most!

          2. See how you turned it into “20 times a day”? No one is saying that.

            Again with the stubbornness. .

          3. I think this can be partly cultural. People can be polite and considerate without a lot of words. If the words are enforced to comply with a culture outside the household, they may feel especially hollow within it.

          4. I said 20 times a day because you questioned my use of the word “copious”. We DO say it sometimes. We don’t say it 20x a day, for all the kindnesses, which is what I meant my copious

    2. I’m single but it did remind me of my dad, who ALWAYS makes sure my mom has gas in the tank and fills it up for her if needed. I’m glad to have a good example in them.

      1. My husband brings me tea every morning and makes sure my car’s gas tank is full. I thank him every time. ❤️

      1. It’s not hard and it makes the house so much more pleasant. Grudgingly agreeing to fill gas and then taking a pissy tone about it does the opposite.

        1. I think the OP had the realization in the original thread that her own enumerating of all the reasons she was right and her husband was wrong probably led to the grudging agreement and pissy tone. Being considerate goes both ways. Assuming good intent and intelligence on your partner’s part by just saying, “hey, I’m nervous about a lot of things right now, and I just realized this is one of them. Can you please keep the gas tank above half til the baby comes so it’s one less thing for me to worry about?” rather than nagging about a chain of unfortunate events that could happen from low gas might have gotten a different reaction. I know I don’t respond well when I feel like I’m being lectured, and I don’t think I’m unique in that way.

          (to be clear, I don’t think the gas issue was a deal breaker or indicative or any broader problems…late pregnancy is a fraught time, and lots of women, including me, overreact about small stuff.)

          1. Completely agree with all of this. I tried to make a similar point below (@2:47), but I like your framing even better!

    4. I think it’s a lot easier to lash out a say another person’s standards are too high than it is to look in a mirror and realize yours are too low and you’re being taken advantage of.

      1. Agree on this. Whether it’s filling a gas tank or helping put away groceries or making sure there’s food around when someone gets back from a work flight—those little things we both do for one another are sort of the key to having happy vibes. It’s some of the things I like most in my spouse and definitely would have been a differentiator with past ones that didn’t work. It’s sort of like being a good citizen or something.

        1. Exactly this. When you come home from a work trip, does your spouse greet you at the door with a hug and point you to the table where your favorite meal is set or do they say hello shouted down the stairs and leave you to scrounge in an empty fridge? It truly makes a difference.

          1. More importantly: do you do that stuff for your spouse? So many of these comments are about what people expect from their spouses, and so few are about what they expect from themselves.

          2. Oh absolutely. The more you give, the more they give. It’s a wonderful cycle. Beyond reciprocity, though, I want to do things that make life easier for the person in love. I WANT to. He doesn’t have to cajole me into filling the gas tank when he can’t for whatever reason.

      2. Or, some of the commenters don’t want that healthy standard because *they* don’t want to live up to it.

        1. I feel like there were a lot of people being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative on that thread. And this one.

          Or else these people really are just huge a-holes in real life.

    5. I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it here–some couples don’t give in easily because they want optimal for the relationship, not mediocre. It’s not a dynamic for everyone, but it’s one that many couples thrive in.

        1. Definitely not, but we try really hard to make the other person better and our ideas and actions better.

          1. I don’t view my husband as an improvement project, and he doesn’t view me that way, either. What you’re describing as “optimal, not mediocre” would get my back up SO quickly.

        2. For real. Treating each other with kindness and respect and doing nice things for each other because you love them is optimal. Being Mary Hume is a recipe for divorce.

      3. I don’t know what you mean, but what I mean by ‘optimal’ is the happiness of both partners as a whole. Sometimes that means one person does things the other’s way for no reason at all other than making them happy. It’s only a problem when only one half of the couple acts that way.

        1. I’m not positive that giving into someone who has no good rationale for their request actually makes them happy. I think it just strokes their ego.

          2. That wasn’t the dynamic described here though. The OP asked for something very common sense during a very high-risk time.

          3. I just don’t think that modern civilization is so, so great that it’s all worth it if we don’t take advantage of its perks.

            I can kind of understand people I know who live simply in the middle of nowhere, decline modern healthcare, and accept the risks because they prefer the overall lifestyle (though personally I’d still get my damn vaccines).

            But I don’t understand people who work hard in an urban center and get benefits like healthcare coverage, and then mock and disregard recommendations based in research because following them seems to represent some kind of “anxiety” to them. They’re not actually living a peaceful pre-modern life, so what’s even the trade off there? I can understand if it’s some fun vice like drinking or smoking, but when it’s stuff like abusing a car, or leaving perishable food out for hours and hours before putting it back on the fridge, or not wearing a mask in the waiting room at the doctor’s… is it really worth it? I don’t actually feel racked with anxiety when I just take good care of tools and machines and follow some basic hygiene principles and read the product labels on stuff I buy… it’s just not that big a deal. It’s honestly actually less attention to hygiene and best practices than I’d need out on the farm? This whole lifestyle is so easy in so many ways, you really do not need to be anxious or uptight to do the basics.

          4. I totally agree. It’s like wearing a helmet when I ride my bike. It’s not because I’m dying of anxiety about head injuries, but because it’s a simple common sense thing to do and it doesn’t cost me anything. Being prepared is not anxiety.

      4. What does that even mean? If that means constant conflict, under the guise of “improving” each other, no thank you.

        1. Improvement requires conflict and growth. It might not be for everyone, but it’s easier when you have a partner with the same mindset.

          2. If you talk to any therapist, they will tell you the goal to improvement is both partners moderating their own behavior, not the other’s. You come to the table as your best selves, and can decide whether the other person’s best self is right for you. Nitpicking and fighting over what’s optimal is a path to an incredibly non-optimal relationship.

            I think my marriage is a fairytale-dream-come-true, primarily because of how loving and caring we are to one another, and I almost never ask my husband to change his behavior. Accepting your partner as he is may surprise you in terms of how much more stress-free your relationship becomes.

            Also – it is a classic refrain of high-conflict relationships to say “the fighting is necessary to making us better.” Spoiler: it isn’t. It’s a way to justify toxicity and maladaptive relational behaviors.

          3. I don’t think I really see eye to eye with most therapists or people who have had a lot of therapy. They’re very individualistic, I guess? Like each man is an island unto himself? Maybe it’s a product of one-on-one consultations, since that’s how they need to work with people.

            I married young and we both had a lot of growing to do. There was no point at which I “decided whether the other person’s best self was right for me” and I can’t relate in any way to what that would even mean. But I don’t think I would feel loved or cared for by someone who wasn’t worried about me if I wasn’t doing well, even if it’s because I needed to change something? I don’t feel “unaccepted” just because there’s sometimes some friction and growth.

    6. My takeaway is that thread highlighted how many varied opinions we hold as humans, and the spectrum of “my way is the only right way” to “everything is valid and open to debate.” We also all read into it differently – was the issue his general preference to let the gas run low? Her preference to always have it half full? Did he “refuse” or was he merely “a bit grumpy”, which could be due to general stressors beyond this? Is being pregnant a trump card?

      It struck me how many people jumped from this one example to an assumption that men are irresponsible and don’t care about their wives.

      My husband is the gas-forgetful one. Never has he gone out of his way to fill “my” car, and often I fill his!

      But he makes dinner and does the dishes almost every night, and lets me sleep in every single weekend while he gets up early with the kids. Those are my love language. And I was one of the people on that thread (I think) who was a target of many “some of you have jerk husbands and set the bar low and it shows” comments. I also thought the list of ways a man should care for his wife was pretty cringe, and it’s not because my husband is a slacker — not even close!

      It’s because people are different, and relationships are different, and making blanket generalizations is not helpful

      2. Eh, sometimes it’s simply true that a partner is digging in and refusing to do something easy and kind, no matter the reason. If it were me, I would have said “oh of course, I’ll make sure it’s gassed up from now on. Better safe than sorry.” We’d then move on with our lives.

        1. I have noticed that many people will, “on principle,” spend ten times the energy arguing about it as it would take to just do the thing.

          I notice that these people usually end up divorced.

      3. I like this comment. I hated that list of ways a man should care for his wife–very cringe. And it would be a cold day in h-eck before my husband filled up my gas tank (or washed my hair), but he cooks, cleans, does the yard work. He has a brilliant mind and works with me as I refine my ideas about the world. He’s sweet to animals. The bar might not be acceptable to some of you, but it’s a good and high bar for me.

        1. I don’t understand this. I can think of a lot of reasons why someone might need to fill their spouse’s gas – injury, out of town, borrowed the car, heavily pregnant. Why wouldn’t your husband fill it for you if you needed it?

          We once had a similar thread here (years ago) and I wrote that in my marriage, it’s a pillar that we give without question when one person is vulnerable and that I felt it made our marriage stronger. Years and many very unforeseen challenges later, it’s proven very true. When life threw a lot at us, at least we didn’t have marital conflict added to the list of things that were hard to deal with. Other people are going to have different ideas about what makes a marriage low conflict, but for me, doing nice things for your partner just because or just to help them out is a huge part of it.

          1. Can’t speak for anyone else, but in our case we work in different counties and our nearest gas station (from home) is 10+ miles away. So perhaps it would be different if the gas station was just around the corner.

          2. I don’t understand the filling each others gas tank thing. I drive my car, my husband drives his, so he wouldn’t necessarily know my tank is low. Sometimes if I’m sitting around in the evening and realize I need to be somewhere early and don’t have much gas, he’ll take my car to run an errand that needed to be done anyway and fill up the tank on the way back, but it’s just not a chore it makes sense for us to do for each other.

      4. Ahh, but this is the Corpor*tt* comment section, there is no room for nuance here!

    7. It reminded me a lot of the dishes in the sink article from a while back. It was never just about the gas tank.

    8. My husband is extremely giving/kind, but I am also a good recipient of that generosity. That means if I make a request he doesn’t want to do, I am fine with a no or with a less than enthusiastic yes.

      Having the default response to low stakes requests be no or less than enthusiastic wouldn’t be great. But neither is being picked at for not being enthusiastic enough about doing something that seems annoying and unnecessary to you. Both dynamics are corrosive, and it seems like the discussion this am couldn’t hold both of those ideas in mind at the same time.

    10. I got the same vibes as the overreacting mom from the other day. The sense that OP’s default thinking is that she cares more about the family/baby than DH does and so she has to be vigilant so he doesn’t harm them. Not a great dynamic to have.

      1. This isn’t quite right – men commit most of the physical violence against children in this country (and globally), so the bar for suspecting them of anything is different than it is for mothers. Mothers are all too aware that men, even beloved ones, can harm their children.

        1. That is not at all what that thread was about and also makes no sense as a comment.

          1. The point is that that OP likely wasn’t acting out of thoughts that only she cares about the safety of the baby as a general rule. Instead, she was reacting to a possible threat and not sure how to interpret it, knowing full well (as all women do) that men can be life-threatening to children and that any threat must be taken seriously. That’s a very different dynamic.

          2. I do not view all men as life-threatening. Therapy would be good idea for you.

          3. Can we please, please stop using the term “picked” or “pick me” in 2025.

          4. Ohhhh, sure. Lots of men lining up to pick their princess from the comment thread. Grow up. Women are not saints anymore than men are dangerous.

      2. I just want to give some room for a lady to have a complicated 36+ week pregnancy and everyone, especially her spouse, should be a little extra patient and kind with her. I agree with you that a long term attitude that the mom knows better than everyone else is harmful, but I give OP some leeway to be exasperated in her current state.

        1. Amen. And getting a bit more gentleness from your spouse is useful — and I say that as someone who had a very complicated and anxiety-riddled pregnancy.

        3. For what it’s worth, as regards anxiety, asks to do things to relieve another person of irrational anxiety are the opposite of what’s recommended – exposure therapy is how anxiety is generally treated. (and yes, I think requiring your spouse to keep 50%+ gas is irrational in these circumstances, and almost all circumstances!)

          1. 50%+ is arbitrary, but it’s rational not to run near empty. It’s bad for the car, is bad in emergency situations, and we’ve all been asked not to make a habit of it.

          2. It doesn’t make sense that car manufacturers would turn on an alert light at 1/8 of a tank if they really think it needs to be 50% to avoid damage. And cars burn gas at half a gallon an hour when idling on average, so unless this 8 mo pregnant woman plans to be in traffic for 14 hours. . . it’s her anxiety feeding this, or this isn’t really about filling gas tanks.

          3. Completely agree. You are harming your spouse if you’re overly indulgent of their neuroses.

          4. Again, 50%+ is arbitrary and I don’t agree with it, but a habit of driving around with the alert light on really is discouraged. Nobody runs out of gas while driving until the first time that they do. Among men who played this game that I know, they all did eventually, and it’s often been in really undesirable circumstances. Every emergency preparedness list everywhere advises to fill the tank long before it begins to run low. It’s not hard to weigh the downsides of a full tank of gas (what even are they?) vs. the downsides of running too low on gas (many).

            If someone is being irrational (playing dumb games about how long they can go without filling the tank), someone else pushing against that is not somehow less rational just because they pushed too hard.

          5. I didn’t get back to this today but I want to chime in here – I never asked him to keep his tank at 50%. I just asked him to not have the gas light on or imminently on. I said half a tank is my rule for MYSELF, I never suggested I was imposing that on him.

            Asking someone to keep their tank not on E for two weeks while we’re on high alert to get to the hospital immediately is not irrational. That’s like saying having my hospital bag packed is irrational. It’s basic preparedness. Which is especially important when your medical team has told you that you need to be ready to GO at any moment depending on whatever the doctor thinks of today’s test results — for my 4x/week appointments.

            And even if “exposure therapy” was somehow relevant in this circumstance, 36 weeks pregnant with a multi-factor high risk pregnancy is not the time to be exposing me to more anxiety.

        4. And to have the expectation that her husband would be sensitive to that! I honestly can’t imagine having to first convince my husband that I was 100% right about every single request (or vice versa). Sometimes you just do a thing because the other person wants it done / wants it done in a particular way, and even if it seems weird or unnecessary, there’s no big reason not to do it that way, so you do.

          Side note, I honestly had no idea that people were so fixed on each person only ever driving their own car, my husband and I drive each other’s cars all the time.

  2. I need recs for makeup for mature skin. I have been using Bobbi Brown powder foundation for a decade, but recently I am feeling like it is not quite enough or maybe not the right kind of coverage. I’m not sure if it’s age (I am pushing 40) or hormones (I had to get off the pill last year for health reasons) but my skin is rebelling and I have a lot of redness. I have a derm appt coming up to try to get my rosacea and/or perioral derm under control, but until then I would like to look a bit more polished. Any suggestions on where to start? Sephora is my only local option but I’m willing to order things to try.

    1. YMMV, but I have a lot of natural pink/red in my skin and have never gotten great coverage from a powder foundation. It either does nothing or makes me look worse than how I started! Try a liquid or cream product instead. I’m 44 but still have combination skin (it’s flat-out oily in the summer), so I have better luck with liquids.

    2. Pushing 40 is not mature skin. Not trying to criticize, but mature skin is post menopausal. Totally different texture than late 30’s skin.

      1. That’s fair. I am starting to see things like wrinkles and dryness that weren’t there before so I assumed it was age and or hormone related.

    3. The Charlotte Tilbury Healthy Glow is sold as a tinted moisturizer but provides far better coverage than that implies, IMHO. Does a lovely job of evening out skin tone. I’m around your age with combination skin.

    4. I have post menopausal skin and rosacea and some sun damage, and Bare Minerals Complexion Rescue tinted moisturizer gives me lots of coverage, doesn’t irritate my rosacea, and doesn’t look dry. I got mine at Sephora and the sales associate had an app that found me a very good color match. She also gave me the tip that using Dr Jart’s cicapair tiger grass color correcting treatment, which I already had, could be worn alone to even my skin tone when I didn’t want full foundation but did want a more polished look with SPF.

    5. My rosacea skin works well with a CC or light coverage foundation set with a finishing powder.
      I start with liquids to do color correcting, and then the powder is just for evenness.

    6. look into cica pair products for redness — a lot of those are like primers you add under foundation, i think dr. jart is the GOAT there.

      i have never been a foundation person but I was tempted by the Jones Road story in the NYT about foundation, even though i absolutely hated the blushes of theirs that i bought.

      1. I know some people love the dr Jart stuff, so might be worth testing, but for my rosacea skin the consistency of Jart and also the cica ones from La Roche Posay are truly terrible, they are too thick and putty-like, and do not absorb or blend at all. It feels a bit like trying to use blue tack or plasteline. I tried them on recs both here (Jart) and from the Lisa Eldridge channel (LRP), but did not work for me.

        1. I use Dr Jart BB cream, not the color corrector in the green jar. For my rosacea red skin, the Bb cream is way better. The green stuff is super drying.

    7. My over 50 skin really likes the Armani foundation. Sold at Sephora. Available in a small size if you want to try it. In my 40s I loved the Nars tinted moisturizer but it doesn’t work as well for me now

    8. Dr Jart Premium BB cream. Not the green stuff. Bobbi brown tinted moisturizer (since you know your shade in Bobbi brown.) NARS tinted moisturizer.

      Don’t go for full coverage like Estée Lauder double wear. Apply lighter base and then spot correct with concealer.

      I have rosacea and all of the above work for my skin.

      Figure out your rosacea triggers and do your best to avoid what makes you flush/blush. If your face feels hot, bad stuff is happening.

      No long, hot showers for me. No booze (most of the time.) Chocolate and spicy food seem to be ok for me but they bother other people.

      Your doc will probably start you on metronidazole gel (metro gel) but I have had the best results with “triple cream” – metronidazole, azelaic acid, and ivermectin.

      And don’t forget the SPF. Every. Single. Day.

    9. I went into Sephora and asked for a recommendation based on a similar set of issues. They hooked me up with an Ilia foundation that comes in a stick. It’s a bit more coverage than I had needed before (I’d been using BB-ish creams) but I like it and it works well.

    10. I switched to the Bobbi Brown serum foundation. It matched the powder I had been using perfectly.

  3. I have ~20 years’ experience as a social science researcher in an academic setting. I have a JD and a quantitative master’s, with quantitative methods training and experience more extensive than that of many social science PhDs. I also possess extremely specialized subject matter expertise that doesn’t transfer well into the for-profit realm. My field is very small, and for a variety of reasons I think it would be wise to make a transition to a more normal career where many jobs are available. I have the technical skills to be a data scientist, in a Ph.D.-level role where I would be developing sophisticated models, not some plug-and-chug kind of role. Are there resources for learning how to present my background in the right way and for learning how to search for jobs in the for-profit sector? My field is so small that it’s all by word of mouth and networking, and that’s obviously not an option for me in a new field.

    Alternatively, would I be better off trying to retrain as an actuary? I have plenty of econometrics training that would be applicable. In some ways this seems less icky than data science because data science is mostly about figuring out how to sell people stuff, but on the other hand it doesn’t seem like a field where I could break in as a middle-aged entry-level hire and expect to earn a decent salary.

    1. You can absolutely get a high level private sector role. I worked with All Hands and the people behind them and found it very helpful. I don’t have a PhD, but I’m in a similar area. Email me at riyixo8051@ofacer.com and I’m happy to talk more.

    2. I’m an actuary. The best way to retrain as an actuary is to sign up for some actuarial exams and see how you do. Be an actuary dot org is the best place to find information.

    3. I personally would not train as an actuary as I’ve never heard of a market for the role outside an insurance company, which is notoriously low paying. It’s also the kind of work that would lend itself to AI replacing it.

      1. Many actuaries work for consulting companies, in risk management, government orgs, and other fields that take advantage of our quantitative skills.

        Consulting roles tend to pay very well but demand long hours.

        Insurance companies pay actuaries well because we have hard-earned specialized skills and certifications they need.

      2. Pension plans can’t function without their actuaries – and pension consulting firms and pension law firms. Anything in the retirement space. OP, having a JD would help you get your foot in the door as a law firm actuary.

      3. Lol I’d love to see AI present to my state’s legislature about the pension plan. That would be quite the sight.

  4. The WSJ had a feature about couples making $250K or more, which puts them in the top 10% of earners, but they don’t feel rich. I think we’ve had this conversation many times…and he’s the data: you ARE RICH. It doesn’t matter where you live or how many kids you have or whatever. $250K is wealthy. But you still have to prioritize and make choices.

    (Just another third-rail topic for today!)

    1. I’m so tired of this “debate.” It’s like when voters say they feel unsafe on the streets due to crime and an economist comes back with “well ACTUALLY violent crime is down .78% for the year.” And? Doesn’t change anything about how people feel each day.

      1. I suppose. It’s probably just 20+ years of rolling my eyes when people who live in the suburbs have to go into the city and they have to “keep their head on a swivel!” It’s just like… knock it off and take precautions. You are probably not in any more danger than the average person.

        1. Right, but the point is that the average person is in more danger in the city than in the suburbs.

      2. Today is really one of those days that makes me wonder why I ever started coming here.

          2. I could do without the red fem talking points which always come across as learned and repeated to me. It feels like it derails what could be a more meaningful conversation among women speaking more genuinely.

          6. Lololol at rad fem talking points being “learned and repeated” when third-wave feminism (the “fun kind”) is responsible for innumerable thought-stopping mantras written 👏🏼 like 👏🏼. Every point I ever heard from them is ripped straight from the Instagram of some low-level activist.

          8. Maybe so, but I never see 3rd wave feminists showing up here with their hand clap mantras, so I guess it’s not derailing anything here that I can tell.

    2. I dunno. If you live in the Bay Area with 2 kids you can’t even buy a house on that salary, and it’s hard to argue someone is “rich” when they can’t even have the American dream of owning a modest single family home.

      (This is not me, for the record. We make ~$210k in a LCOL area and feel filthy rich. But I have some empathy for people in VHCOL areas. The cost of living variance between, say, Omaha and SF is just insane – and getting wider? – and I feel like the metric for what’s ‘rich’ has to take that into account.)

      1. I do not think the American Dream is owning a SFH. It’s being gainfully employed, meeting your needs, and being able to progress in your career if you have the aptitude and focus to do so. The SFH thing is a midwestern conceit that I don’t recognize as a Bay Area native.

        1. A SFH absolutely is the American dream. Home ownership is supposed to be the route to financial security in this country. For us it hasn’t been.

          1. That absolutely is not how the phrase “American Dream” has been used historically.

        2. It’s absolutely the American dream, and the level of salary needed to achieve it has changed so much. It used to be that a blue collar man working in a factory could buy a single family home while his wife stayed home and took care of several kids. Now dual professionals who each earn six figures and have 0-1 kids can’t afford houses.

      2. Right, but living in the Bay Area is a luxury by definition, since it’s expensive.

    3. That’s around what we make. We take home less than 45% of our gross pay after taxes, retirement contributions, and the cost for benefits. Then we pay about half of our take-home for our daughter’s college, which is half the cost of private college after aid and is slightly less than what we’d be paying if she’d opted for the honors program at Flagship State U. Our house is 30 years old with all original everything and is falling apart. We don’t have furniture in some rooms and are still using grad school furniture in others. We couldn’t save much for our daughter’s college or max retirement until she was 12 because until then my entire salary went to child care and student loans, and my loans were relatively modest for my degree because I had a scholarship. The savings we had were used up in the first year. So no, I don’t think it’s realistic to say that we are rich. Our basic needs are covered but that’s it. No vacations, no fancy cars, no expensive concerts. If one of us loses a job we’re sunk. We are living a solid middle-class lifestyle on a salary that should give us a luxury lifestyle. If we earned any less we’d be living on the edge. Thanks, capitalism. I think we’d be better off in a European country with a high tax rate and solid public health insurance, higher education, and retirement funding.

      1. Having retirement, college savings and benefits alone makes you better off than most people. And if one of you can’t lose your job, your house cost too much.

        1. I’m curious where you think people should live if they can’t afford their houses on one salary- rent isn’t significantly cheaper.

        2. Yeah, I was going to say… it depends on your definition of rich but you’re ahead of SO MANY people just by having retirement savings and paying for private college.

          I do feel like school debt is a big piece of this that’s not discussed enough, probably second only to the cost of housing where you live. My husband and I both got private undergrad paid for by parents, he did a PhD that was fully funded, and I did law school on a huge merit scholarship and only graduated with ~$30k in debt which I paid off my first law in Big Law before we were married. Being debt free by 27 before we were married or had kids has done a ton for our finances.

        3. Our house is cheap and awful and less expensive than renting. My point is that retirement and college shouldn’t be luxuries. Even someone working in a factory should be able to retire and send their kid to college.

          1. Again, this is cost of living dependent, but in large swathes of the Midwest and South you actually can support a family of 2-3 kids with a blue collar job. People who work in factories don’t have college debt. The mom typically stays home so they pay $0 for childcare and if their kids go to college they’d get significant financial aid (and the State Us aren’t all that expensive to begin with). Retirement savings exist, but they’re not planning for the “I might have dementia for a decade and need $4 million dollars” scenarios that so many here worry about (and if that happens, family is more likely to step in and help and/or they spend down their assets and go wherever Medicaid will cover).
            I have a lot of coworkers that support families on ~$50k salaries and they have decent lives, including modest vacations. And there are plenty of blue collar jobs, like plumber and electrician, that often pay quite a bit more than $50k.

          2. Our state Us are upwards of $40K/year. A family making $50K/year will get tons of need-based aid, but above $150K or so you are paying full freight. The math doesn’t math.

          3. $40k/year is insane for public college. In-state tuition in my state is under $10k and you can live very cheaply with roommates so you’re looking at around $15k/year all-in if you’re from this state. It’s perfectly affordable for a family that makes $150k here.

        4. It’s not the house that costs too much. It’s the groceries, the college tuition and room and board, and the health insurance.

      2. We’re in a not-very-different position and I also think we’d have a higher quality of life if we had similar jobs in an EU country or the UK. My kids’ British cousins don’t have to worry about losing health insurance, college is much cheaper, and their houses are just as nice if not nicer than ours with parents that have less-remunerative jobs.

        1. The salaries in the UK and EU are so much lower though. My husband is a college professor and most of his close collaborators are in the UK and EU, so he’s had opportunities to move and we’ve researched this pretty carefully. He’d take an absolutely massive pay cut (not that academia in the US pays awesomely, but it pays much worse in Europe) and that would more than offset the free healthcare and college for our kid. Granted, we only have one kid and live in a state with very affordable public college; if we had 5 kids to put through college or something it might be a different story.
          Also, at least pre-Trump, literally all of his collaborators were trying to get to the US because they’d have a better quality of life here. That’s less true now but I think it’s because of the political situation, not because they’re better off financially in the EU.

      3. As someone who lived in the Bay Area for a long time, the whining about the cost of living there on these very good incomes is missing the biggest point. You are getting a huge thing that you neglect to mention in your lists of your “limited” lifestyles, which suggest a marginal existence.

        You are living in the Bay Area.

        The weather.
        The lifestyle.
        The jobs and economy.
        The diversity.
        The people.
        The natural beauty.
        The culture.
        The FOOD!
        The freedom (literally).
        And so much more.

        There is a reason it is so highly desired. So your house is small. In the 50’s, all the houses were “small”. The benefits of the Bay Area can be incredible. And many of them don’t cost a lot of $$ to take advantage of. Only you make your priorities, and you are able to make choices that most of the country could never make. It is easy to forget this when you live in a bubble.

        2. People aren’t saying their house is small; they’re saying they literally can’t afford to buy any house. Big difference.

          1. Then you live in an apartment or you don’t live there. You decide what your priorities are.

            Do you think we should be sympathizing with people making $250k and living in SF? No. They can move. And likely get excellent jobs in 90% of the US.

          2. No, I don’t feel bad for people making $250k in SF. They’re perfectly comfortable and as you note they can move if they want. But I also don’t think they’re rich, which was the question asked.

        1. It shouldn’t be a luxury! Everyone who is qualified to go to college should get to go without bankrupting their parents or incurring massive debt. An education is a basic necessity.

        2. Yes, unfortunately in the US it is. Your kids need to pitch in and apply for every funding option, consider non-traditional college routes (including the military), work and save money in high school and work through college. Remember, only 37% of Americans have a college degree! And yes – maybe you don’t max out your 401k every month like 85% of Americans.

          One of the reasons Trump won is because the elite educated Democrats don’t realize how most Americans live. And that many (most?) on this board are Rich, even if they aren’t happy with their lifestyle.

    4. I earn that and I am currently high-earning but not wealthy. I earned a fraction of that for the last five years, so I am making up for some deficit years. I mention this because it is important to realize that you should not make assumptions about people’s situations. nd currently there are people in my life expecting me to behave like I have always made this kind of money when, in fact, I haven’t and I also got a very late start in my career so even though I have had other good years, I did not have the snowball of earnings others have had

    5. I mean, I think where you live matters a lot. A $250k income means a very different lifestyle in Pratt, Kansas than it does in San Francisco.

      1. Yeah. Like I get the eye-rolling about people with $400k+ HHI trying to pass themselves off as poor or barely middle class, even in SF or NYC. But you can buy perfectly decent single family homes in my Midwest city for $250k. You’re looking at literally 10 times that for any kind of house in most (all?) of the Bay Area. The cost of housing is such a huge factor. Although if you ever get into that kind of house, then you’re set for life with the appreciation.

        1. Yeah, I caught that, too! Who is this poster who knows about Pratt? Inquiring (Kansan) minds want to know.

    6. DH and I make $400-500k combined in SF, and we are barely middle class. It matters tremendously where you live. 1% of income in Wichita isn’t 1% of income on the Upper West Side. It’s okay to recognize that region dictates how wealthy a person is. I would never tell a couple making $200k in my area that they are rich and to stop complaining, because household income wise that’s barely above the city’s defined low-income level for 2 people ($80k per person).

      1. I take it back, the low-income threshold in SF is now 107,000 per person. It’s absurd to act like regional differences don’t matter.

      2. But this is the point – $250K is top 10%. That is objectively richer than 90% of the country. And I’m guessing a lot of those people live in HCOL areas, because salaries are higher.

        IMO it’s expectations that are out of line. We expect “rich” and “luxury” to be what THOSE people over there have. But really? It’s the 2000 sq ft house in a good neighborhood and kids who (could) go to private school and two cars in our garage and a modest vacation every year. Even if the rooms are dated and we can’t go out to eat more than once a month and we have to mow our own lawn. That is more “luxurious” than most people have ever had.

        We make just under $250K in the NYC burbs with four kids (who go to public school) and are on a tight budget. But I fully admit we are in the top 10%, and we are objectively rich!

        1. The cheapest 2000 sq ft home in my Bay Area city is $2.2m, and it’s in a bad area with bad schools.

        2. “Of the country” is a sweeping generalization. You should do better. Like thinking. It takes time but it’s not that hard.

          1. Well, this sounds mean in tone but also illiterate. IDK what you mean. I guess you should do better.

        3. Hahahahahaha I would gladly take that house in SF on a 250k salary. It’s not even in the realm of possibility. Those homes are 2M+ here.

          1. Yeah OP truly just doesn’t understand. A 2,000 square foot house never ever ever possible to rent in SF if you’re making $200,000 HHI. I said below you could rent a 2 bedroom, but honestly I think it would be a stretch. You could rent a one bedroom comfortably, and that would be the top of the mountain without sacrificing everything else in your life.

          2. Bay Area is a different animal, even from NYC. I think people who haven’t lived there don’t really get it. There aren’t “suburbs” that are reasonably affordable and in easy train commuting distance the way there are to all the major east coast cities.

            We were kid-free at the time, but went from ~$450-500k HHI in the south bay to ~$150k HHI in the Midwest and felt much richer in the Midwest.

        4. What you’re describing as your definition of ‘rich’ is impossible in SF on a $200,000 HHI. Literally, you could barely afford to rent a 2 bedroom apartment , probably couldn’t afford a new Honda, definitely could not afford childcare for even one child, and could not afford to save for their college.

          1. I replied in the wrong place, but at that salary you have choices, and you have to prioritize. If you want the 2000 sq ft, you could move and have a long commute. We expect that rich means we get everything we want and that’s not it. But you can get many things you want, you get to choose which!

            But if you choose to live in the literal most expensive dot in the entire country and then say that you can’t afford it…I don’t know what to tell you.

          3. If you think you can get 2,000 square feet in the Bay Area as long as you’re willing to commute, then you really don’t get it.

          4. Bestie, I’m the poster upthread who said the cheapest 2000 sq ft house in my city is 2.2 million, and I’m 47 minutes outside the city with no traffic, 90 on a bad day. There are very rich people in the suburbs, too.

          5. But 4:16, where exactly do you propose people in the Bay Area should live where they can also commute to the jobs that put them in the top 10% and “feel rich”?

          6. Okay I’m willing to mea culpa that SF isn’t the best example. It is a different world out there (though Zillow is showing me 2000 square ft in SF proper for just under $2M?)

            But the point stands, as I find is hard to believe that all the women on this board who have a HHI of $250K+ and claim they “aren’t rich” live in the Bay Area!

          7. Also I’m not saying you should feel rich. I’m saying you ARE rich. That’s the point, people are chasing a nebulous feeling that doesn’t exist. We think “rich” means we should be able to afford whatever we want. It’s not that, by the numbers .

          9. No, the definition of rich is “able to afford luxuries.” The issue is that people who should be rich given their position on the income distribution aren’t actually rich anymore in the United States. The 1% is getting richer, and the 99% are falling further and further.

          10. Ok but the definition of luxuries has changed. Takeout is a luxury, two vehicles is a luxury, getting on a plane for a vacation is a luxury. But lifestyle creep/consumerism means we take those for granted as “standard” j

          11. Two vehicles are not a luxury. You can’t go to work or run a household without access to a vehicle unless you live in one of the very small number of very expensive cities that have decent public tr—t.

            The baseline for middle-class living is owning a single-family home and two reliable cars, saving for retirement, the ability to put kids through college, and the ability to afford to replace the fridge or fix the car when it suddenly dies. People here are calling that secure lifestyle “luxurious,” and it just isn’t. Everyone who works hard should have security. That’s the life all of our middle-class parents were able to build in the 1980s on a single income. Now many people struggle to afford that life on two incomes. Housing and cars and groceries and health care are much more expensive in real dollars than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Raises don’t keep pace with inflation. People have student loans, which they mostly didn’t have until colleges realized in the ’90s that they could force two generations (parents and students) to pay for one generation’s education. Dual-income couples have to pay exorbitant sums for low-quality childcare with inadequate hours. Etc.

      3. Even in SF $500k is still waaaay above middle class. Maybe you’re not 0.1%ers like you’d be in Witchita but you’re not close to the middle.

        1. At that salary you have choices, and you have to prioritize. If you want the 2000 sq ft, you could move and have a long commute. We expect that rich means we get everything we want and that’s not it. But you can get many things you want, you get to choose which!

          1. Girlfriend. That’s a nice idea that doesn’t exist in reality in places like the Bay Area.

    8. I think it says more about how many people are living beyond their means, up to their eyeballs in debt with no savings (we’re in the $250K boat and EVERYONE has nicer cars than us, new furniture, etc, but how???), and also how truly we just don’t see at all the bottom 90%.

      1. As to how everyone else affords this, a lot of people save less than you’d probably be comfortable with, but school debt is also a big factor. Graduating debt-free gives a couple a massive advantage over people that each bring six figure school debt to the marriage. A lot of people also get parental support on down payments, especially in HCOL areas.

        1. +1

          This. You live in rich people areas, you will be surrounded with people who inherit a lot of family support.

          1. It’s not just rich people areas. It’s areas that used to be super cheap so the middle-class parents got wealthy just by saving and owning homes that appreciated at a zillion percent. So many of my friends are SAHMs whose parents or in-laws are splashing out for cars for the teen kids, family beach weeks, and other “extras.”

    9. I live in the SF Bay Area with a HHI of about $280k (sometimes less). While we can’t afford a house here, I acknowledge that was a choice (we could move) and I would say we’re very comfortable. Daycare for an infant is more than our rent now so things are going to be tight, but we can fulfill all of our needs and most of our relatively wants. That’s not “rich” in the sense that we can pay for anything anytime, but we’re rich overall.

      1. *relatively modest. We do splurge on some things but I’m also wearing a shirt I got from Old Navy 20 years ago.

    10. This is me- I once heard it called (maybe here?) money dysmorphia, and it definitely applies to me and turns out it is not that easy to address, although I am working on it.

      I grew up in poverty but at this point in my life I am in the top 1% in terms of net worth and not too far off in terms of income. I don’t think most people in my life are aware of this. In any case, my perception of my situation has really lagged reality to a mind boggling degree.

    11. I make that. I’m a single parent.

      On $250k I’m left with $175k post tax. I then pay $40k in childcare, $50k in medical expenses and $20k in remedial help for my children each year. That leaves me with $65k per year to live off. I live in a HCOL area. My housing is $3600 a month. Leaves me with $1800 a month to operate a car (needed for medical appointments) and buy food.

      So no, I’m not rich. There are days where I don’t have enough money to buy food. Why my income is considered $250k in the first place is the problem. I should be paying taxes on $140k because that’s my actual gross income. On $140k I’d have disposable income of $98k.

        1. Not usually. They have to be over 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, and then only the amount over the threshold. Certain medical expenses like employer subsidized premiums are also not deductible.

      2. Ok but you’re in a pretty exceptional situation. I’m sorry but most people would just be bankrupt with those medical expenses. Or dead.

    12. As a lifelong New Yorker I’m just astounded that some of you think a 2000 sq ft house anywhere should be a given. Most of us would consider a 1500 sq ft apartment generous and plenty of people I know raise a family in 1200-1400 sq feet just fine.

      A family member works in commuting distance to SF and raises a family on a single income because his wife doesn’t work. They wouldn’t say they are rich but they own a small 3 bedroom home and it’s a choice they make and they are doing just fine.

    13. It’s because readers don’t have an accurate reflection of America. Billionaires and millionaires are outliers. The mean income in the US is $64,000. Even in SF, someone is also trying to live on $60,000 a year. You are rich to them if you make $200,000. Only 20% of Americans make over $100,000 a year. Mathematically, you are wealthier than most Americans.

      Those statistics don’t change just because you can’t afford what you want — in the case of that article it was something like a 6-bedroom house and $9000/year for sports lessons. That’s rich. There are people trying to afford food.

      1. But in SF, $100k isn’t top 20% – it’s literally within the definition of low income. I agree that if you’re 90th percentile income for your local area, you’re rich, even if you can’t afford the things you want. But the metric used should be local area, not the whole US, because the average incomes varies hugely within the US.

  5. Just saw a job posting for executive director at a nonprofit that required 3 writing samples. Is that normal? I thought that was more of a management role, and sure you should know how to write well, but it wasn’t the bulk of the role

    2. It depends on the org but often the ED writes those year end papers and what not. Sometimes they’re ghost written by staff but it’s uncommon. EDs often take on fellowships too.

    3. How big is the nonprofit? This seems odd unless the staff is minimal. Or maybe they have been burned before, or have randomly decided to ask all applicants for all roles to submit work samples? I’m a fundraiser that drafts a ton of written material for our executive director – a nonprofit ED generally spends a big chunk of time on fundraising – so maybe they just want to be sure the person can adequately review material they will be signing. It’s still odd.

      1. It’s not tiny. Maybe its that they’ve been burned before. That’s the best explanation I can think of.

      2. I’m also in fundraising and I’ve never seen an ED do any of their own writing.

    5. As the outside counsel to a few non-profits, let me tell you, the skill and qualifications of EDs vary widely. I’ve seen some draft letters to federal agencies come across my desk that look great; others where I’m not sure if the ED author has ever written a business letter before. I understand where the hiring committee is coming from!

      1. This is the first article of clothing posted here that I’ve liked in as long as I can remember.

  7. Are there any notable vacation spots in other cities in Florida that are hidden gems? All-inclusives luxury type things but in like St. Pete or Punta Gorda?

    1. I don’t think there’s much all-inclusive in Florida. There’s a Club Med. I wouldn’t really call that luxury though.

      I like the Destin/Miramar Beach area, although we’ve only gone in the late fall and winter, which is low season and avoids the spring break party crowds and summer family crowds. The beauty of the sand and water is up there with the nicest Caribbean islands imo, we’ve seen a lot of wildlife (manatees, rays, crabs) and it’s much more affordable. We rented a large, oceanfront home with direct beach access and for ~$300 a night. Although that was a few years ago, it’s probably double that now. But still much less than the high end Caribbean hotels.

  8. Anyone want to give me advice about a sprained ankle?

    I rolled my ankle off a curb last week – I think I did a full 90 degrees with my ankle to the outside. It immediately swelled up and I went to urgent care the same day. They recommended a boot until they determined whether anything was broken. X rays were the following day and results took another day. Nothing is broken. So they said, no boot and walking normally is best.

    But I still have a ton of swelling. It’s actually comical looking. My sprained ankle is literally twice as wide as the non sprained one. And it still hurts a lot.

    I saw on here that one should visit an orthopedist for a sprain. I can’t get an appointment with one until 7/22.

    Any suggestions as to what I should do now?

    1. I’ve gone to a chiropractor under similar circumstances to great success. Queue all the people who say it’s quackery or whatever but it works wonders.

        1. I mean, they’re just going to tell you rest, ice, compression, elevation. Not worth the time or money.

          1. IME the ER or regular urgent care will always tell you to follow up with ortho. Since OP is having significant swelling it seems prudent, and a better investment, to follow up with orthopedic urgent care now instead of waiting three more weeks for the follow-up she has scheduled.

    4. I got a splint that I used with a sprained ankle, and it was a tremendous relief — the kind with two pieces of hard plastic held together by velcro. Other than that, elevation and ice also helped.

      1. They tried to put one of those on me at urgent care but it hurt too much on my bruised ankle bone!

        1. Maybe get an ACE bandage and wrap around your foot / ankle as you can. It will give a bit of stability that helps when your foot/ankle are wobbly from strain/pain.

    5. Ice it 2-3x per day. Ibuprofen / naproxen (with food!), if that is safe for you. Rest it. Wide, comfortable and stable shoes.

      And if isn’t improving over this week, I agree with seeing an orthopedist. Just get on the wait list for the doctor you have an appointment with now. If they have an online MyChart site, check 1-2x per day if there are any cancellations that pop up and grab them. And you can call once a day first thing in the AM to see if there are any last minute cancellations. I’ve always gotten moved up doing those things. Never fails.

    7. In the meantime: Are you icing it for 20 minutes every two hours? And elevating it when you can?

    8. The only time I sprained my ankle the orthopedist put me in a brace but not a boot. And I had to wear it and supportive shoes for like 6 weeks? So no ballet flats or sandals.

    9. RICE and time. And then I really, really urge you to do some physio and rehab it properly. I sprained my ankle very badly one April and the following February broke it very badly, and although I’d felt recovered the hospital thought weakness and lack of stability after the sprain contributed to the mild trip that caused the break.

    10. If you have pain at the front of your ankle where it hinges, go to either an orthopedist or a sports doctor.

    11. There are chiros that specialize in soft tissue injuries. I live in Houston and swear by Airrosti for ankle injuries.

    12. I had this same exact injury last year. I didn’t take the crutches that were offered and had about 6-8 weeks of pain, bruising and swelling, made sure to wear flats for a few months, and now it is totally fine.

Comments are closed.