Green2Maroon said:

---

Kirkland Signature kids from Costco?

---

While Costco has pretty much everything ELSE in bulk, I had to go elsewhere to purchase mine.

FIDO*98* said:

---

SF2004 said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

What is six figures? If it's like $120k, then that was $75k like 10 years ago and who cares. That's not much at all these days.

---

It's dumb this term sticks around. It originated to refer to the top 1/2%

To have a nice home in an upper class neighborhood with a single income, savings, play money, etc. you need at least 350K in today's world. Nobody making that kind of money uses the term 6-figure so anyone who does is likely just north of 100 and basically working to barely get by

---

I think you are actually serious and not trolling...

That is $29,000 a month. You are out of touch.

---

I'll say this to anyone who thinks they need dual incomes. When my wife left her "6-figure" (low 100's Pharma job) to be a SAHM, it allowed me to focus on my career. I'd never be where I am today had we not given it up when it seemed impracticable financially at the time. Don't let strangers raise your kids so your wife can make 100K. The idiots running your company are no smarter than you are. I was a C Student with an Ag Eco degree when I graduated. I now have a Director position at a medical device company because I could give 10% more than the guy next to me.

---

This is very generalized.

My wife is right at 6figure mark as a counselor, so she works 180 days a year, picks up kids everyday from school and very rarely takes work home with her. Obviously, shes off the same 10 weeks a year they are.
Plus she'll have pension at retirement in her 50s.

No educated couple would give up this income. If my wife was a sahm, every hour that she would gain would be when the kids are in school, which means more likely just blowing money on shopping or whatever else a sahm does the 35 hours a week kids are in school.

They think they're going to get some hide hustle. And some are just lazy.

My wife had 3 friends "retire" in the last 2-3 years. It's more a status thing for them. "I don't have to work"

Granted, 2 of them have trust funds / rich parents so stashing away 50-60k a year in retirement doesn't make their budget line.

If we didn't have to save for retirement… man, the materialistic **** I could buy. Or my wife could just sit at home and think up ways to spend our money and time from TikTok and instagram.

AggieArchitect04 said:

---

$350k to live "comfortably"? That's over $29,000/mo gross. That represents 2%-4% of earners in America.

I don't consider myself rich, but certainly blessed enough to live pretty comfortably. Maybe I have low standards but I don't want for much. I make 6 figures but less than $350k and do just fine supporting 2 kids and a household. And that's with 25% of my NET income going entirely to their mom for "child support" that pays for her brand new Lincoln. Sock away a little each month. Max out my 401k and Roth. Able to take 2-3 nice trips a year, plus weekend trips away. I probably eat out more than I should. I also have a gf and she's expensive, lol.

What are you people pissing your money away on?

---

Yeah, I started reading that person's post with envy, and I finished it with pity.

I pity both of you for lack of context and reading comprehension

FIDO*98* said:

---

I'll say this to anyone who thinks they need dual incomes. When my wife left her "6-figure" (low 100's Pharma job) to be a SAHM, it allowed me to focus on my career. I'd never be where I am today had we not given it up when it seemed impracticable financially at the time. Don't let strangers raise your kids so your wife can make 100K. The idiots running your company are no smarter than you are. I was a C Student with an Ag Eco degree when I graduated. I now have a Director position at a medical device company because I could give 10% more than the guy next to me.

---

I'd agree with this. When I first started my career about 25 years ago as a new grad from A&M, I was making $45,000/year. My wife was working as well. When we had our first, I was making about $62,000/year and I quit my job to go back to school for my MBA. My wife at that point was already a SAHM but we had pocketed every penny she made and lived off of that during my two-year graduate program. She never went back to work but stayed at home with all three of my girls. At the time, we lived in The Woodlands in a brand new town house I purchased when I graduated from A&M as an undergrad at my $45,000/year salary. At the time you could buy a new townhouse for $100k in The Woodlands. We lived in that townhouse for seven years and my wife stayed at home. I graduated from the MBA program and was hired at a major where I've worked for almost 20 years now..

Here we are 25 years later, I make significantly more at right around $350/year. We have saved sufficiently for our needs to retire today. If I retired today, I could live off $200k/year in perpetuity until the day I die. Reason I mention this is not to brag, but more to emphasize that our decision to raise our daughters at home with their mother did not hurt us financially at all. It forced us to live within our means, and by living within our means, I mean we structured our fixed costs sufficiently low to enable us to fully fund HSAs/Roths/401k, etc. We have been aggressive savers my entire working life, but this was enabled by our savings rates driving us to live well beneath our means.

I don't begrudge anyone their decision to do things differently, or for mothers to work and have a nanny. What I don't like is when people try and justify their decision by saying, "it's impossible to live off of just one salary these days." No, it's not impossible, but it is impossible if you insist on vacationing exotically every year, or you drive cars that are super expensive or live in areas you can barely afford..

RightWingConspirator said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

I'll say this to anyone who thinks they need dual incomes. When my wife left her "6-figure" (low 100's Pharma job) to be a SAHM, it allowed me to focus on my career. I'd never be where I am today had we not given it up when it seemed impracticable financially at the time. Don't let strangers raise your kids so your wife can make 100K. The idiots running your company are no smarter than you are. I was a C Student with an Ag Eco degree when I graduated. I now have a Director position at a medical device company because I could give 10% more than the guy next to me.

---

I don't begrudge anyone their decision to do things differently, or for mothers to work and have a nanny. What I don't like is when people try and justify their decision by saying, "it's impossible to live off of just one salary these days." No, it's not impossible, but it is impossible if you insist on vacationing exotically every year, or you drive cars that are super expensive or live in areas you can barely afford..

---

What's wrong with spoiling your kids (and/or yourself and partner), and justifying the extra income in order to do so? Deciding to have a wife stay at home with kids in no way equates to husband making 5x+ his salary in 10 or even 20 years, so you're experience is highly anecdotal.

Our 9 and 11 year olds have been to 10 countries, disney cruise concierge level, 12+ national parks, vegas, rafted the colorado river in two different states, vacationed in about a dozen states, road trips to the southwest several times, ozarks 4 times and CA twice, swam in the pacific ocean, the gulf, and the atlantic, disney world, florida 4 times, amtrak train from CO to CA, ridden roller coasters and been to a water park in 4 states, have flown first class to mexico and have stayed in more resort hotels than some adults...just off the top of my head.

I'm not trying to brag either, just saying this is all possible because a second income affords us to do so (along with being very frugal in other aspects of life.. like sticking to groceries that are on sale, buying used when it makes sense, making the kids split a large cold stone or berry blends instead of two smalls at 60% more cost, me rarely eating out for lunch and if so I'm getting free French fries or burger from the app, etc).
Could we live off my salary? Sure, but it would be a bit tight and our family experiences would be drastically reduced. But an extra $100k does wonders for us and our family experiences. Why do you belittle someone who WANTS to have these things? Not everyone wants to live a frugal life.

and I ask, what does SAHM mom do when kids start school? I don't get in anyone's business either, but in my perhaps short sighted opinion, once kids are in school, it seems at that point, did mom giving up her career make sense? It's such a short amount of time. Now mom has a dozen years of a child gone all day, when she could be working, providing that 'splurge' income.

Granted our 2 kids are a year apart.. so within 6 years they were both in school from 8-4. Mom still picks them up everyday, so she's not sacrificing time with them to be at work, and she's off the same 12 weeks a year they are. I know being in education is a specific situation.. but it's certainly not uncommon for moms.

And not to mention they can usually retire relatively young and still get a salary until they die.

Your wife is home when the kids are home. She is effectively a SAHM. My wife took a seasonal job selling Tamiflu once the kids were in school. She was home when they got home. That's the important part

FIDO*98* said:

---

Your wife is home when the kids are home. She is effectively a SAHM. My wife took a seasonal job selling Tamiflu once the kids were in school. She was home when they got home. That's the important part

---

well sure, once they're in school. The sacrifice is those infant/toddler years.. we went the daycare route so mom could keep her career. Benefits far outweighed the negatives, which apparently are having a 'stranger raise your kid' and 'missing the opportunity for dad to further his career to a $350k salary which can be done if mom is SAHM'

Quote:

---

What's wrong with spoiling your kids (and/or yourself and partner), and justifying the extra income in order to do so? Deciding to have a wife stay at home with kids in no way equates to husband making 5x+ his salary in 10 or even 20 years, so your experience is highly anecdotal.

---

Nothing wrong with it per se, but you could have raised them without the dual incomes. You may not have taken the exotic vacations you did, but it was possible. You chose to have dual incomes because those things were important to you. Once again, each family chooses their best path given their priorities. What you're putting forth above is not what my point is. For example, in my first job out of undergrad I worked with a lady who told me it was "impossible to make ends meet without both of them working." Her husband was a very successful dentist and they lived in a million dollar plus home. Had she phrased it in the following manner, I wouldn't have had an issue with it: "it's impossible for us to live the lavish lifestyle we live without both of us working."

It's not impossible to have a mother stay at home, yes, even when you make less than $100k/yr. It's all about what your priorities are. We prioritized her staying at home which necessitated more modest vacations, etc. I'm okay with the choices we made. Sounds like you are as well.