To have a seriously high family income, is it better to stick to 'traditional roles'?

[Gameboy]

Was just thinking about the various ?250k income threads...

Before kids DH & I both had ?100k+ jobs so the family income was about that I guess. However we both wanted less corporate B*llcks and more 'freedom' so over the last 5 years have both set up our own businesses.

We earn less, cope with childcare better, have more flexibility (but tend not to use it well..) and I'm not sure we're any happier really - we always seem to be arguing about who is responsible for what around the home and kids - probably because we regard ourselves as sharing the workload.

I remember the top exec of the company I used to work for being asked what the secret of his success was, and he replied, "a wife who has always supported me, followed me around the children, raised our children and ironed my shirts".. Shame he was later discovered to have cheated on her with a colleague .

If either DH or I had stayed in our jobs we could probably have reached the ?200k level, but ONLY if the other one had taken COMPLETE responsibility for house & kids. But neither of us wanted to do that.

Sometimes I wonder if we made the right choice though - everything is so manic.

Isn't it just easier if there are traditional i.e. one parent at home, roles?

Surely, to have a SERIOUSLY high family income, both parents should work as much as they possibly can and pay someone else to look after their children. If you can earn more than your childcare/other staff costs you, then that's what you need to do if money is your biggest motivator.

Unless you're chocolatedot, of course. But luckily her family only had to struggle along on a mere £200k+ for a few years.

It's all hes and Dhs who are earnign the most on this thread, never reversed is it? Always female career sacrifice.

rm, I do like being with my children. Working mothers parent a lot too. Also did you suggest below your partner left his wife (chidlren?) for you and so you struggle financially as he's supporting two families? Is that relevant to your views? I just say do what feels right for your family but remember men disappear (and I'm the other side of divorce and know this only too well) and when they're together they're more than happy to say housewife equals 50% of effort but when they're shcaked up with someone 20 years younger in Thailand you can say goodbye to any hope of maintenance and you'll be the one left with the children who blame you for the new found poverty. SAHM equals financial risk for your family and children and may be breaches your duty to provide for your children.

More interested in the post about the equity partnership lawf firm thing too - the power issue. I wonder if my ex husband's and my earnings had not diverted to much - they were similar quite a lot of the time or not that big a difference for the first fiew years would I have been able to afford to divorce? Perhaps that's why women shouldn't work so they are too dependent on one income and aren't tempted to break up a family, even if the mother is very unhappy. I suppose that's one theory that poor women benefit families and help keep them together. But how power changes when suddenly one partner earns a lot more, begins may be (not always and I hope I never did) to see it as their money etc and how reasonably high earning women feel if suddenly their husband or the reverse starts to earn a lot more and that balance shifts. I would certainly suggest continuing to work full time even if he or she is earning a lot so you're protected if they b ugger off, for your own self esteem and because even equity partners and senior managers get squeezed out for all kinds of reasons and it's not a gravy train for life.

200k is not a seriously high income in the City of London by the way. take off your 41% tax, pay some school fees and a London mortgage etc. soon goes. The couple on £4.5m each in the City I saw at the weekend in the FT that's pretty good and unusual because they each earned about the same.

Is your ex in Thailand xenia?

Good to know you're not bitter.

No. Someone I know - a work contact - escaped all his wife's claims on divorce by moving there and took his business out there. No way he can be reached. In fact she doesn't even know his new address. My ex is 5 minutes away and chooses never to see most of the children. Perhaps that's even worse.

You know, Catherine Zeta Jones put it best.

'A million pounds may be a lot to some people, but it's not to us.'

Actually I always found £200k a vast sum of money, even living smack bang in the middle of London. DH and I have always been very aware of our good fortune.

I really feel for you UCM and rebelmum - it is just so damn hard to keep it all together. I take my hat off to anyone where both parents work. I really admire you.

It is important not to put all eggs in one basket as they say. You need to be resourceful. I would still work part-time and work to the same goals with or without dp. We're very clear about money issues and it's he who is more worried about me leaving. Financial security is important and that's what I'm working to achieve. This is the first time in my life I have ever been financially dependent and I quite honestly don't like it but it is only temporary.

well, we're on £100+ (outside of London) and in theory feel v comfortable, but we're still having to look at 2 up 2 downs to buy!

Probably most people want to replicate their own childhood standard of living. Is that true? So you might want a house like your parents had or a car as good as theirs or house. If that is so may be that helps set your own expectations.

well, of course, that's natural I suppose. Plus the fact that I want a house large enough for my family - ie not a 2 up 2 down, ideally!

I do take issue with the part-time v fulltime comparisons though. In the company where I work all of the ft mums of under 5s are the main wage-earners for their family and need to be working ft in order to maintain lifestyle. The majority of mums with under 5s work 4 days or less, and there are a similar proportion of men who do the same. Part-time working doesn't have to spell the end of a career, but you do have to manage it well so that you're not simply being paid less for doing the same amount of work. In fact dh managed his arrangement so that he continued to be paid fulltime even thoguh he was looking after ds 1 day each week, recognising that he did put in slightly longer hours on the other days and was still available by phone on his "day off". His career progression wasn't noticably affected.

And whilst it is relatively recent there are becoming more and more role-models of women who have changed tack duirng those early years of motherhood and developed successful businesses/careers as a results. The vast majority of small business start-ups are now being headed by women (generally working from home). Mumsnet is one example - barring Tech this is being managed/staffed by frightening fecund women, who take on law suits during maternity. I know of women who have gone on to become barristers, counsellors and teachers once their children have reached senior school or left home. There are a vast number of role models out there, and I think that gradually we will see many more public examples of women who do "have it all" but don't need to have it all at once.

I suppose the key to this question is "seriously high income". For most families, these sort of incomes are pie in the sky, but if one of you has access to this sort of job, why not take advantage?

The question for me is if one of you can earn such a huge salary, what reason could you have for both working? If your answer is self-fulfilment and ambition, then fair play. But if the answer is "money, to maintain an even better lifestyle, but I would rather be at home" then what a waste of a life. Life is the journey, not the destination.

The answer to this will be different for every individual. It depends what motivates you.

We are nowhere near these incomes. But I have always worked with a view to the future. I believe that some day, me having worked and maintained my career will make us better off. We are not now for various reasons (house prices, childcare costs etc) but one day our incomes will allow us to break through into some sort of reasonable quality of life.

A big part of why women work now is that we have seen older generations linked solely to their man, and it is a bit scary thinking you are only one affair away from destitution.

I guess we all just have to do what suits us.

I gave up work when I has ds as I couldn't stand to leave him with someone else all day.

So now we 4 of us live on £13500 a year and things are so so tight.

I would have earned more money than dh in the long run but me being at home suited us all (most of the time ).

The "traditional" family scenario is how we've ended up, don't completely suit me but it'll have to do until the kids are older and I work and put them into childcare. Just now I work 3 p/t jobs all aroung dh's hours so it isn't easy but thats our choice.

good luck with yours!

well, I think life would definitely be easier for me if I had a wife at home!! And I would be earning more - just the other day I looked out payslips from before my eldest was born and despite promotions, I'm still not taking home as much (I work 75%). But I wouldn't want to inflict on someone else what I'm not prepared to do myself - and dh wouldn't do it either, he thinks it would be seriously bad for his mental health. It would truly stick in my craw to give up my career and spend my days doing domestic work so that dh could earn money and generally do more interesting and challenging things with his time. That's not what I trained for twenty years for. Plus it makes no financial sense as my earning power and pension arrangements are worth a lot more than dh's - it would be awful for him to have sole responsibility for earning the level of salary I would be able to bring in.
I think if one partner is truly happy to have no career aspirations and can feel fulfilled through creating domestic comfort for the family, then it can work. But neither me or dh wants to do it.

But I do agree, that to maintain a 'seriously high income', it helps a great deal to have a back up system at home (i.e. a partner who spends a lot of their time supporting you). Those jobs are just like that. Inhuman, imo. I'm very happy with our income which is comfortable, but certainly not 250k or even half that. I'm just not interested in that kind of money if it comes at the price of being a total slave to your job (which from what I have seen, tends to be the case).

you might be interested in the \link{http://www.channel4.com/money/chat_vote_win/richometer/index.htmlrichometer}

If you put in an income of about 120K you're in the top 0.1% of UK earners. It may not seem a high income but it's still more than 99.9% of the population earns.

my dp did give up a company directorship and cut his salary by half and trashed his promotion prospects in the process to have more time with the children (and more time to windsurf). He's not the only man I know to be like that, there are lots of them around who don't fit the traditional mould.

and I am far happier to have DP around more than the extra money he used to earn.

grrr

richometer

My DH is home every evening at 6.15pm and we all have supper together 7 nights a week. He never works weekends (or does anything that takes him away from his family) and family holidays are sacrosanct. Personally I feel how much time you spend with your children can often have a lot to with attitude rather than work commitments. I know plenty of men who barely earn a living wage and yet spend very little time with their family as they would rather be at the football, playing computer games etc etc.

My personal bugbear is people who go on about how they would give up work in an instant if only they could afford it when they have children at private school, shop at Waitrose, holiday internationally etc. I don't know why people can't be more honest about the things that matter to them rather than pretending that such luxuries are necessities.

I suspect a lot of people who work long hours and earn a lot probably do it more because they lvoe the work. I do. I'd far rather sit in here doing what I do than load the washer. Some evenings I'd rather work than do the homework, dinner, getting stuff ready for next day at school routine. I wouldn't like not to have the chatting, cuddles and bed times though and I would hate to have been childless but the times sitting doing the work are when I achieve that flow, happiness, interest, adrenalin. You see this with people who sell one business and just cannot be at home. They liked the work so much. They have to go back. Same with some parents of big families like mine - baby after baby because they adore the process (I quite liked that too which is why I had 5).

How we managed was sharing things at home. Also eventually and this took years to afford someone here 5 mornings a week to clean and do washing/washing up, ironing - probably that alone makes the biggest difference to my domestic life. She is in some ways one of the most important people who help out this household. And then finding good childcare too.