.

[begood]

Anecodotally, Moustaches, my husband took a 2/3 pay cut almost 8 years ago to go work at a place he felt a strong affinity for. It turned out to be a soft landing. I haven't worked full-time for a looong time, so for the first year or so, we worried a lot. We moved from MCOL to HCOL, but housing is provided as part of the job - a HUGE benefit. He is now maxing his retirement account, including catch-up contributions.

[acroy]

Congratulations OP you are in a good position!
Good luck whatever you do.
There are more robust tools for financial analysis, but one I keep going back to (especially to use while having a discussion with DW about various scenarios) is this one:
http://www.marketwatch.com/retirement/tools/retirement-planning-calculator
Super easy to visualize the impact of various income/asset etc scenarios.

ps - if you can, get out of the swamp. Dc is awful.

[BlueHouse]

I know I'm late in answering, and I only skimmed previous responses, but from what I read, it really sounds as if both your wife and your brother have traditional mindsets and may just have a hard time adjusting to the idea that "the man" doesn't make the most money. 
So even though it sounds as if you've worked through that, just keep it in mind and maybe go chop down a tree or something and skip the deodorant for a few days to prove how manly you still are.  :)

[BlueHouse]

ps - if you can, get out of the swamp. Dc is awful.

You do realize that "the swamp" is Congress and those 535 members come from other places right?  At least 3 of them even come from your state.   How about changing your vote next time if you want to clean up "the swamp"?  We don't like most of the elected representatives either. 

[Ricksun]

ps - if you can, get out of the swamp. Dc is awful.

You do realize that "the swamp" is Congress and those 535 members come from other places right?  At least 3 of them even come from your state.   How about changing your vote next time if you want to clean up "the swamp"?  We don't like most of the elected representatives either.

My perspective, but DC is awful because of the weather (god awful humidity), congestion (too many people; public transportation not sufficient, other infrastructure not built to handle loads), Competition (both in career as well as kids schools - allegedly you need to start your kid in sports camps at age 4 or they'll have no friends), lifestyle inflation, housing costs, and most important to me, the severe lack of good Americanized Chinese Food.  Representatives come and go; they're a negligible factor in the determination.

Ricksun

[BlueHouse]

ps - if you can, get out of the swamp. Dc is awful.

You do realize that "the swamp" is Congress and those 535 members come from other places right?  At least 3 of them even come from your state.   How about changing your vote next time if you want to clean up "the swamp"?  We don't like most of the elected representatives either.

My perspective, but DC is awful because of the weather (god awful humidity), congestion (too many people; public transportation not sufficient, other infrastructure not built to handle loads), Competition (both in career as well as kids schools - allegedly you need to start your kid in sports camps at age 4 or they'll have no friends), lifestyle inflation, housing costs, and most important to me, the severe lack of good Americanized Chinese Food.  Representatives come and go; they're a negligible factor in the determination.

Ricksun

Can't argue with most of this, but I did recently find a good Chinese takeout place.  :) 

[KungfuRabbit]

No

Disclaimer: I didn't read anything at all other than the title.

[frugaldrummer]

I think all the spreadsheets in the world won't help you here. Your wife has an emotional reaction to the idea of you making less than her: irrational, unfair, but I've seen marriages break up over this, be very careful.

Also, if her family is socially conservative, are they the kind of modern conservatives who think the poor and the sick have all brought it on themselves? In which case, she might not honor the work of your nonprofit if it serves those populations.

[Car Jack]

I think it would be helpful to talk with your wife about your goals and her goals and both of your expectations.  Maybe she's assumed that you'd "move up" to that bigger house at twice the price and maybe dump the frumpy mini-van for a Maserati Quattroporte.  I don't know.

Maybe the 2 of you can come up with a number for invested assets minus liabilities where indeed you can downgrade to a non-profit job.  If you can do that, work for the War Department as long as needed to come up to that number.  I'll also say that you're lucky if you can get a number.  I tried to ask my wife to work with me on a number and I started low (sort of trying to trap her so she'd be ok with the $2M we have saved....she didn't know), but I continued to ratchet up past $100 Billion and she still didn't think we'd have enough to retire.  (throw up hands). 

You will want to look forward to college costs.  With one in private college myself, at the cost of one new Lamborghini Huracan, it ain't cheap.

[Poundwise]

And consider whether there is any way to sweeten the pot a bit for her.  If she cooks 5 nights a week, for example, tell her that you'd be home early so after you pick up the kids, you would take over dinner duty.  If it's really just the money, stuff like that might not help, but listen to what is important to her and think about what you know would improve her quality of life, and point out how this change would benefit those areas.

I agree with Villanelle. What's in it for your wife? What's in it for your kids? Show her. As the children get bigger, it's helpful to be there when they need help with homework or social problems. If your wife is doing a lot of "invisible work" like scheduling, interfacing with teachers, dealing with extended family,  shopping for bargains, or replacing supplies like toilet rolls, etc. you could also offer to take some of this on so she can partake in some of that FI joy. 

[renata ricotta]

It should also be mentioned that basically your wife is working for free.

I am not knocking the desire to want to go back, and I realize lots of people feel like they lose ground if they take time off with their kids. Full disclosure I am a STHP

But based on your tax rate adding in traveling to and from work, work clothes and every thing else your wife's entire salary goes to childcare. I just think it needs to be a part of the conversations with your partner.

This is a perspective that I think is unreasonable. Another word actually comes to mind.

Childcare is the cost to  family of caring for children. It should not be assigned to one parent or the other (generally in our society the woman, whatever your gender might be). This kind of assumption has been tremendously damaging for many women.

I love my kids but would chew my left leg off before being a SAHM. If that's what someone wants to do, fine, but it shouldn't be used to trivialize someone's career. There are many benefits, both monetary and otherwise, to having a career.

I agree with Pigeon, I hate when people make comments like this on forums like these.  In addition to often being sexist, this kind of simplistic calculation annoyingly compares salary to childcare at a fixed point in time and advises people to make long-term decisions based on what is happening RIGHT now, forgetting that over time childcare costs tend to decrease while salary increases (but only if you stuck at the job to gain some work experience). 

I'm almost 5 years into my career - let's say that I also had a baby at the time I graduated with daycare costs of $30k/year.

Y1 - salary $43k (state clerkship), daycare costs $30k - internet says YOU'RE WORKING FOR FREE after taxes and advises me to quit.
Y2 - salary 100k (regional law firm), daycare costs $30k - now over two years I've made $143k and paid $60k in childcare - looks a little more worth it
Y3 - salary 90k (federal clerkship), daycare costs $30k - I've made $233k and paid $90 in child care - the ratio looks even better
Y4 - salary 210k (biglaw firm job I would not have gotten without work experience at lower paid clerkships, particularly in my critical first years as an attorney), daycare costs $30k - I've made $443k and paid $120k in childcare
Y5 - salary 235k, daycare costs $15k (my kid goes to kindergarten and it gets conservatively cut by 50%), I've made $678k and paid $135k in childcare
Y6 - salary 260k, daycare costs $15k, I've made $938k and paid $150k in childcare.

I think it's obvious at this point that money-wise, it would have been stupid for me to quit my first job because I took home little to nothing after childcare (even setting aside the fact that I'm not "deducting" this cost from my husband's salary, just mine).

Now of course not everyone has that sort of upward salary trajectory in their careers, but the point is that it's silly to make a decision in one particular year instead of focusing on the total of several years when deciding whether childcare is "worth it."  For a lot of people, if they take 5 years off of work from a job that will never exceed $50k/year, it makes it really hard to get into that job again after kids are in school, meaning they then lose a career's worth of future earnings.  Opportunity costs need to be calculated with a long view.

[Hargrove]

I agree with Pigeon, I hate when people make comments like this on forums like these.  In addition to often being sexist, this kind of simplistic calculation annoyingly compares salary to childcare at a fixed point in time and advises people to make long-term decisions based on what is happening RIGHT now, forgetting that over time childcare costs tend to decrease while salary increases (but only if you stuck at the job to gain some work experience). 

I'm almost 5 years into my career - let's say that I also had a baby at the time I graduated with daycare costs of $30k/year.

Y1 - salary $43k (state clerkship), daycare costs $30k - internet says YOU'RE WORKING FOR FREE after taxes and advises me to quit.
Y2 - salary 100k (regional law firm), daycare costs $30k - now over two years I've made $143k and paid $60k in childcare - looks a little more worth it
Y3 - salary 90k (federal clerkship), daycare costs $30k - I've made $233k and paid $90 in child care - the ratio looks even better
Y4 - salary 210k (biglaw firm job I would not have gotten without work experience at lower paid clerkships, particularly in my critical first years as an attorney), daycare costs $30k - I've made $443k and paid $120k in childcare
Y5 - salary 235k, daycare costs $15k (my kid goes to kindergarten and it gets conservatively cut by 50%), I've made $678k and paid $135k in childcare
Y6 - salary 260k, daycare costs $15k, I've made $938k and paid $150k in childcare.

This is not even remotely typical for the average clerk. It would be far more advantageous to learn a new career skill as a SAH parent than to hang on as a clerk for "upward trajectory" in almost any typical 30k job. The comment doesn't have to be sexist.

[Goldielocks]

It should also be mentioned that basically your wife is working for free.

I am not knocking the desire to want to go back, and I realize lots of people feel like they lose ground if they take time off with their kids. Full disclosure I am a STHP

But based on your tax rate adding in traveling to and from work, work clothes and every thing else your wife's entire salary goes to childcare. I just think it needs to be a part of the conversations with your partner.

This is a perspective that I think is unreasonable. Another word actually comes to mind.

Childcare is the cost to  family of caring for children. It should not be assigned to one parent or the other (generally in our society the woman, whatever your gender might be). This kind of assumption has been tremendously damaging for many women.

I love my kids but would chew my left leg off before being a SAHM. If that's what someone wants to do, fine, but it shouldn't be used to trivialize someone's career. There are many benefits, both monetary and otherwise, to having a career.

I agree with Pigeon, I hate when people make comments like this on forums like these.  In addition to often being sexist, this kind of simplistic calculation annoyingly compares salary to childcare at a fixed point in time and advises people to make long-term decisions based on what is happening RIGHT now, forgetting that over time childcare costs tend to decrease while salary increases (but only if you stuck at the job to gain some work experience). 

I'm almost 5 years into my career - let's say that I also had a baby at the time I graduated with daycare costs of $30k/year.

Y1 - salary $43k (state clerkship), daycare costs $30k - internet says YOU'RE WORKING FOR FREE after taxes and advises me to quit.
Y2 - salary 100k (regional law firm), daycare costs $30k - now over two years I've made $143k and paid $60k in childcare - looks a little more worth it
Y3 - salary 90k (federal clerkship), daycare costs $30k - I've made $233k and paid $90 in child care - the ratio looks even better
Y4 - salary 210k (biglaw firm job I would not have gotten without work experience at lower paid clerkships, particularly in my critical first years as an attorney), daycare costs $30k - I've made $443k and paid $120k in childcare
Y5 - salary 235k, daycare costs $15k (my kid goes to kindergarten and it gets conservatively cut by 50%), I've made $678k and paid $135k in childcare
Y6 - salary 260k, daycare costs $15k, I've made $938k and paid $150k in childcare.

I think it's obvious at this point that money-wise, it would have been stupid for me to quit my first job because I took home little to nothing after childcare (even setting aside the fact that I'm not "deducting" this cost from my husband's salary, just mine).

Now of course not everyone has that sort of upward salary trajectory in their careers, but the point is that it's silly to make a decision in one particular year instead of focusing on the total of several years when deciding whether childcare is "worth it."  For a lot of people, if they take 5 years off of work from a job that will never exceed $50k/year, it makes it really hard to get into that job again after kids are in school, meaning they then lose a career's worth of future earnings.  Opportunity costs need to be calculated with a long view.

bridget - I am curious,  do you have kids (even if not per your example)?  I ask because the salary tragetory, starting when you have a newborn, just doesn't seem real to me, unless you have a spouse that is the one on call for all the childcare and child support activities...   Yes, you can get promotions with kids, but not the rate that you indicate, in my professional experience, as you have to be able to work lots of weird extra hours at strange times, or travel, or what have you.  e.g., 100% committed to work first, then family.

[WackyTomato]

Clicked on the thread to say you should always listen to your wife.

Beta male detected.

[MOD NOTE:  Manners, please.  We don't do personal insults, especially in otherwise empty posts.]

[Laura33]

Think there's a misunderstanding here about bridget's reference to the "clerk" job -- in the legal world, a "clerkship" means you are working for a judge, and it tends to be highly desirable (federal moreso than state).  So she is absolutely right that doing those low-pay clerkships is almost like a loss leader to getting those higher-pay biglaw jobs.  And even if you assume she goes part-time with the kiddo it still makes financial sense to keep working (this has certainly been my experience).

I also agree with the frustration over the focus on this-one-point-in-time math, because it ignores both the possible raises and the SS benefits that you maintain by staying in the workforce.  Obviously, the latter is less important to many Mustachians, but you really need to look at the long-term picture when deciding whether a job remains worth it.

[kayvent]

Only in America can a wife feel worried about the family with two children only making 116K, with a million invested, no mortgage, a 500K house, and expenses ~75% of gross income.

[Blonde Lawyer]

Think there's a misunderstanding here about bridget's reference to the "clerk" job -- in the legal world, a "clerkship" means you are working for a judge, and it tends to be highly desirable (federal moreso than state).  So she is absolutely right that doing those low-pay clerkships is almost like a loss leader to getting those higher-pay biglaw jobs.  And even if you assume she goes part-time with the kiddo it still makes financial sense to keep working (this has certainly been my experience).

I also agree with the frustration over the focus on this-one-point-in-time math, because it ignores both the possible raises and the SS benefits that you maintain by staying in the workforce.  Obviously, the latter is less important to many Mustachians, but you really need to look at the long-term picture when deciding whether a job remains worth it.

This and big law salaries are lockstep meaning you get them as you move up each class year.  They are published online.

[Tyson]

I also agree with the frustration over the focus on this-one-point-in-time math, because it ignores both the possible raises and the SS benefits that you maintain by staying in the workforce.  Obviously, the latter is less important to many Mustachians, but you really need to look at the long-term picture when deciding whether a job remains worth it.

This is very true.  Massive opportunity costs in terms of career.