re: 100K Net Worth

quote:

---

So, she would be working to cover the expenses of her working.

Thank you for confirming my analysis.

---

I gave the break-even example for minimum wage on purpose, to show that your analysis is faulty.

quote:

---

At her peak, Mrs. Midnight was approaching $30k per year. Still no net benefit, on hindsight. We had other money problems back then, to be fair (we were budget-impaired)

---

Yeah, it's really hard to see a net benefit on any amount of income if you are budget-impaired.

quote:

---

her not working has resulted in the best period of financial solvency the Midnight household has experienced in almost 30 years (running about 5 years, now).

---

I think you are severely overestimating the impact of her not working to your success. Regardless, your anecdote is not enough on which to base the statement "it will cost you money to send a woman to work".

quote:

---

So, there's that. Theory goes out the window when confronted with experience in the field.

---

Again, anecdotal experience. $30k is plenty enough to see a net benefit for the vast majority of households. On top of that, there are plenty of "regular jobs" between $30k and doctor.

1000 tolls ($20/week)
2600 gas (1extra tank/week)
2600 meals ($50/ week)

$6200.

10 hours days door to door for 34,500 give or take which works out to about $13.27 per hour.

quote:

---

Yeah, it's really hard to see a net benefit on any amount of income if you are budget-impaired.

---

No argument here.

But, at the end of the day, if she went back to work right now - assuming $15 an hour gross - the household would net less than $7 an hour, per hour worked (probably closer to $6). That's probably worth it for folks who are at subsistence levels - because that's netting nearly minimum wage.

But, not around here. And we would only be doing that well because we're more financially stable than before. Ironic that it works that way, but it is what it is.

I get your premise, but the logic is just off.

Let's say in the extreme circumstance my wife's takehome pay was a break-even with childcare.

It's still be beneficial for us if she worked b/c she is contributing 7% to 401k and getting company match, she's maxing out the $5K HSA contribution, and pays for her plus our kid's healthcare benefits.

quote:

---

Unless she's a doctor or a banker, it will actually cost you money to send a woman to work - so forget all that "dual income" jazz, chief.

---

no

quote:

---

It's still be beneficial for us if she worked b/c she is contributing 7% to 401k and getting company match, she's maxing out the $5K HSA contribution, and pays for her plus our kid's healthcare benefits.

---

And I agree that benefits like this are omitted from my fairly simplistic analysis. At one point, Mrs. Midnight's insurance was a good deal - but that was only for a brief period of time. Her retirement plan wasn't generous at all. Likewise, there was no stock option or other wealth-building/leveraging benefits. We got discounts on some utility services (because of her employer) and from her employer's partners.

On the other hand, with young children, the family really makes non-monetary (as well as monetary) sacrifices to have both parents work.

quote:

---

If you own your own business, I'd consider it an asset

---

It is, but depending on the business itself - it can be notoriously difficult to accurately value.

If the business relies upon me, personally, what value is that to the marketplace or vendor? Less than a comparably sized business that is easily transferable, recurring contracts independant of ownership "personalities", special business knowledge or unique skills, etc.

quote:

---

100k gross (say take home is 70k)

20-25k daycare for two kids.

---

JESUS TAP DANCING CHRIST

So happy I won't have to go the daycare route. That is ridiculous

Little toula runs me about $2k a month all in.
Daycare, insurance, food, toys, clothes, etc.

It's insane, but awesome.

Either 25 or 26 thanks to an aggressive savings rate and very generous company match on my 401k.

I started my career with less than 1000 to my name, but had no debt(thanks Mom, Dad, TOPS) which was fortunate.

It's difficult to scale and measure this due to so many people choosing graduate school over a career right out of undergrad. Are my friends that are currently medical residents really that much worse off than me? On paper, yes. In reality, probably not.

If you can build 100k in net worth within the first 5-7 years of full time work, I'd say you're doing pretty well. Having a certain multiplier of your income at 35 or 40 is probably a more reliable indicator. At that point you are much more established in your career, have hopefully paid off any student loan debt, and have significant home equity and investments that aren't just gifts from Mommy and Daddy.