Wednesday’s Workwear Report: Matte Jersey Belted Kimono Dress

311 Comments

1. I read the posts yesterday quite late in the day and noted the ones for the BigLaw equity partner who needed a driver for her kids who aren’t yet old enough to drive. I’m not the OP on that post, but could just as well be.

   Equity partner life is like any other sales job. The only metric that I’ve ever noticed that mattered was collections (not billings, not hours worked, nothing). And if there is anything secondary, it is whether your collections are your collections — on matters on clients you have origination credit for (vs matters you have origination credit for, although that’s still not a bad measure).

   So I do all sorts of things that make working hard compared to when I was single and childless and before I had one child with some complex medical needs and one parent with a terminal illness. It’s like any other sales job. In some ways, easier: I don’t own a restaurant or have any real in-person expectations; if I’m not in a coma and have a good WiFi connection and cell service, the work can get done under some really not-ideal conditions (but gets done).

   Also, if you are en equity partner, you can’t get fired (you can get expelled, but there is a bit of headline risk for that in BigLaw in ways there isn’t in small law). Even without that, the remedy is on the comp side: you collect less, your comp is reduced. There is no part-time option (which many of us would gladly take); at some point, you are just doing the work of the clients that have needs that mesh well with your limitations.

   1. Yeah, I found some of the responses there funny. It almost felt to me like there was a commenter who was, for lack of a better word, resentful that someone might have that kind of flexibility while also having a highly compensated job.

      I commented on the post, but I’m a former biglaw equity partner, now in a senior in-house role. Flexibility is the thing I miss most about biglaw; as a partner I had a lot of ability to determine when calls would be scheduled or when I’d review documents or meet with associates. Not all the time – I took calls from the exit stairwell of a hotel in Istanbul, in the carpool pickup line, in my doctor’s parking deck, etc. when the client really needed to meet right then – but the more senior I got, the more I controlled. The downside to that flexibility is of course that it often means not the flexibility to turn down or put off work (unless you’re willing to make less money), but the flexibility to do it late at night or in the wee hours of the morning.

      I think that people who understand that you do have some latitude to shape your schedule have better longevity in biglaw; it’s okay 95% of the time to tell a client you can’t meet at 3 PM but you can meet at 4:30 PM. That’s what you would do if you had another call at that time, in any case. My husband is still an equity partner in biglaw (one of the most highly compensated in his firm, so successful at it), and he picks up kids from school, takes them to games, etc. Not as often as someone with a lower-key job, and he very often has to get on the phone while he’s sitting in the bleachers, but he does it. And since I’m now in-house and have a much higher expectation of 8-5 availability, him doing that is even more important now than it was in the past.

      1. I think some commenters were coming from the position of “the partners I work with are the workhorse partners providing detailed, substantive advice; if I’m the client paying you $1000 per hour, I’m expecting you to be reasonably available – on your computer because we’re usually reviewing documents – during business hours most days” – not thinking there is or should be zero flexibility, just thinking that a daily jostle around multiple kids’ activity schedules doesn’t sound conducive to that expectation.

         if you’re the rare(r) breed of equity partner who doesn’t do as much actual legal advice and instead is the relationship rainmaker type, which it sounds like your husband may be, it’s obviously easier to handle calls and whatnot on the fly.

         1. Recoewing documents all chat sounds like a mid level associate job.

            1. Depends on the deal but all the major corporate deals I’ve worked on, the partners have been actively involved in the complicated core docs. Obviously associates help with legwork but no I’m not having a 4th year run an acquisition.

            2. Of course the fourth year isn’t running the acquisition but they are the ones turning the document. One of the best parts of being more senior is you are reviewing the draft not turning the draft. Unless a deal is imminently signing, the flexibility of OP is definitely possible for an equity partner. Especially with teenagers. The more senior you get the more your job is done over the phone and the less time you spend on revising stuff directly. If you have to pull over to take a call, that’s easy with teenagers in a way that probably is more challenging for small kids. Same on running a few minutes late. You can be late to middle school pickup in a way that you can’t with kindergarten pick up.

         2. The thing is, if you don’t like the client service you’re getting from your lawyers, you find new lawyers. If they aren’t meeting availability expectations, then you find someone who will. I manage the largest outside counsel budget of any division in my F100 company except litigation, so I deal with a lot of $1000/hour (and even $3000/hour, hi Rodge Cohen) lawyers. If people are meeting my expectations we keep working with them and if they aren’t we don’t. I don’t resent them if they’re not available, I just move on. It’s the resentment underlying some of those comments that is, to me, unhealthy.

            The fact that someone else is able to provide client service at a level that enables her to have a successful practice (and for biglaw equity partners, “successful” just has to mean that you’re profitable – if your practice is in the black your firm will keep you, you’ll just make less) while still picking up her kids is just a fact. It’s not a thing to finger-wag over as some commenters were doing. She’s not doing it *at* you (the generic you, not you specifically).

            My husband actually isn’t a rainmaker type – he’s an expert in a specific thing and is still very much a “working partner” (vs a go-to-lunch-and-schooze guy) who puts up a painful number of billable hours a year. I guess some commenters would resent that he can do that and still get to football practice with our son, but it is what it is.

            1. Good for your husband, honestly.

               I agree with your first two paragraphs — resentment for flexibility is not called for, but the possibility of the OP quietly losing some business as a consequence of taking it is very real.

            2. I quietly lose business all the time. Female. Pregnant. At a firm that could be higher in the AmLaw list. You name it. I’m already there.

            3. I mean, I will be honest that I still think it’sa terrible work life and it wasn’t worth it to me to keep doing it (horrendously late nights, very little sleep, always working on vacation, among other things), but he does at least take advantage of the upsides that can exist…

            4. I commented about the lack of flexibility and gosh is this a misinterpretation. Great if you actually have it, but my experience as part of a two-lawyer law firm partner household is that it doesn’t work that way. Can I arrange my schedule to do something in the middle of the day? Absolutely. But can I always count on that? Absolutely not. And I have to make up the time I took off in the middle of the day somewhere, that could be working late nights or on a weekend. In response to the OPs question, I would throw money at an easy to solve problem – driving kids around. I’d spend it to preserve my own sanity. I’m all for flexibility but also realistic about what that actually means. Flexible to choose the hours I work is not the same as having free time.

            5. Yes, I agree that you pay for the flexibility. In her situation I would definitely outsource the driving if only to avoid the constant stress of having to closely manage my schedule.

               I do think it’s helpful, though, to distinguish the work and comp for equity partners from “billables” as someone said yesterday. I’m not any type of law partner – I’m a lawyer but now in govt – but I think it’s very important for women associates (especially) to know how partner comp works and how the workday might be different from associate or jr partner life. For example, I think the flexibility and autonomy you earn (still subject to client demands) is underrated if associates think the job is still straight billing 3k hours a year. The sales aspect takes time and effort and skill. I’d love a conversation about all of this – I think it’s super important to increasing the number of women equity partners.

            6. Oh Cat how I wish this type of thing moved the needle on losing business. Of all the reasons I have lost business over the years, not being available for a 45 minute chunk of the day wouldn’t even clear the top 20.

               I am regularly unavailable for 45 minutes at a time for work reasons! Other matters, internal and external meetings, interviews, etc.

            7. 10:16, that what I was getting at, too. I’m fairly senior and have flexibility, to a point. I also have older kids. But it’s not always predictable when stuff might pop up, and I would be very stressed knowing that I was “on” for driving and potentially on for work stuff. However, I will fully admit that the blended work-life thing is not for me; I learned that while wfh during the pandemic.

            8. Anon@10:41 – AMEN. I would actually say that the one of the most major reasons people don’t make it to partner/equity partner or don’t succeed once they’ve made it is failure to understand law firm economics and the difference between what success looks like as a partner vs an associate. At least at my firm, billing 3000 hours a year on someone else’s matters might buy you a couple of years, but in most cases that’s work a senior associate or counsel could do. Many equity partners I knew had their list of 1-3 nonequity partners whose jobs they had to fight for (or whose comp they had to fight for) every year because If you were not originating your own matters or your own clients, the firm ultimately wanted that work shifted to a lower-cost resource. If you didn’t have a book, you were always going to be in a more insecure position.

               On the flip side, if you did have a book, it didn’t have to be huge if it was big enough that you were profitable (taking into account your seat cost and the seat cost of any associates that primarily supported your practice). I knew people who were basically solo practitioners who stayed for years, because they were individually profitable and every couple of years they originated a big matter for our litigation team or our investigations team.

         3. Does the client know or care that the partner worked at their computer 7-2 and 4-6 and 8-11 rather than 7-7? Pretty sure most clients just care that the work was done on time for a reasonable fee and billed correctly.

   2. This is so odd to me. I know so many senior execs who carve out family time. Nobody is going to begrudge an equity partner a handful of hours per week, particularly because they are way what you kill.

      I suspect all the responses saying this woman needs a sitter for her *teenage kids* are younger/less experienced.

      -CEO who does carpool when I’m in town.

      1. +1

      2. Picking up the kids 5 days a week is likely a disruption of more than a handful of hours a week, though. The principal message I gleaned from the comments is that the challenge of daily pick ups is much greater than two days per week.

         1. It really depends on the # and ages of kids and your commute. Our elementary school is half a mile from our house. I work from home, so I can pick up kids and get them settled in at home in about 30 minutes. It’s a pretty minor disruption to my day (I’m not a lawyer and am paid much less than a Big Law equity partner, but just as a data point that this doesn’t have to be a hugely time-consuming endeavor, especially with older children who can entertain themselves in the afternoons.)

         2. They aren’t 5. If you are running late, text them! Ask a friend to pick them up. Have them get a ride. Sheesh, my 10 year old does all this when she doesn’t feel like biking home or wants a ride to Starbucks and I won’t take her.

   3. this is basically the premise of lean in. The higher you are in an org, the more money you likely make and the more control over your schedule you have. So therefore, it’s actually better for mother’s to lean into their careers.

      the book has problems, but i’ve found this concept to be very true.

      1. I agree with this, but as someone in the c-suite, while I very much have a lot more control over my life, my compensation also means that I am expected to throw money at things to prioritize work. It’s fine with me and a very fair trade, but it’s not right to think of it as some magic hill you climb where there’s no trade-offs at the top.

      2. I think this is also true, I’ve intentionally stayed in jobs where I was a bit stagnant in terms of pay because of how flexible they were but I was still moving up/getting promoted. The progression to senior titles and the longevity made me look much more impressive when I did decide to move on fwiw.

   4. I totally get that equity partners have the most flexibility. I think it’s partially a sense that that isn’t fair combined with frustration at all the recent work-life excuses that some of us run into. I was on a call where a partner said that they wouldn’t be able to get a draft turned around for two weeks because the firm closed its offices for Juneteenth and July 3rd in addition to July 4th. And that’s just not acceptable when in house counsel from two companies on the call don’t get those random extra holidays and it’s an external non-extendable deadline we are facing. Work-life balance is a good thing, but you shouldn’t be overtly displaying more work-life balance than your client has.

      1. “you shouldn’t be overtly displaying more work-life balance than your client has”

         I don’t know, these all sound like made up rules to me. If you don’t like it, find someone else, but I bet they aren’t going to change their policies because of it.

         1. I’m in a sales/project management role in a totally different field, and I agree with anon at 10:10. I have to manage a ton of deadlines and jobs all the time, and you don’t tell customers that holidays or vacations is the reason that you’re not getting to their project as soon as they want. Internally you absolutely build around those things, but you don’t tell the clients that.

            I suppose it’s a made up rule, but it’s also just smart client relationship building to not be “I can’t do that by then because of holidays”…. It’s fine to have the work-life balance, but it’s really stupid customer maintenance to overtly display it via literally stating it. Look at your calendar and say that due to current workload and projects, the soonest we can get it to you is by xxx.

   5. What got to me was the language that commenter used about “getting away with it” as of OP were doing something immoral or against the rules.

      1. Yeah that annoyed me too. It seemed very condescending.

         1. My take on it was that it was a lower level worker bee with less flexibility hating on OOP. I’ve been there, probably wouldn’t put it on a message board, but yeah when you’re grinding away with no work life balance because you’re trying to “make it,” watching a senior manager take off to do personal stuff can be grinding. (It was always men, and it was always golf in my history.)

            I’m not in law, I’m in finance. I once had a c suite boss who had nothing on his desk, ever, and couldn’t believe the peons who worked for him couldn’t have a clean desk (this was back when we were still working with green and white printouts and calculating a lot of things manually). You can be out of touch and people can resent you, it happens all the time.

            But that wasn’t my take with OOP. If she’s an equity partner, she is engaged in running that firm 24/7/365 and is never that far away from work. She can pick up her kids and still be running the firm. It’s not like she’s taking off and is unreachable.

            I wouldn’t let one envious/grumpy anon poster affect any decision making.

      2. Eh. I took “getting away with” to mean tempting fate because at some point an emergency thing would pop up and cause OP to be stressed trying to make arrangements on the fly.

   6. For the non-legal people amongst us, how much $ are we actually talking about when we talk about big-law equity partner income? What’s the difference between “rainmaker” and “staying in the black”?

      1. Varies hugely based on firm. At my former Big Law (AmLaw 100) firm, non-equity partner wasn’t much of a step up comp wise from senior associate. Maybe $300k. Equity partners were more, but well under a million in most cases. But there are firms where people earn $5M a year.

         1. I’m nonequity and make around 260-270 base, plus usually a bonus that is between 10-30k (formula tied to profitability, so it would be higher if I worked more hours or brought in more business but I don’t). Similar to above, our equity partners are more than that but typically well under a million. I don’t know if we’re AmLaw100 , but in the AmLaw200

      2. So at my former biglaw firm, we had a two-tier partnership. Nonequity partners didn’t own a share in firm profits, so they were paid on a standard salary + bonus basis. The baseline salary for a nonequity partner was about $300k in most of our offices when I made nonequity; bonus would be about $50-80k on top of that depending on how your year went. That was only about $10k more than a senior associate. For equity partners, the fixed salary started at $500k, and bonus was driven by how much equity you owned and firm profitability. I left as a first-year equity partner and my bonus was about $80k that year because I only had a tiny bit of equity.

         The balance between base salary and bonus shifts dramatically as partners get more senior and own more equity. My husband is a very senior equity partner with a lot of equity; his base comp is $900-1.1 million depending on the year, but based on the amount of equity he owns and firm profitability, his bonus ranges from $3 million – $4 million.

         This is at a firm that’s not the tip-top of biglaw – about the 40th-50th largest firm in the country.

         1. This is super informative, thank you. Can you explain how partners gain more equity over time? How did your firm make the decision to bring someone from non equity to equity? And if you don’t mind the question, why did you leave as an equity partner?

            1. So partners at my firm gained more equity over time based on the revenue they brought into the firm. Because the bonus is based on firm profitability, not the profitability of your individual practice, the way you got compensated for having a strong book of business was by increases in your equity. So say that you had a super strong year in 2023 – your 2023 bonus wouldn’t be impacted by that. The bonus would just be firm profit * your percent equity, and that percent equity was based on your 2022 performance. But based on that strong year, they might increase your percent of equity so in 2024 you’d be getting a bigger piece of the pie. You might also get a base salary increase.

               They get the equity they use to do increases from partners who retire or are have their equity reduced, although the latter is pretty uncommon.

               At my firm, getting from nonequity to equity was much harder than getting from senior associate to nonequity. Making nonequity partner was a squishy decision about your potential to generate business; making equity partner required having your own billings. The rule of thumb at the time was that you could make equity with $600k in billings provided that didn’t look like a one-off fluke. Some people also made it over the line if they’d been nonequity partners for a LONG time and had done a lot of firm service (like running the summer program).

               I left because I got an incredibly good in-house offer (I run a very large legal team at a well-known F50 company, and report directly to the GC) and I was bored of law firm life; I was also engaged to another partner and hoping to have a child very quickly (because I was 39 at the time) and felt like having one of us with a more predictable job would be important. I took a paycut from my salary as a first year equity partner, but after a reorg/promotion I now make close to the same (especially bc I get retirement contriutions from my employer and don’t have to pay my own health insurance premiums anymore – partners do not get premium subsidies, so insurance for our family was staggeringly expensive every month until we moved onto my plan). Obviously, if I had stayed at the firm presumably my salary would have grown, but I make more than enough now and was ready for a change.

            2. Thank you!

         2. Thank you!

         3. This is how it works in my firm as well. Our equity is assigned as a percent number – so like your equity could be 3% of the firm, or the highest-paid partners are maybe 8%. I don’t want to work 2500 hours/year so my equity is on the lower end.

      3. Equity partner here. Around $1M but I don’t see all of that – some of it goes into mandatory retirement and other firm funds before I even see it. My pre-tax take-home is probably around $800k. When I have to do the capital buy-in next year I will probably only see half of that.

   7. I’m the OP and I probably should have said that I am in a smaller firm – not biglaw by a long shot. I make about as much as a biglaw senior associate (not including bonus). I am also in a practice area that doesn’t have emergencies, so all of this plays into my thinking. I think I am most similar to the poster who responded saying she likes having the kids in the car because they talk at you about the activity they just came from (or school) for the 10 minutes it takes to get them home.

   8. Hopping in late to say thank you – I am a junior partner and it is hard to get this many detailed perspectives on life and compensation, so read everything with interest.

2. **Career question (Healthcare, not law)**
   I am 28 and have been in my role for 5 years now. I was approached by my manager stating there will be some restructuring of the organization and they want to know if I want to be a supervisor for 10 individuals. I have managed projects before, but not people. What are pros/cons of supervising people? I work from home currently with no kids/pets.. TBH I am bored many days so this would give me something to do. Will be able to continue WFH primarily but will be going into the clinics more often if I take this role. I have also worked with these individuals and they seem like solid employees. I would be responsible for hiring and firing, too.

   1. (preface, in policy not healthcare) – Do it! Even if you hate it you will have “management experience” something that is vital to qualify for certain roles in the future.

      1. Absolutely do it! If you hate it, do it for a year and get out. Having a managerial role of your resume is vital.

         1. Completely agree. I had a managerial role when I was OP’s age for about three years and I hated it, LOL, but having that title on my resume has helped me get higher-level, better-paying jobs years after the fact.

            I figured out in that job that being a manager without my hands in the work ever is a recipe for me to be miserable, but I did learn enough about people management that I feel comfortable managing large projects, or small teams. I’m managing a small team now, and while I don’t love it, it’s afforded me some worthwhile opportunities, and is setting me up for future growth. Now is exactly the time in OP’s career when she should take an opportunity like this.

      2. +1
         Even if you don’t enjoy it (which you may or may not), having experience as a manager opens up a lot of possibilities. You can always decide it isn’t right for you and find a role as an SME down the road.

         Pros:
         – I enjoy teaching people, working with them, helping them grow. I find it quite fulfilling.
         – Usually better comp.
         – Helps you move up the leadership chain, if that’s something you want.
         Cons:
         – Not everyone is a great employee so you have to be the “bad guy” sometimes and give constructive criticism on an escalating basis.
         – You have to learn how to manage, or at least hide, your own stress. Groups pick up on the leader’s mood so if you’re upset or overly stressed, they usually get more stressed and it makes the situation worse.

   2. I say go for it! Sounds like you need a new challenge. I bet managing projects is a good natural precursor.

   3. Pro – when you can help someone achieve a career goal or develop, when they do something well and you receive compliments on them, getting to know the ‘bigger picture’ from managing people who are all managing projects, and from a purely selfish perspective it’s a requirement if you want to advance in your org (or another one) beyond what tiers the individual contributor roles allow.

      Con – people are unpredictable and you have to be ready to have tough conversations about performance where warranted, you’re more likely to hear about problems since items will now be escalated to you when tricky, requires more organization or lists to keep track of who’s doing what, which ball is in which court, etc.

   4. Pros:
      – I enjoy seeing people grow in their careers.
      – I’m in a position to Get Things Done.
      – I get to see the big picture of my org in a way that I wouldn’t as an individual contributor.

      Cons:
      – It can be a lot of pressure. Knowing that I have an influence on others’ careers honestly weighs on me at times.
      – Hiring, onboarding, and offboarding is … not fun.
      – Often, the tradeoff is that you’ll do less of the substantive work that you enjoy, and more time managing projects, people, and dealing with upper leadership.
      – The expectations on you will be higher, and there is more pressure from every angle. Some days, you’ll feel like you’re making nobody happy!

      I’ve been a manager for 5 years. Not going to lie, it was a hard transition even though I thought I knew what I was getting into. I don’t know that I want to do this forever, but it’s fine for now.

   5. Pro: hiring is a lot of fun! I notice you lumped it in with firing, but it’s really a different experience entirely. Everyone is (usually) excited and full of enthusiasm.

      I also vote doing it, if only because you will never know if you like it otherwise. And I can’t imagine you will find it boring.

   6. I say go for it – you’re going to learn so much, and like others said if you hate it you don’t have to do it forever. Be prepared for the managing part to take up more of your time than you expect, at least at the start.

   7. You will never advance far in your career unless you take on managing people. This isn’t a pro-con of this job, it’s a consideration of your ultimate goals.

      1. This is the unfortunate reality in every job I’ve been in. I would rather do ANY individual contributor job rather than babysit grown folks I inherited while HR puts up roadblock after roadblock, but it’s what one has to do in order to make a living.

         1. My experience has been different. I have advanced in my career without managing people. I’m a senior level SME/individual contributer and make a very nice living. It is what you are choosing to do to make a living. Also, your industry standards may dictate some of that. You do not have to be people manager if you do not want to be one. Do it if you want to lean on those skills that come along with that type of role.

            1. Agree. I’m in a senior technical role and have never managed a single person. I’m sure it depends on what you want to advance to, but in many fields there are IC paths for career progression.

      2. I’m a senior SME/Individual Contributor in government and I’m not anyone’s boss. I manage the teams who work with me — junior/midlevel lawyers and paralegals and analysts — but only to the extent they are working on my matters/projects. I strongly prefer this and don’t want to be a boss-boss. Sometimes I get burned out at my job but then I look around and realize most other jobs would require me to spend more time managing people than doing anything else, and I don’t want that.

   8. How do you deal with conflict? I have a really hard time with giving criticism in a nice way. I was a terrible mid-level manager because I was either too nice or too mean.

   9. May I ask what kind of healthcare world you work in, from home?

      I am in healthcare (a provider) and want to pivot to something different with less stress/better hours. But I have so much experience I don’t want to throw that away and want to still advocate for patients.

      But I worry you will say you work for the health insurance companies (!)……

      1. I work in the quality department for a healthcare company. A lot of WFH jobs are with insurance companies, yes. Perhaps you can look into being a subject matter expert for lawyers?

      2. I am also in healthcare and previously was a provider. There are tons of jobs for clinicians out side the typical healthcare setting. Just about any company that provides things to healthcare (Pharma, diagnostics, EMR, devices, etc. ) employ clinicians. They are in sales, user education, medical affairs, product management, marketing, etc. Many are home based. Many have flexibility on hours worked. But for the most part there is still stress. There are deadlines, quotas, unhappy customers. It is a different stress than trying to keep a patient alive while you have 100 people yelling at you. Most jobs ( with any level of responsibility) are not always going to be 9-5. These jobs often work across multiple time zones. Advocating for patients is the hard part. It can be there, but very indirectly.

   10. How dysfunctional is your organization? I ask because I’m in healthcare (direct patient care) and our office manager is the one who gets the brunt of the dysfunction and stress. Patient complaints, staffing issues etc all now fall under her purview but without any power/support to make changes.

   11. In my experience managing people is time and energy intensive. It can be frustrating, sad, and it can also be rewarding. If you enjoy looking at things from a systems perspective and seeing how individual contributions fit within that, and if you are supportive and flexible and patient and care more about getting the best out of what you have than about achieving some ideal best, it can be more satisfying than it is frustrating. Being realistic about your org will help you gauge how well this is likely to go and how much support (& leeway) you yourself would receive. Managing people in a dysfunctional organization brings its own troubles – troubles you very likely want to avoid. Finally, 10 people is a difficult number because you will want to offer the same level of care and attention you would to 1 or 3 (and the team is likely to expect that) but there actually isn’t that much capacity to go around. At 20 or 40 or more it’s much more about broad strokes, formalized engagement and in a way that is easier (but offers fewer personal engagement rewards). It will take up a lot of your time regardless

   12. Things I love about being a manager in healthcare (admin side, not care delivery): mentoring and coaching, personal relationships, strategy advising (I set the strategy with our high level clients and my team executes), high level problem solving, helping remove barriers for work. Things I do not like – budgeting, constant report outs (this may vary by organization I guess but at ours I am constantly informing higher ups of relatively minor things bc that’s the culture), compensation stuff in our enormous bureaucracy filled organization.

   13. Do it! I think everyone captured my thoughts well above, but two additions:

       Pro:
       – You get to have a birds-eye-view and be a stakeholder with a lot of projects without having to actually do all the work (I recognize the degree of this might differ with role, but that’s what I’ve found with my manager jobs)

       Con:
       – Sometimes people will not like you because you have to manage their performance / give them challenging feedback / for no reason in particular. You have to be ok with this.

   14. With 10 reports, I’d expect you will do much less if any individual contributor work and instead will spend most of your time managing. That means that meetings with and about your 10 team members will take up the bulk of your time. It’s not clear, so just to confirm: your current roles and responsibilities would be moved to someone else, and you would step into a new role as a manager, correct? You wouldn’t be expected to take on this management role in addition to your current duties?

3. And you also make an enormous boatload of money so yes I expect you to be working hard even if it’s not super ideal for you.

   1. ?

   2. Who are you, exactly, to have this expectation of anyone?

      1. Somebody who’s really mad/resentful that other people have more flexible working arrangements than she does, apparently…

         1. Like if I do hair and can carve out a life with 20 clients that keep me busy one day a week, someone is angry for not having 100 clients and working 5 days a week and then doing prom and wedding hair nights and weekends because “you are expected to meet all possible demand everywhere.” Unreal.

            1. Right. I got a lot happier when I figured out that for some people, no matter what you do, it’s never enough. You can be killing it in your role and doing objectively fantastic, and someone will always want to point out that you could have done one additional project or done this or done that and squeezed more work out of the spare 30 minutes in your week you didn’t schedule something into.

               I lived like that for a long time – my life revolved around what I thought I should be doing based on other people’s expectations, vs. doing what I wanted to do with my life and my time. I went to therapy, figured out that was all an old program/script running in my brain, left over from childhood, had an epiphany, had a couple more, and have now arranged my life so that it pleases me. And if other people think I’m not doing enough or could be doing more or that I’m not “living up to my potential” – well, as my teenager says – “that’s tough, brah.”

               People will push you to work yourself to death, if you let them. It stops when you stop it, and not before. Stopping it involves understanding your own boundaries and expectations for your life, and deeply understanding the phrase “my needs also matter” and making decisions around that understanding. I’m not here to live up to anyone’s expectations except my own, and maybe my kid’s (although if his expectations involve eating ice cream for dinner, obviously that’s not happening).

         2. There are some people here who I think are coming to the realization that they spent a lot of time and made a lot of sacrifices chasing things – either literal things, like cars, houses, jewelry, etc., or nontangible things like accolades, promotions, etc. – and whoops! they were the wrong things. Because these people have worked and worked and worked and worked and they’re still not happy (and maybe they’re family isn’t all that happy, either). And they’re taking out their anger and resentment on people here who don’t want to chase the wrong things, and are trying to build a better, more balanced life for themselves. My $.02, as a non-lawyer watching these discussions here. P.S., my son has talked about going to law school and I am actively trying to discourage him as I don’t want him to spend his adult life surrounded with the kind of unhappy people I see here on a daily basis.

   3. I don’t know that your expectations matter. If she can make it work, it works. What you think she should be doing to earn her “boatloads” of money is irrelevant.

      1. I suspect the OP might decide that if someone can make do in a fifth of a boatload, that isn’t an allowable choice because it should be all or nothing. Where does that attitude really get us?

      2. Money and “hard work” aren’t a direct relationship. That’s a really naive view. The hardest—and longest—hours I ever worked were as a mid manager at a company with a grueling culture.

   4. Medical practices in my city routinely aren’t taking new patients when they feel that that are at their capacity limits. I don’t see why non-medical people should operate differently. A capacity limit is a capacity limit. Sometimes the only way to grow a business is by adding people not by pushing people to redline it every day.

      1. Yeah and as a result it’s so hard to get appointments or a new doctor. Not that this is an individual doctor or practice’s issue to fix, but practiced setting these limits aren’t helping the general public.

         1. What would you rather these practices do? Take on more patients and provide awful care as a result? The system is broken, for sure, but I want my providers to have limits!

            1. So, I fully agree the system is broken, needs major overhaul and that’s not a doctors responsibility.

               However, I also believe we all have a duty to do our part and help each other out. And, doctors have pledged to do no harm. So, yes if your services are desperately needed (and potentially life and death) I do think doctors need to meet the demand, even if it means working extra hours. I think this should happen regardless of salary but especially since doctors are making mid 6 figures.

               I’m colored by coming from a blue collar helping profession background. Not being fully staffed is option, so they cancel days off, extend shifts and force OT to get the job done. I don’t think accountants need to do this to fill the gaps, but if EMTs and nurses have to then maybe the highly paid doctors should too.

            2. Srsly

            3. Ok, we all need to help each other out so an equity partner at a law firm needs to hire a driver for her kids, otherwise she’s clearly not deserving of the money she makes?

            4. Doctors aren’t making mid-6 figure salaries. Remember – this board uses that term to mean $500k+.

               Only the high priced surgeons and dermatologist churning out patients make that money, and I agree that is too much. But often they are doing pretty incredible things, don’t you agree? (Or should we value someone who designs a new parking App more….?). And every doctor invests up to a decade in med school/training, and often leaves with hundreds of thousands of dollars in college/medical school debt. The surgeons are also fortunate, as only have to spend a few minutes with each patient, write minimal notes, do little drug appeals or prior authorizations and have lots of nurses/NP to help with follow-up, which is usually limited. But the variation within medicine specialties and its demands is vast, and those high priced surgeons are not the doctors that are impossible to get in to see, as they fix you… and then you don’t have to come back and see them. So new appointments always open up.

               The average medical doctors that patients are fighting to get into don’t make that kind of money. They are the doctors who follow you for years, for chronic problems, and try to manage your day to day well-being. They make much less money, because they don’t do “procedures”, and in fact, they are often underpaid for their value/experience. And to demand that they be overworked with life and death issues every day and much more documentation/insurance fighting then they can manage is unreasonable. It is physically impossible, and only makes the care they give worse when they make clinic visits shorter and shorter. And more of them quit.

               I have a new diagnosis where I need to see the high risk cancer/GYN clinics. I can’t get in to appointments until the winter/spring of 2024. So I see both sides. It is insane, and until our healthcare system gets rid of insurance companies and starts investing in clinicians and accessible care, it is only destined to get worse. And my health insurance premiums are rising exponentially with crazy high drug/out of pocket costs.

               And with the explosion of pricey (and not very effective) antibody based drug therapies, the cost of healthcare will skyrocket in the next 5 years. Pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies will make a fortune, Medicare will cut its reimbursement prices because it will be loosing so much money (and they already pay less than cost for most services) and our system will decline further.

      2. We need Congress to find more residency spots to have more physicians in the US. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/match-day-2023-a-reminder-of-the-real-cause-of-the-physician-shortage-not-enough-residency-positions

         1. Unfortunately, they cost money to train and pay for. And they need to be reimbursed better, particularly if they are general medical doctors and if they are willing to travel to underserved areas to practice. And future doctors are no longer going to be willing to pay for college and then pay another fortune for medical school. And where will that money come? It has to be taken from somewhere.

            Take the money from the insurance companies. We must get rid of insurance companies.

            Take the money from exorbitant overcharges for medications by pharmaceutical companies. Our government and Universities drive so much of the drug development in the US – and in the entire world. We need to reap more of the rewards for our people.

            We must insist our Congress pass new legislation to allow the government to negotiate with drug companies for fair prices for Medicare patients. We can’t afford to pay for the world’s research and development for drugs and pay more than anyone in the world for the drugs that we develop.

            Make all government employees/Medicare/VA care be under one healthcare system… and then make it available to all Americans. The only way to really ensure government will change healthcare for the better is to make everyone in government deal with the same system that the rest of us do.

   5. I hate to break it to you, but there are people who make a ton of money and don’t have to kill themselves. I had a friend who bragged about her salary and lifestyle and only having to work 35 hours a week and “working” from the ski slopes. Her bragging and rude comments are what killed the friendship, not her lifestyle itself.

      1. OP here. I work about 30 hours a week and make about 120k a year, which suits me and my family just fine. What is obnoxious are people who choose to enter roles that they know require much more work in exchange for much more money, and then complain that sometimes they have to do work when it’s not ideal for them.

         1. Wow if I could get that salary and schedule that’d be amazing!

         2. Yeah. I work in government. I work really, really hard for 65k a year. It’s not great but I love what I do and I help people who need it.

            But when my friends in finance or consulting complain about their long hours (which many weeks aren’t longer than mine, I frequently work 60-90 hour weeks) I have absolutely no sympathy. They easily make 170-200k a year and they knew that that was in exchange for long hours. And they can afford to outsource a ton with their salaries. Don’t complain to your friend who makes 1/3 of what you do working pretty equivalent hours about how busy you are…

            1. Sounds like you need a new job. You shouldn’t be killing yourself for 65k unless you want to. And if you genuinely enjoy your job you shouldn’t be fixated on others salary:hours ratio.

            2. You can enjoy your job and still be frustrated by the hours:salary ratio.

               Akso usually these jobs are important ones! My brother is a firefighter. He works a lot (and obviously works an abnormal schedule). He puts his life on the line regularly. He makes 70k. He loves what he does but it’s still hard financially at times. But, we need firefighters

         3. I agree. The biglaw associates making $300K knew or should have known what that job entails. My former friend probably made around $300K and bragged about only working 35 hours while I make much less and work a minimum of 45. I don’t begrudge anyone for their job or lifestyle at all but just know your audience. It gets old after awhile!

            1. No one in Big Law works 35 hours a week. Your friend was lying.

         4. I don’t think you understand that being a biglaw associate and biglaw equity partner are two different jobs with different expectations. I actually think if more people understood this we’d see more diversity at the equity partner ranks. As an associate yeah you could not do this because you are the front lines and need to be at your desk/available to turn documents. As a partner it’s all about your clients and collections and making sure the work gets done (usually by associates with your input not by you turning documents).

            1. +1. A better understanding of how the jobs of associate and equity partner differ would also, I think, result in a lot less disappointment from people who worked so hard and were so darn good at being associates and just can’t understand why they weren’t elevated to partner. Sometimes people happen to be good at both (typically the ones who make partner without leaving the firm for awhile), but being good at one doesn’t mean you’re good at the other.

      2. Laura Vanderkam is not well liked on the mom’s page, but she’s right about one thing: women (people?) often mistake higher-paying, higher-prestige jobs as having a corresponding decrease in flexibility, when the oppos i te is often true (think: barista versus equity partner: who has more control over her schedule?). I’m not in a particularly high-paid or high-prestige job, but I have amazing flexibility in my in-house job that, say, a teacher or even junior associate, does not.

         1. +1000 I think a lot of people resent that people make boatloads of money, which is a reasonable thing to be resentful of. But it doesn’t change the fact that flexibility also comes with these roles.

            I’ll also point out there is some deep sexism in these types of comments. No one seems to care if the men are doing these things and in fact applaud it (what a great dad coaching his kids team during business hours once a week)

         2. I think this is definitely true on average but there are exceptions. I have a low paid, low prestige job (for the corporate world, I’m not a retail worker or something like that) and I have a TON of flexibility.

   6. I think people think that the tradeoff for making a lot of money is minimal flexibility. As a lower earner for this board (75k) it makes me feel better if I think okay I make less but I don’t have to do xyz. I know it took many years if no flexibility for the poster to get ti where she is now, but it can still sting to hear that someone has it better than you so many ways over.

      Singed, a government worker making 75k (which is tight), in the office 4 days a week 9-5, expected to be responsive after hours, and required to wear a blazer every day.

      Obviously I chose the path I chose, but I understand where someone might be resentful realizing someone who makes 15x what they make has more flexibility

      1. +1 to this.

      2. For what it is worth, I know BigLaw partners in my smaller city, all female, who have draws on par with NYC third year associates (but they have to pay taxes out of that). They have leaned out and delegated down where it makes sense but seem content with their families and driving Hondas. It took decades of hard work to get to this state where they are still on-call all day but maybe just billing 1000 hours a year but at high rates and it is all collected) while having enough originations to make up the difference.

         1. This is one way that the lack of associates has a disproportionate impact on women partners. If there’s no one to do the work then you have to do it. Which means you no longer have the flexibility you worked so hard for. And at some point you have to turn down new work because there’s only so many hours in the day. Meanwhile the white haired men hoard associates to do their work.

            1. This is totally the truth. COVID was when I lost a great secretary and my associate moved to be closer to family after maternity leave. They weren’t easily replaced once we went remote. Worst year of practice ever (which was after 2 in diapers but that year included two kids on zoom school and a spouse with an in-person job with no flex but his days off are OFF and not on call like mine are).

      3. It was said well above: flexibility does not equal free time. It is often just doing it later in the day.

         1. Yeah but many people don’t have flexibility. And can’t afford a nanny. Despite having a “good” job.

            1. So hate on those who do?

            2. I mean often those that do are the ones making a boatload of money and making those below them on the totem pole have inflexible working conditions, so yes.

               I have to work in the office 4 days a week. I have to always come in on Fridays because we need “coverage” and my boss’ boss works from his lake house on Fridays so I have to cover. He got a 10% raise last year and I got a 4% raise despite getting the full rating on my performance review; analysts were only eligible for 4% raises but management all got 10% + stock options.

         2. +1 to this. DH is an equity partner with a fairly flexible schedule in that he does all our daycare pickups and drop offs and only misses dinner and bedtime a few days a year. With notice, he can join the elementary schooler’s class picnic and mid-day promotion ceremonies. He also takes calls at 4 am and works a couple hours a day on all vacations (luckily, while we’re all asleep, but I would hate doing this).
            By contrast, I make a fraction of what he does, work a flat 40 hours a week between 9 and 5, and have to make up any time I spend away from my desk mid-day, unless I’m charging PTO. I could never function well at 8 pm, let alone 2 am, and would be burned out to a crisp putting in his hours.

      4. Resentment is a weird reaction to this. I make a fraction of what most people here do, and my thoughts on yesterday’s equity partner are “you go, girl.”

         1. It disappoints me that on this board, which should be a supportive space for high-achieving women, there’s still this “crabs in a barrel” thing going on – no one can climb without drawing the ire of those who haven’t achieved the same level of success (or whatever their deal is).

            It also bothers me that there are women here who are desperately clinging to artifacts of the patriarchy – like inflexible work schedules, no allowance of time for family care, etc. because they can use those artifacts as tools to keep other women down. Be better than this, folks. We should be encouraging women who are in high-level positions to do what works for them. Not shaming them for trying to achieve balance.

         2. Exactly! Go Other OP! The OP of this thread can take a flying leap as far as I’m concerned.

   7. As a partner, I sometimes feel the pressure to be seen as working around the clock to be a role model for the associates. It breeds resentment if a partner expects associates to be working hard and then is not seen as doing the same. (My firm is a boutique and does not have a billable hours target.)

      Otherwise I agree that the flexibility one gets as a partner is great. I don’t understand why some posters wanted to second-guess that.

      1. Equity BigLaw partner here. The flexibility IS great – I definitely manage to make dinner and pick up the vast majority of the time. But that flexibility does come at a huge stress cost. Sure, I can schedule calls and turn around drafts on “my” schedule, but I also have to jump high when an emergency arises and my stress is always through the roof. It’s great and way more fun to be first chair….and no amount of yoga and healthy eating and meditation can turn off my brain.

      2. As a counter to this, seeing that partnership had perks beyond money (such as flexibility and the ability to delegate) is one of the main reasons I stuck it out. I think if we want to see more women stick around for partner, women associates need to see partners whose lives that they envy or if not envy think are manageable.

   8. If you’re putting in time and getting paid a reasonable amount for the work you put in, that’s fair. Sometimes work is high value. I think law partners can fall into this category.
      Alternatively, if you are making a lot because you’ve offloaded the hard work to someone else who is not well paid, that’s exploitative. For example a CEO of a highly profitable business that refuses to pay a living wage but expects long hours and perfect quality.

   9. Lol nobody cares about your expectations.

   10. As an equity partner, I do not care at all about your expectations of me. I understand firm economics and how I make money for my firm and how it impacts my compensation. I serve my clients. I owe no one any more than that.

       1. Right RR, but then no one wants to hear you complaining. You’re compensated very highly for a position you chose and if you have problems with it, the solution is to find a new job.

          1. These repeated “deal with it” comments make it completely clear you are mad jealous of people like the OP, and I’m sorry to break it to you but – that is all your stuff that you need to deal with. Stop dumping your psychological “stuff” on everyone else. If you feel you’re underpaid and you’re walking around resentful of everyone who makes more money and has more flexibility? Sounds to me like YOU need to get a new job. And probably a therapist.

          2. The OP of the post that prompted all of this was not complaining, though! She was literally just asking for advice about driving logistics and dared to mention that she had flexibility to handle kids pickups herself.

             1. +1 I’m not sure how this got to “wealthy equity partners complaining.” She was not complaining! She was attacked for saying she currently does kid pickups in the afternoons.

                Fwiw, I earn $55k/year with a husband who earns only slightly more, so am clearly on a different planet than Big Law attorneys with seven figure compensation. But this whole thing has gotten really twisted, and it’s not fair to imply OP was complaining.

             2. Agreed.

   11. Good thing it’s not you making the rules. It’s none of your business.

4. I’m looking for some work pants to resolve a specific issue, to work for a shape wherein the tummy area is larger than the buttocks area that is comfortable, won’t emphasize the mom pooch, and isn’t out of this world expensive. Ever since giving birth my shape has changed drastically, even though I’m within 5-8 lbs of pre-birth weight, so nothing fits.

   Any recs? I’ve been wearing the same loose dresses and yoga pants for months atp.

   1. How casual/formal is your office?
      My weight is fluctuating a lot (I’m the early perimenopause poster from a while back), especially around my belly, so I’m only buying pants with partial elastic waists. Banana Republic Factory, Old Navy, Loft and Target have options along the formal-casual spectrum.

      1. Business casual leaning casual (sundresses with strappy sandals and sweaters is not unusual). Khakis and polos for dudes sort of situation

         1. Okay – check out the Hayden pants at BRFactory. I am generally a 12-14, and a 12 fits fine. I should add that I’m pretty straight up and down, have a belly, but I do have a little bit of a butt (only visible from the side tho).

   2. Nic + Zoe wonderstretch pants

   3. Quince. Wonderful pants.

   4. NYDJ ponte knit trousers.

5. Crosspost with the moms site.

   I’m pregnant with our first (and planned only) and we need to think through guardianship options. There are three options. Caveat that I love these people and think they have many other wonderful qualities, but what I’m going to write might sound harsh because I have to look at the reality that would affect my child.

   My cousin (let’s call her Susie): my best friend in the world, a mother herself so my child would have cousins right there, someone I trust to raise my child with respect for our values and for the child as a person. Cons: her parenting is loving but very heavy on anxiety; her husband is a complete manbaby who pulls 1/20th of his weight and the resulting frequent tension between them is not the positive, warm family environment I value; their day-to-day finances are not in amazing shape due to low-paid jobs (although they have a safety net from $500,000 inheritance and will likely get more when her father dies), and they live in a deep red, completely psycho state, albeit right on the border with a blue state. Not all red states are psycho, but this one is. It also has bad pollution and poor school systems and few cultural opportunities. If she were married to a different man and they lived in a blue state, she’d be close to a no-brainer, but alas.

   Option 2: Susie’s sister, Bonnie: also a close friend, a very smart person who works in STEM and is ok with money, someone I trust to do her very best to raise my child, resident of the blue state bordering Susie’s state. Her husband isn’t my absolute favorite person, but it’s more annoying personality quirks than true dealbreakers. Cons: she does not plan to have kids herself and I would hesitate to thrust one upon her, even though I know she would take him/her in; she’s so cheap on the money side and ends up turning down wonderful opportunities because of it; she’s pretty low-energy and I feel like my child would spend a lot of time on the couch with her, which bugs me because travel, fun, the outdoors, and activity are really important values to me. Between the cheapness in the energy issues, I honestly think my child would spend every single weekend indoors marathoning TV. Another important consideration is that Bonnie can be pretty insecure. She would get plenty of advice from Susie, but I’m not sure she really would want the responsibility of taking in another child, even though I’m positive that she would say yes if I asked.

   Option 3: my half-brother, Joe. Very smart, successful in a stable job, very aligned with my values in terms of the outdoors, adventures, and experiences, in a long-term relationship, lives in the same blue state I do, generally a good, solid person you can trust. We had a family emergency last year and I was so impressed with the way he reacted. Cons: I’m not sure he wants kids (last we talked, he was undecided and he’s still in his 20s) and we’re not as close as I am to Susie and Bonnie. I also think a few of his values aren’t the best fits for ours (namely related to substance use – he’s the type who thinks mushrooms are enlightening).

   again, I love all of these people. I just have to be critical for this decision. WWYD?

   1. Based on solely above, I’d pick Joe. In your example, me and my husband slot into Joe and just had this conversation with my sister who was genuinely surprised that I was like absolutely. If Joe does not want to take care of the children, I’d put him in charge of the trust.

   2. I would name Susie as guardian, and Joe as trustee of the trust for your kid. You can always revisit this decision in a few years if circumstances change.

   3. Today, I would pick Susie – someone who you know wants to have kids and has a partner who can help carry the weight (even if he isn’t very helpful at present). Parenthood is a LOT and I would rather my kid be raised by someone who lives in an imperfect environment by someone who likes being a parent than someone who never wanted to be a parent. If in a few years Joe is more clearly interested in being a parent then you could switch. Also, you may find your idea of what you will be like as a parent is different than the reality, and you opinions may change once you actually meet your child and meet yourself as a parent. My son absolutely loves my single brother, who dotes on him, but we felt my married brother would be a better guardian partly because he’s less likely to just do whatever our son wants, and partly because he’s married. Single parents are often incredible parents but it is a lot of work for one person, no matter how capable and wonderful.

   4. Joe – for this to happen such an unbelievably terrible tragedy will have happened altering the course of your whole family’s lives and in the very very slim chance that happens it’s also likely that Joe will be much older and probably not that into shrooms anymore.

      1. + 1. Joes seems to have the sensitivity and bandwidth to help a child going through a traumatic experience. Susie seems overwhelmed by her life, and wouldn’t have the time or ability to get your kid the therapy and attention they would need

         1. Joe, if he’s willing. I presume you will talk to him first before formalizing it.

            I’m in somewhat the same situation with my sister’s children and realize that if anything were to happen to their parents, my life would change drastically. I agreed to it, and I’m okay with that because I love them and would want to make their life as happy and secure as I could in the event of the potentially tragic loss of their parents.

   5. Susie as guardian, while Joe administers the trust.

      Also, you have to get used to the idea that nobody would raise your kids like you would. You’re looking for love, stability, and willingness to do a very hard job.

   6. I’d pick Joe. Neither my sister nor my brother in law have kids, but they are smart, capable people who would figure it out and do their best.

      While your friends sound like lovely people I think the drawbacks are significant for each.

      FWIW, my sister is listed as the first choice for guardian of my kids, my brother in law is second choice. Realistically, there is a chance one (or both) of my kids would stay with my brother in law to finish out school if something happened to us now, but everyone is pretty cordial and I’m sure they would find a good solution. While my parents and in-laws are elderly and a little bit nutty, I think having family members as guardians would be the best way for my kids to stay in contact with my extended family. And these possibilities are remote – I’ve known far too many people who have been widowed with kids, but I know one person who lost both parents as a minor.

      1. I would agree with picking Joe but the two women she listed are also family (cousins). So the kids would still be connected with their extended family.

         My husband and I don’t have siblings so we picked my cousin but our second choice is my bff rather than my only other cousin (like in OP’s scenario, my only two cousins are sisters). The bff lives nearby while the other cousin is across the country. I wouldn’t want my kids to have to move on top of losing their parents. My two cousins both have kids while the bff is childless and will remain that way. I don’t think any of these people will raise my kids exactly how I would have but that’s because every family dynamic is different, and you’d be adding trauma into the mix. I also don’t know how I would parent a teenager for example if I myself don’t get to be around to do it. My parenting style has evolved even in the 5 years I’ve been a mom.

         1. Sorry, misread. But I’d still pick Joe in this scenario.

            And it’s totally possible that in the event that something terrible happens, people could make a decision that isn’t what is specified in the will.

            My own kids are a tween and a teenager. I’m fairly sure my greedy in-laws would try and close in on the life insurance money if my kids were orphaned. But I’m equally sure that my sister would figure out the best way to stop that nonsense.

   7. I’d pick Joe, too.

      And if you need another reason not to pick Susie, my bias is against adding a new kid to a family that already has kids (which I know is counter to the conventional wisdom). When my kid was in preschool there was a family who took in an orphaned cousin, and it turned out to be a disaster. The mom/aunt was super resentful of the (super understandable) high needs of the new child, the existing kids picked up on it, and ultimately the whole thing blew up and the child had to go to different relatives. It was just tragic. So based on my sample size of one, I feel like a newly-orphaned only child would be better off continuing to be an only child.

      1. OP here and actually, that’s something else I wasn’t thinking of in my original post. Susie’s husband basically had to be cajoled into having a second kid of their own and made it clear that he does not want more kids. I know that Susie would absolutely welcome my child with open arms, but her husband would be resentful. That’s something that really gives me pause because I have seen how much damage resentment can do.

      2. Depends on the only child I think. I was one, and was introverted and more comfortable around adults and definitely would have done best in a family that was just me and adults. My kid is super extroverted, talks all the time about wanting a sibling, and I know a family with kids she already knows would be best for her if something tragic happened to DH and me.

      3. For what it’s worth I remember my parents updated their will, and talked to us about their choice for guardianship when I was about 12. They had picked an aunt/uncle with kids our age, definitely the stable/well-off/super-competent set of their own close-age siblings; and at that age (also as one of three, not an only) I definitely found the concept of living with another “family” much more comfortable than living with just an adult. A big chunk of my thought process at that age was based on how knowing & seeing how they were with my cousins (which was basically — yeah, they’re stricter than my parents/not as “fun” as my relaxed aunt with the large yelling Italian family, but I know they’re really fair with their kids — I could figure out how to be part of that family if I had too — although I’m sure my parents had thought it through more deeply!)

   8. I would pick Joe as well, but as a second I would pick Susie with Joe as a trustee, and set up a trust. Also, keep in mind that your choice may evolve over time, and it’s easy to amend.

   9. Based on what you shared, I would Joe hands down (with Susie’s husband being the main deterrent). It also sounds like Joe lives closer to you, which would also mean less uprooting for your child. For a kid who loses their parents, I wouldn’t discount being closer to their existing support circle of friends and family. Moving them to a new state, new school AND new family sounds pretty tough.

   10. Have you discussed this with any of these people? For example, I am quite happily childfree but would absolutely step up to care for an orphaned niece or nephew. Others may have their plate quite full with the child they already have.
       A child being orphaned is a quite rare event, and it is common to have a few people listed (Joe, if unwilling or unable to serve then Susie, then Bonnie, then your spouse’s cousin…) and to split the financial guardianship from the custody.

   11. I would pick Joe, because as a young single successful uncle raising adorable moppets, the odds are very high that he will need to hire a quirky young art school graduate named Nina who dreams of starting a bakery as their nanny. Despite initial tension, they will fall in love due to matchmaking by said moppets. Joe will mess something up with Nina and have to make a groveling public apology (maybe in front of the counter of her new bakery?), which will include a touching speech about how your children taught him to be a better man. They will get married and your kids will be in the wedding.

       Wait, we’re not talking about romance novel plots, are we? I’d still pick Joe given that it sounds like he’s stable and good in a crisis.

       1. Hahaha

       2. Be sure to sell the film rights to Hallmark.

   12. I pick Joe. Susie and Bonnie can stay in the child’s life but it doesn’t sound like they would be able to be appropriate caregivers in the context of their family circumstances. I agree with the other posters that Only > Only works here (although you don’t know Joe’s future). As a person without children myself, I really think you’re under-estimating the degree to which Bonnie won’t want this child, even if she would ‘step up’. Also, if your child is a girl, I definitely would not go with red state Susie. Not only might your child need healthcare they can’t access, they would also be subject to exposure to some toxic stuff based on their gender

   13. Your sentiment towards people without children is troubling

       1. I don’t see any negative sentiment towards people without children in OP’s post. Whether or not a childless person would want to take care of a child is a valid consideration when choosing a guardian.

          1. Absolutely.

       2. I viewed it as being sensitive to the life choices of her loved ones.

   14. What does your husband/partner think about this topic? I noticed that all three options are YOUR relatives; is there no one on your partner’s side who could potentially serve as guardian?

6. Does this exist? I want a desk riser/standing desk set up, but I’d like it to be fairly slim. It would need to hold my laptop and single monitor, and id like a space for a wireless keyboard and mouse. The ones i’ve seen/used before (veridesk primarily) have been MASSIVE and wont fit on my small desk. At a loss on what to google for this!

   1. I got mine at Amazon and it is very narrow (18 inches).

   2. I have a version of this and really life it. But may be too big:
      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075GM5KBW/?tag=cb-031583-20&th=1

   3. If you’re willing to start from scratch, I have the Tresanti Geller 47” Adjustable Height Desk from Costco. It’s small and slim.

7. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/climate/atlantic-ocean-tipping-point.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

   Please feel free to collapse the thread/ignore if too stressful. I’m 40 with a partner and two teenagers in the Northeastern U.S. The climate here has definitely shifted in terms of essentially no snow the last few winters and hotter summers and falls. I find myself increasingly in a fatalistic “YOLO” mode when it comes to vacation/leisure spending as some result of post-pandemic impact and the feeling of impending doom. Working on correcting that and getting back into a mode of contributing max amounts to retirement savings.

   I digress-how much are you alarmed by climate catastrophe/how much are your retirement plans impacted or not impacted by climate considerations? What I can’t quite parse out is life as we know it really going to end in the next twenty years or is that anxiety? Hard as a non-scientist to really grasp what the near-future holds. This article seems to suggest another Ice Age in Europe?!

   1. Yeah, this has led to a lot of “what ifs” for me, and I’m not sure what is real or what is an anxiety spiral. What I have decided is to live my life in the middle. I’m saving for retirement, but I’m also trying to not get hung up on eliminating every luxury from my life right now. This is a healthy place for me.

      One big thing that this article made me think about is where to live. I’ve been planning to move from my hot southern state to a place like Michigan or Minnesota. But then I see this saying that winters might get harsher (I’m not sure where other than Europe…). Then I get a little annoyed with myself for trying to plan so far in advance.

      1. As a Minnesotan, we are not immune here either. Our winters are getting milder but summers are getting much hotter, and the air quality from Canadian wildfires has been a big problem this summer (and was a big problem in 2021 if I recall). I am currently pregnant with my first (and only planned) child and starting to freak out about this as well, to the point where if things don’t go as planned, I don’t know if I want to try again. The air quality over the last few summers has really freaked me out.

         1. +1 from a different part of the Midwest. It’s becoming unbearably hot (most of July was 90+) and the air quality is awful. I’d still rather be here than on the coasts, but it’s not great here.

         2. That’s a good point about the air quality. The temperatures rising are less scary to me because I live in an area that’s predicted to get consistent temps of 120 degrees in the future.

            Every place is going to have pluses and minuses.

   2. I’m super alarmed and distressed, but also it doesn’t play much of a role in my day-to-day planning for life. I know that’s weird and incongruous, but I think it’s so overwhelming I can’t meaningfully think about it.

      1. +1

   3. Ever since the dawn of recorded history, human beings have thought they were living in the End Times, and ancient people spent a lot of time worrying about when and how the end was coming. It used to be religion telling people the end was near; now it’s science. The bottom line to me is A. no one knows what’s really going to happen with the climate. Some of the modeling seems to be dead-on accurate but other predictions have not, so far, come to pass. B. Humans are amazingly resilient and we have an uncanny ability to figure out what to do when the chips are down. During the Black Plague, Europe lost one out of three people (one out of two, in some places). Life carried on. The survivors figured out how to keep going. The same thing will happen with climate change: humans will adapt. It will not be fun for a lot of people, and I absolutely believe we will see mass migration out of coastal areas. But in the U.S., at least, there’s a lot of non-coastal landmass that could be populated, with some ingenuity (especially around water access and agriculture).

      And frankly, I think the time may be ripe for efficiency and ingenuity, and less profligate waste. While I don’t believe the world is coming to an end, I do believe we’re at peak Roman Empire point right now, especially in the United States. We consume too much and spend too many resources on stupid, disposable things. We’ve focused on money over people, and “stuff” over meaning. We have fiddled while the planet was burning, and now that’s likely going to come to a stop. Do I believe humanity is going to get wiped out by climate change? No. Do I believe we’re going to have to make some difficult choices about not having Amazon deliver cheap Chinese crap to our doorsteps daily, not having backyard swimming pools or lush golf courses in places like Phoenix, or not being able to throw out 30% of our food and 50% of our clothing annually? Absolutely yes. And I know for some people, not being able to live exactly as we’re living now is terrifying. Up to you whether to YOLO it and count on that if things really get hairball, There’s Always a Way Out (you know what I mean). Or take a more measured view and plan that some things may be different – maybe markedly so – but life will carry on.

      1. I agree with basically all of this.

         The post-WWII period has been an extremely historically atypical period of material security, peace, and prosperity for the western world (and some large non-Western countries). I think the climate crisis is going to push even the US closer to the historical norm – more civil strife, more crime, a realization that human preference can’t indefinitely override nature (the “golf courses in Phoenix” issue). An end to the frictionless “You can have anything you want delivered in 24 hours” economy, because shortages and supply chain disruptions will become common.

         I deal with this mostly by trying to cultivate in myself and my children habits and skills that I think we’ll make us more resilient in a harder world. And investing my time in building community, because you need community more in hard times.

         1. Yes! I have a theory about this! As a millennial I feel like my (white, american) boomer parents grew up in the right place in the right time– for them, life has been gravy and only getting better, and they raised us with this expectation that things will always be this way because they never knew any different.

            It’s as if they were born in this bright spot in all of history and didn’t realize it as an anomaly, and now my generation and gen z were raised with this expectation that things should always be amazing and always getting better, when that’s not the case and in fact was basically *never* the case except for a 60 year period in the US following WWII. So things seem extra dire to us, but it’s because of these unrealistic expectations we were raised with. And things actually aren’t so terrible when compared to all of human history, it’s just that we don’t know how to deal with it.

            1. I co-sign your theory.

               In 1932, my grandmother’s grandmother died of what was probably some kind of gastric cancer – she stopped being able to eat and had horrible stomach pain that turned into bone pain over time. They called it “wasting disease” and had no idea what was actually going on, because they lived in rural Texas very far from any kind of modern (even for the time) medical care. That was how it was then: people got sick, they got sicker, they died. No one knew what was happening and they certainly didn’t know how to treat it. That was less than a hundred years ago.

               It hasn’t even been that long – maybe just over a hundred years – that people could have children and reasonably expect those children would live to adulthood. Everything about our lives and society has changed drastically in the last hundred years, and changes really accelerated after WWI, and then accelerated again with the Internet. I don’t know what’s going to happen next, but we have been living in extraordinary times, relative to the rest of human history, and I think maybe the mistake was thinking that these peaceful, prosperous, healthy times were the norm and would last forever.

            2. Me too.

      2. This right here. Funny enough, I just read this line in Rebecca Solnit’s piece today: “the public often seems to want final scores, to know how the story will end. We don’t know because we’re deciding that now.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/we-cant-afford-to-be-climate-doomers

   4. I don’t think life as we know it is going to end in 20 years. Maybe 100 years. Being affluent and living in the Midwestern US (versus some low-lying island country or coastal region) will mitigate a lot of the early effects. We are selling our family beach house in Maine (for unrelated reasons) and I’m really sad about it, but climate change and knowing the coastline will look very different soon is making it easier.

      But I’m in the same boat with the YOLO spending. Between pandemics and climate change I’m not sure what my retirement will look like, and it’s hard not to spend now.

   5. Not to downplay the climate crisis, but I believe every generation has its “the world is going to end” moment, and it doesn’t. I can’t imagine not saving for retirement or retiring early to enjoy life while it exists and using up all my assets without having a hard set “the world will absolutely, without doubt end in 5 years” message. Is “life as we know it” going to end in 20 years. Yes, because the life you know today will certainly not be the life you are living 20 years from now. But I wouldn’t make my retirement plans based on the human race being wiped out. That’s a good way to ensure you are broke and having to work well past year retirement age.

   6. It’s your anxiety – the article itself says “A pair of researchers in Denmark this week put forth a bold answer: A sharp weakening of the currents, or even a shutdown, could be upon us by century’s end.” That’s 77 years in the future. You and your children will all be dead by the time mark that the scientists are talking about. Life isn’t ending in the next 20-30 years due to climate change. Nuclear war? sure, that’s a possibility. But otherwise there will be a world and it will cost you and your heirs money to continue to live peacefully in our little corner of it.

      1. Children today mostly won’t be dead in 77 years.

         1. Based on the average US lifespan and assuming it doesn’t go up much further, they will on average not see 2100. The average US lifespan for women is 79 and for men it is 74.

            1. Pretty sure it’s been heading down, not up.

            2. Liefespans are expected to go up

            3. Lifespan has been on a decline. Look at cancer stats and heart disease among those under 50 and you’ll see we are on a bad track (and the spike in colorectal, stomach, and pancreatic cancers are still somewhat of a mystery).

   7. I live in a southern state in a very heavy hurricane zone, so I think about this a lot. I’ve been through multiple catastrophic hurricanes in my lifetime, including one just a couple of years ago that severely damaged my home. And we’ve been having insane heat lately. On top of it, my city is barely functional in every way that counts. I think about moving a lot, but can never decide where because everywhere seems to have issues, and I don’t want to be dealing with severe winters since I’m not even familiar with those. For now, I’m trying to just save money and hope to buy property in a few years in some place that will likely stay moderate temps/moderately safe for the rest of my lifetime (no kids).

      1. +1 – I live in (and grew up in) a major city that sounds a lot like what you describe. The state’s inane politics prevent the city from doing what they could/should do.

         I’m rooted here for now – I have immediate and extended family, married with kids. I also genuinely love a lot of things about living here. Our AQI has actually been good or moderate most of this summer, despite the insane heat (even for us locals who are used to heat). And I come back to what you said – everywhere seems to have issues due to climate change, AND for me, I don’t have community in those other places.

   8. I’m alarmed. I live in the southwest and we are in record breaking heat that – despite being affluent and working in the AC – has definitely had an effect on my health. I don’t want to spend every summer suffering like this and I don’t want to live in a place that will likely be a desert in a few decades and running out of water, even though it is prosperous and booming today. I have two small kids and my husband and I are not planning to pick up and run right now, but I do have LinkedIn alerts for a few spots further north / Midwest we like, and we think we will likely leave in the next 5 years. Part of our thinking is that we want our kids to be at “home” wherever we ultimately retire, and we are a whole lot more employable and likely to make a good network of friends if we move in our early 40s than our 60s. We also do worry that as more people move due to climate change concerns and as summers become more insufferable here, our property values will fall and make it harder to relocate to a nice place.

   9. Are you saying that you stopped saving because climate change will kill us all? That’s just a rationalization. You need to save.

   10. I’m old, and I’ve lived through a few “end of the world as we know it” predictions that just didn’t happen, so I’m not alarmed over the latest ones. Whatever happens will happen.
       My retirement plans have not changed, and I was “green” before it was trendy, so my day to day life hasn’t changed either…

       1. +1 – I remember in the 1970’s when over population was going to kill us all.

   11. Could someone with a subscription share a gift link to the article? Very interested but not currently a NYT subscriber.

       1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/climate/atlantic-ocean-tipping-point.html?unlocked_article_code=yHRGlQPOltQJ_V-3PlOwEuetb0pStMTtCHcxIdRK0jpGXCpzzEJbyGTETBU32pI5m2Vup53ujm9dA_9QMJBSnM6BNj6EbKB2ZPgXiZ6opQy0nOjmWeXiPHk5Rc-cIl81wcuJmrWfTc53SBUbMOw8luZJ0Gj3-ZYQrG5W3ntKzCm5Zc12eH5vRrYNivsEpyEH-B5wecDyWFfuaviLkJQogk2YGNkXL3-IsmGqz0M_hrg1YIk-0MMLfe_C_qc8HxtKX6DMOZNf8xp6OU5EwGFAr2HV9xNFYlOseEibUcl1LYXpXQjOAu1k3rgVc-wXW10m29NAbozEu0f4bzKM3xTjZXy61kAy&smid=url-share

          1. thank you!!!

   12. Also 40. I’ve posted about this a time or two, but climate change is HUGE for us. We just sold our coastal forever house this spring because we realized it’ll be underwater before we die. We were worried that we might have trouble selling, but we doubled our money (!!) and sold in one day. For a house 6 ft above sea level 🤦🏻‍♀️ Clearly there are still millions and millions of Americans who don’t care.

       We very intentionally moved 800 miles north to New England, 50 miles inland, and up 694 feet. We’re installing geothermal HVAC and solar panels. There’s an inactive fault line nearby, and I even got earthquake insurance – in the last decade, the strongest tremor was only a 2.6, but I’m not taking any chances with the earth as unhappy as it is!

       I want to yell at the politicians in DC to quit fussing over whatever the culture war drama of the day is and fix this. I’m hoping that maybe the world can have a Covid moment and all the earth’s greatest scientists will come together and come up with some magic fix.

       If anything, we’re saving more for retirement because we think conditions will be awful as time marches on and we want a bigger war chest to protect our loved ones.

       1. +1 – we’re in a very similar boat in terms of sentiment and the impact of climate change on life plans / location.

          1. +2

             Very similar plan/mindset to me.

   13. I am a scientist, and my research is somewhat climate change related. I am both extremely concerned about climate change and in agreement with the people posting that everyone always thinks that the world is ending, but that the world will go on. Climate change is going to make the world worse and be very expensive to adapt to, but we mostly will adapt. The world will look different in 100 years, but it also looked different 100 years ago. It will be definitely worse than if we’d been able to get our %$# together and come up with a real plan to reduce carbon emissions 30 years ago when the science was completely clear, but that’s the price we’re going to have to pay, and I suspect our children and grandchildren won’t treat us kindly for that. But all we can do now is do our best going forward.

       As for what I do personally, I save as much as I can because I think having more money in retirement is the best protection I can have. I wouldn’t buy a house close to the water on the Gulf or Atlantic coast or anywhere else in a flood plain, on a steep mountainside, or an especially fireprone area. It’s impossible to avoid all climate impacts or severe weather, but you can try to avoid the most likely ones. And I’m a vegan, minimize driving and flying, try to be mindful about purchases, and vote/write to politicians with climate as a top priority, plus my job is teaching people about science. I think different actions make sense for different people and their different life situations, and individual actions alone aren’t enough to solve a systemic problem, but if nobody ever does anything, then nothing ever changes. if you’re really struggling with anxiety over this, you could think about actions you can take that might make a difference (and a lot of them might save money that you could contribute to retirement!). Obviously investing has its own set of environmental impacts, though I am all in favor of encouraging accountability from companies.

8. I have some eye issues that I’m having a hard time articulating, and I was hoping someone has a similar experience they can share in advance of my ophthalmologist appointment next week. For background, I have a severe astigmatism since childhood, severe nearsightedness and light eyes. This issue has been a problem for about a year and a half.

   My left eye is just having trouble focusing. It is almost like there’s a faint diagonal shadow (compared to a floater). My optometrist (and my second opinion optometrist ) says my eyes are fine – misshapen but healthy. I originally thought it was a bad pair of glasses, but I got new ones and it’s still lingering. I’ve tried adjusting lighting, my desk setup, taking more eye breaks, and not reading on my phone in the dark, but I’m coming up short. It’s worst when I’m at my computer. Any ideas?

   1. I’d wait to hear what your ophthalmologist has to say. No offense to optometrists but it’s a bit like asking your GP why you’re having random heart palpitations vs. a cardiologist – the GP can do an EKG which may look ok but the cardiologist will be able to do the echocardio/holter monitor/etc.

   2. How old are you? Is this just normal aging that’s more noticeable in one eye because your astigmatism and myopia are different between eyes?

      1. 36

         1. That’s a little young for presbyopia, but I posted yesterday on the thread about binocular vision issues and it’s about the age I started having problems. I saw several doctors and they all told me that it’s common for people with previously undiagnosed binocular vision disorders to decompensate as they age and start having trouble at that point. I was also having trouble focusing while working on my computer. That said, I didn’t have anything like a shadow, so you definitely want to see the ophthalmologist and rule out something more serious.

            1. Thanks! It certainly seems like a possibility (I got thrown off originally because I’m not really dizzy) and I will bring it up next week. Thank you all!

   3. See an ophthalmologist?

   4. I’m glad you are seeing an ophthalmologist! Sometimes the problem isn’t with the eyes, but with the brain. If you still don’t get an answer you could consider asking for a referral to a neuro-ophthalmologist.

   5. Tell the ophthalmologist you are having trouble seeing. They should get you in quickly. Could be a detached retina or something.

9. Recommendations for where to buy glasses or specific frames you love? I have always struggle to find frames I like, and it seems as if the way my face is shaped most frames line up with my brows and create a weird unibrow line. I know smaller glasses are the answer but I swear the smaller ones have the same problem.

   1. Frames are supposed to echo the shape of your eyebrows — that generally is a better look than if the line of the frame is fighting the brow. If you’re concerned that your brows and the frames are blending too much, you could switch frame colors to something much lighter or darker than your brows, or you could switch to thinner frames or wire frames to lessen the effect you’re disliking.

   2. I think it helps to try them on in person. My eye doctor’s office, of all places, has a small selection but carries different brands than mall stores. Online,I like eyebuydirect. The virtual try-on is not perfect but is pretty good.

      1. Yeah, I tried on glasses at my eye doctor but didn’t love any of them. Maybe I need to find somewhere else to try them on…

   3. The Warby Parker virtual try-on I found to be very accurate as to IRL fit. For me I know I can’t buy glasses that are relatively straight across the top (bridge nearly even with tops of frames) or the frame will cut my eye in half. For you that may actually be a better style!

      1. Depending on where you live, they also have stores where you can try them on. They also offer options for at-home try-ons. I bought a pair in 2018 and have had no issues, and will also be buying a pair this year.

   4. Find a place and try on a ton. Ignore the sales people and just say you can’t make up your mind. Take photos so you know which ones you like.

   5. If you live in Seattle, Eyes on Fremont.

   6. Same and I actually found the 3D virtual try on option that glassesUSA has on some of their frames to solve it for me. I realized I need frames that angle inward if that makes any sense.

      1. OP Here– ah thank you for this!! I didn’t realize the 3D try-on things worked at all, and found a pair that has the general shape you described. Just ordered them, fingers crossed!

   7. I have a small and hard to fit face for glasses. I try on glasses constantly at a variety of places always on the lookout for frames that work. This weekend I happened to be at Target and randomly found a pair of glasses in the optical shop that worked for me. As luck would have it, I also had my RX with me so I could order right there and then. My point is try out glasses at a variety of places. You’ll never know where you find a pair that works. I’ve bought glasses from high-end optical shops, Costco, and now Target. Just keep trying until you figure out what works for you.

   8. Anne et Valentin or Res/Rei always and forever.

   9. Warby Parker in person.

10. I have an interview later today for a role that would be a huge jump in title, double my pay, be three minutes from our house in new state, and get me back into an industry I love. Vibes, please?

    1. All the new job vibes, Vicky!

    2. Good vibes!!!!

    3. Sending good vibes your way, you’ve got this!!

    4. Good luck!!!

    5. Good luck! You got this!

    6. Ohhhh big vibes for you!!!!! You’re gonna crush it!

    7. All the vibes, but you got this!!

    8. Fingers crossed for you Vicky!!!

    9. VIBES!!!!

    10. Good luck!!!

11. Could someone please explain what a “back door Roth” is and how to execute it? I’ve Googoit, looked on Investopedia, but don’t see the term. I assume it’s different from a conversion. Thank you!

    1. If you make more than the income limit for a Roth IRA, you can still contribute via the backdoor method.

       I’ve been doing it since 2017 at Schwab, DH has his at Vanguard and this is what we do:
       1) On Jan 2 or thereabouts, contribute $6,500 to traditional IRA
       2) Wait a day for funds to clear
       3) Convert from traditional to Roth
       4) Wait a day, then purchase mutual funds as normal

       That’s it. The beauty is that your tax return shows you didn’t contribute to a Roth; you made a nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA. It’s easier to do the full annual contribution all at once because you have to report the date of conversions and the amount on your tax forms, but you could contribute and convert as often as you want.

       1. Can you explain steps 3 and 4 a bit more? Does “convert” mean to move the funds from traditional to Roth? And what is the goal of step 4?

          1. If you work with Fidelity/Vanguard/wherever your IRA is located, just call them and they will walk you through the conversion.

             It is still crazy to me that this exists/is allowed.

       2. Thank you for this question, and this answer. Adding on: What do you do the next year? Open a new, traditional IRA and do the same thing? Doesn’t that result in you having 40+ different retirement accounts when you retire?

    2. There was an amazing explanation of this on this site within the last two years if you can search the comments.

    3. I have to reference this article every year for the actual steps: https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/backdoor-roth-ira-tutorial/

    4. Every year when I do my back door Roth stuff, I follow these steps: https://www.physicianonfire.com/backdoor/. My accounts are at Vanguard, which has great staff to answer questions and walk through all the steps as well.

    5. You may also be able to do it through work. I work at a large public university. In addition to pension withdrawals (required) and 403(b) and 457(b) (optional), we can also contribute to a DCP/401(a). All of these optional accounts are with Fidelity. If you want, you can also open a Roth IRA at Fidelity and call Fidelity every month and ask them to transfer/rollover the money you just contributed from your DCP/401(a) into your Roth. The annual maximum is somewhere over $50,000.

    6. My understanding is that we had to use a financial advisor for this (after asking my accountant if we could fire the FA because they keep Fing this up). Maybe it’s complicated because I hold about $450k in old IRAs – so I couldn’t convert to Roth without converting all of that old $$ too which would be an unpleasant tax hit (at least until I’m 59, maybe?)

       So I can’t do one but my husband can (no prior IRAs). But our hhi is around $400 so not sure if that complicates it also since we file jointly.

12. Married and filing jointly with two kids. How many withholding should I have on my paycheck? Mine list zero and I’m not sure why?

    1. 4

    2. My sec of state has an online calculator I used to figure it out. It factors in household income and tells you which paycheck (in a multi-income household) to withhold what amount from in order to have the right amount kept back so you don’t get left owing (or getting a ton back) at tax time.

    3. We are married filing jointly with one child and we list 0 dependents on our W-4s, because if we don’t, we always end up owing taxes to the tune of about $3500. I don’t want a huge refund every year but I don’t want to owe that much, either. I would use an online calculator to tell you what the best solution is for your family. We have two nearly equal incomes, HHI is $250k.

    4. The IRS has an online calculator that told me and my husband exactly what to do and it’s worked out ok for us so far.

13. Can anyone with a SAH spouse talk about how you made that decision? DH’s contract ended a few months ago. It was a long slog and he doesn’t want to keep doing the same thing, but he doesn’t know what to do next. He wasn’t making much money. We’ve been feeling a bit pinched without his income, but that could be a result of some big house projects and more than normal travel (ahem pandemic wedding backlog). We don’t have kids but are trying. It’s been surprisingly nice to have him at home to do house stuff and errands.

    I go back and forth between wanting him to stay home indefinitely and feeling a bit resentful at times, like when I see he’s charged some fun thing for himself to my card (which is rare and isn’t a lot of money but I think to myself, why am I paying for your lunch at a brewery on a Tuesday when you’re supposed to be looking for work?), or whenever I have to step in with a home thing, usually when there’s some kind of conflict. I feel like I need to figure out where my head is before I talk to him about the possibility of staying home indefinitely. I think he’d go for it and I don’t want to get his hopes up if I’m firmly a no. I think it’d be fair to say, if you’re going to stay home then you’re responsible for ABC that have been shared tasks, like arguing with the insurance company or whatever, and also he gets some kind of allowance for lack of a better word so his spending isn’t so in my face. Wondering if others have been in a similar situation and can share their thought process.

    1. Does your DH actually WANT to stop working?

       1. +1

          This decision should be made together with the input of both partners and as a conversation. It’s unclear from this whether he wants to stay at home or if he is between jobs.

          Also, it is not a healthy relationship dynamic for the working outside the home spouse to be resentful like this. Maybe he had applied for some jobs and so went to a brewery at lunch. Giving someone pocket money so their spending isn’t in your face feels very paternalistic and likely to build resentment on both sides.

          Also it seems like you don’t have children at this point, so if he was staying home, I’m sure he’d have a lot of free time. It sounds like that would bother you.

    2. I’m in the minority here in that I think a SAHM or SAHD is objectively better for kids than two working parents, especially if both have big jobs.

       That said, there are a lot of red flags here: his lack of interest in doing this (versus just doing this because he doesn’t know what to do next) and your resentment, including the idea of putting him on an allowance are both extremely problematic to me. I don’t think this is right for your family.

       1. +1

          This was my first thought as well.

          Remember, once he stops working, you will now be required to support him with spousal support if you separate. Hate to say it, but it’s true.

          You also say finances are tight without him working….. once you start having kids your expenses rise quite a bit. What is your long term earning capacity? Are you sure you want to be the sole bread earner? You sound resentful already after just a few months (!), and it sounds like your husband’s nature isn’t to just pick up all the slack.

       2. I don’t fully agree. I’m the poster with the novel below about my husband being a SAHD. I think it was great for the baby years, but my kids really benefitted from the socialization, structure, and education of preschool. We tried part time preschool for our older child because the younger was still home so Dad was still home, but she was never fully integrated into preschool social circles because she was a part timer. Once she transitioned to full time, she made real friends. (Seriously, she’s 22 and one of those friends just came over last week.)

          The reality is that most people have to work, so the argument that a stay at home parent is best is really privileged anyway.

          1. Your last sentence is spot on. I don’t doubt that there is evidence that kids do better with a stay at home parent but I’m guessing those kids would have been better off anyways. The wealth and privilege associated with having a choice to have a parent stay home has an enormous impact on kids. This seems like a lot of studies on be-stfeeding. Sure it leads to better outcomes but only if you don’t control for things like income and education level

             1. Do they really never control for SES?

                A lot of larger families can’t afford childcare and have a SAHP for that reason.

             2. Im in a lower cost of living area than most here, but the people I know with a SAHM are lower middle class and can’t afford for mom to work. Childcare for 2 kids would exceed what she could earn. The affluent families almost all have two working parents.

    3. I absolutely wouldn’t feel comfortable with a partner being SAH without kids. I’d have the discussion about the future and possibility of having him stay home to take care of kids because that’s a ton of work! For me, the resentment would put me over the edge if he wasn’t taking care of kids. If there are no kids, he can continue his contract work.

    4. If you feel resentful if he buys food for himself on “your” card, don’t do this. That is not the foundation to make this work.

       1. Amen.

       2. + 1 million
          This might work for other people but it doesn’t work for you.

       3. Yes. I would say this type of money resentment is a separate issue, even, from whether or not he should stay home, and should be dealt with first.

       4. I agree with you but I don’t think it’s the buying food part. I’d be annoyed if my spouse was out treating himself to a lunch when he was supposed to be job searching and I was working. Buying groceries for the house is buying food IMO.

          1. idk, there’s a limit to how many hours a day you can job search, and blowing off some steam having lunch with a friend sounds pretty normal. If the family budget doesn’t allow for lunches out, so be it, but the feeling resentful over him spending “your” money for this is not good.

          2. You really can’t think like that if you want your spouse to stay home.

             1. I definitely don’t think this spouse should be SAH.

             2. +1. Staying home doesn’t mean that he’s a prisoner in the home who isn’t allowed to go out to have a meal. That would be crazy. If you can’t abandon that way of thinking, then don’t do this.

          3. Not to harp on the lunch thing, I didn’t even mention it to him, but yeah it wasn’t lunch with a friend or networking, which I would be all for. It was him getting a couple beers in the middle of the workday when he’s applied to like 3 jobs in the past year, even though he’s known for the entire multi-year duration of this contract exactly when it was ending plus they gave him a very generous offramp. So it’s “only been a few months” of unemployment but he really should’ve had something lined up when this contract ended. And there was no discussion with me and certainly no agreement by me that I’d be supporting us for the next idk number of months with no plan on his part for finding work.

             But all that said it HAS been really nice to have him home and maybe I would’ve agreed if there had been a discussion. So I’m torn.

             1. It sounds like this is a situation that’s not really about the lunch. No matter what you decide, y’all need to have a real discussion soon about what’s happening on the job front or else you’ll both end up resentful.

             2. wow ok this background makes the whole situation A Lot.

             3. Agree with anon at 1:29, this situation feels very ripe for resentment. You sound very resentful already so highly recommend having a conversation on expectations regardless of what you decide.

             4. Sounds like you guys just need to sit down and talk. I’m kind of shocked you haven’t so far, and he’s probably surprised you haven’t asked (and maybe happy……!).

                I would try not to be judgmental/accusatory. Just sit down in the evening, and tell him that it has been nice having him around to help during the day. How have things been going? What are your plans/goals at this point? Maybe we should think through this together?

                Is he exhausted from his last job? It is pretty hard to do a complete career change. Could he be depressed? Or just enjoying a break…. Are there things that you can help him brainstorm? Has he been meeting with all of his friends/contacts to just catch up and let people know he is thinking of a change, and just listen to what people are doing/what people say?

             5. Yeah. You really shouldn’t have a stay at home spouse.

             6. You need to talk to him. Not about permanently WFH or what happens after kids, but I think you need to have a serious conversation with him about his career direction and where he sees it going. Also, a few months of unemployment and only applying to 3 jobs? I applied to about 13 in 3 months to get my new job while employed full time. My assumption is something is going on with him.

             7. To be honest, this post makes it sound like you’re trying to rationalize your spouse’s laziness and inability to find a job by retconning that actually, you’re totally fine with him staying home anyway, perhaps because you perceive that he won’t get another job and will continue to under-earn, regardless, so you’re trying to find a way to be okay with it.

    5. My husband is a self-employed musician, so sort of a stay-at-home spouse. He has a home studio where he mostly works on his own recordings and compositions, and occasionally works on projects he’s been hired for. So he makes money, but it is intermittent and comes all at once when it does come. He sometimes tours with bands, but the pandemic paused that and he has enough hearing issues now that he’s very cautious about taking touring gigs.

       We’re in our 50’s and never had kids, so our decisions only impact the two of us. When we decided that he would work exclusively on music he had been temping for extra cash, but had enough hours that he was struggling to complete music projects. I had just been promoted to management, and realized that we would be fine on my new salary. We talked a lot about what it would mean if he stopped working a regular job, and this is what we settled on:

       – He is the primary housekeeper in the family. I do most of the cooking and grocery shopping because I truly love to cook, but he probably does 80% of the cleaning.
       – He also handles a lot of emotional labor for us. Probably 75% of social planning, plus more than half of family-related responsibilities fall in his lap.
       – We always had a three-pot financial system (ours, yours, mine), so my direct deposit is split between our joint account and each of our personal accounts. I get more of it than he does, but his income goes solely to his account. When he gets a windfall, he moves a portion to the joint account.

       It wouldn’t work for everyone, but it’s good for us.

       1. That sounds really nice. Well done.

    6. The fact that you are already resenting things that sound pretty minor to me, and your notion of an allowance, indicates that this might not be the right fit for you.
       If the roles were reversed, and we had a SAHW writing here about her husband begrudging her a lunch out, and giving her an allowance, half of us would say WTF and the other half would call him controlling.

       1. +1.

    7. Idk why anyone would want their able bodied capable spouse to sit at home doing nothing instead of finding a job. Like it’s great he doesn’t have to panic and find a job tomorrow but you clearly already resent him idk why you’d even consider suggesting this.

    8. You already resent him and he’s not even SAH yet. Don’t do this.

    9. My husband was a SAHD when our two kids were pre-preschool ages. He had a job when our first was born, then got laid off when she was around 4 months old. She’d started daycare already, and we kept her there for a while during his job hunt, but it was a sector-wide mass layoff event (dot com bust) so he wasn’t finding anything. Then she went to a different daycare part time so he could still job hunt, but nothing was happening and I found out I was pregnant again (whoops) so I said “why don’t you stay at home for a while?” and he did until the youngest was 2 years 9 months, preschool entry age.

       It was good and it was bad. I’m sure it would have had similar features if I’d been the one staying home. He was and is a great dad – and let me just tell you, the key is to let your partner parent their way, which will not necessarily be your way – and the kids were safe and well fed and had plenty of activities. But although he’s sentimental about that time now, he didn’t love it day to day. He was resentful of me getting to go to work every morning, and resentful when I had a work dinner or travel. I felt resentful being the sole breadwinner and having all the pressure of that, as well as feeling annoyed that he didn’t appreciate how hard I was working because all he could see was how hard daily life was for him.

       Things that helped him get out of the house: Free 2 hour childcare at our local YMCA which he had zero guilt about using every second of every day – boy was he in shape! A “mommy and me” group held at a local nondenominational church. He made friendships there that he maintains to this day, even though he was the only dad. (They all thought he was adorable.) And then once the kids were a bit older, we ended up hiring a babysitter for 3 hours a day 3 days a week so he could just get out of the house. He ended up using that time to teach at a community college very part-time, which ended up paying for the babysitter, but that’s not why we initially hired her.

       It was not the best time in our marriage, but we survived it and the kids did great. As a result, he is a 50/50 partner, which seems to be rare when I read comments/complaints here. He does 50% of the housework and 50% of the continuing kid stuff, I don’t even question it except sometimes feel guilty that he probably actually does more than 50%. So the arrangement definitely paid off for us in the long run.

       Make sure if you’re going to do this, all your expectations are laid out and clear from the start.

       1. I definitely think there’s something to the equity point. My husband never stayed home but he took a long paternity leave (from when I went back to work at 3 months until our child was 11 months). I think he would have been a relatively equal partner anyway, but I’m sure being the main caregiver for most of a year didn’t hurt. I think we’re pretty close to 50-50 but if anything he does more, and that definitely seems unusual for men, even ones under 35.

    10. I would separate the question of what your husband should be doing right now from the idea of him potentially being a SAHD completely. It sounds more like he’s burned out or unmotivated to do a real job search for some reason, and I think you need to figure out what that issue is before thinking about staying home with kids who don’t exist yet (and might not for awhile). Honestly, I also would put trying for kids on the back burner until you’ve had a real conversation about your goals as a family. The families I know with a stay-at-home partner who deliberately chose that path seem to be much happier than the families that fell into it due to circumstance.

        1. Agree 100% with your last sentence.

14. When do background checks usually happen? I’ve never had one before being offered a job. Now, a recruiter is asking for background, credit, and reference checks plus educational verification. I have an interview scheduled for tomorrow, and I was told to expect 1 and potentially 2 more after this. I’ve done about 4 or 5 so far (I know…) Is this a good sign? Is this normal nowadays? I’m a bit hesitant to ding my credit without a job offer.

    1. The background checks I’ve gotten have all been after the offer was made. Fwiw, I never give notice until the background check has clearance in case there’s an issue that needs addressing or in case it takes longer than new job anticipates. This has been a concern for me because I’m a lawyer and there’s a woman around my age with my same first, middle, and last names in my city who has been convicted of fraud!

    2. I’ve not had a background check without an offer. I wonder if it’s a thing with the recruiter?

    3. Unusual. Typically takes place after the offer, with the offer being contingent on clearing it.

    4. I’ve always had them run after getting a job offer.

    5. You could ask what type of credit inquiry to expect. I have a credit freeze in place and did not need to lift the freeze when my now-employer needed to check mine, so whatever info they needed was not invasive enough to impact my credit score.

       1. OP here- Ohhh thanks for this! I had my wallet stolen a couple months ago, and I placed a credit freeze because one of the cards was actually used. It didn’t occur to me that I might need to un-freeze. I will convey this to the recruiter in case I have to take any action, but good to know you didn’t.

    6. Typically after. Check your state but there can be restrictions on when criminal checks can be done and if / how credit checks can be done. This strikes me as slightly unusual but not out of the question. Is it a super security minded industry? A high risk job. 6-7 interviews is a lot…

       1. It’s an international NGO. Sadly this (ridiculous) amount of interviews is typical for nonprofits, IME during this job search.

    7. Highly unusual, the checks should come after a job offer and from the company not the recruiter. Is there any chance this recruiter is scamming you for personal info?

    8. Just a FYI, this could be a scam. There are fake recruiters that set up real looking websites, advertise for real-looking jobs, interview people, and, when they get SSNs and bank account information for direct deposit, take their victims to the cleaners.

       1. This!!!!!

       2. That was my first instinct, as the repeated victim of identity theft.

       3. THANK YOU! I’ll confirm with the recruiter before providing any info.

    9. No one is getting my SSN without a job offer in writing and an acceptance contingent on passing a background check. If we are still in the interview stage, that’s not happening and if the recruiter insists, I’d be done.

    10. You’ve done five interviews so far and have a couple more with the same company? That would be a huge red flag for me. I would remove myself from the candidate pool.

15. Maybe I’m morbid, but this looks like a really solid funeral dress.

    1. True, but I also think it looks like it would be pretty versatile depending on shoes and accessories. I actually may stop by my WHBM and try it on. These days, I am all about versatility.

16. What does a clafoutis taste like? Is it a good brunch recipe or is it just good for dessert?

    1. It tastes like cake. Sure you can serve it as dessert at brunch.

    2. Very similar to cake. If I served it at a brunch, I’d want something savory as well.

    3. I would not hesitate at all to include one on a brunch menu. I also would not consider them “cake” as they are more like a custardy Dutch baby.

    4. I’d be very excited to see a clafoutis (cherry please!) on a brunch table but agree with others, I’d want something savory first, like a quiche or even just toast and bacon.

       mmm bacon

    5. It really depends on how sweet you make the batter and what you serve it with. Mildly sweet batter served with greek yogurt? Great for brunch! Sweeter batter plus coarse sugar scattered on top served with caramel sauce and vanilla ice cream on the side? Dessert!

    6. Yummy! One of my favorite things to bake.

17. tw – infertility and loss

    I’m just sad… and trying not to get too ahead of myself. After a somewhat complicated ectopic pregnancy earlier this year, the doc recommended fertility testing to see if there was any explanation. I had the sonohysterogram on Monday and it indicated that both tubes are blocked (also – ouch – I guess it hurt more if both tubes are blocked when they try to send saline through them?). We’re going for HSG (the x-ray with the dye one) next month so it could be fairly easy to open one or both. The waiting just sucks + trying hard not to go down every reddit/message board rabbit hole I can find as we don’t even know our options yet.

    1. Oh, I’m so sorry to hear your news.

       Yes, waiting sucks. Ugh.

       Try if you can to plan one or two things in the next month to look forward to to distract yourself.

       Fingers crossed for you.

    2. I’m sorry you had this news.

       I don’t want to scare you, but I was not prepared when I had my HSG and I wished someone had just told me the truth, so I’ll tell you my truth: I had a blocked tube on one side, and the HSG was really painful for me. It’s not painful for everyone – some people just sail through it – but for me it was pretty bad. I don’t want to go into elaborate gory details. Will just say, ask your doctor questions about what to anticipate and what they will have to do to attempt to get your tubes unblocked with the dye. Then ask if you can take some pain-relief medication before the procedure or if you feel it’s necessary, get some Valium or Xanax to relax you. I would have asked better questions and asked for some calming medication if I had known to do so. Good luck and I hope the procedure works for you!

    3. I’m sorry. Hugs for you. I also experienced an ectopic pregnancy. It brought up a lot of feelings, and my only advice is whatever you’re feeling is valid, and try not to read about the nightmares online.

    4. I’m late in replying to this, but this was me in 1998. Wound up doing IVF in 1999, gave birth to twin boys in 2000. They’re healthy 23 year olds now. I hope you have success in your journey.

Comments are closed.