(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38370061)

At $400k/year and $0/year, you have one person with no career and no ability to earn decent money and one person in an income range that generally means less stability. And if anything happens to the high earner you can easily be screwed.

To say nothing of the atrocious incentives our divorce court system provides in a $400k/$0 scenario.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38357803)

See also Muscadine Wine. Dead bedroom, doesn't respect him, can't leave because she earns nothing and the costs would ruin him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38358727)

This is especially true in your case since you're married to an E. Euro woman.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38370027)

This is why for E. Euro men, our job is to set up our wives in decent careers. It isn't to just make all the money ourselves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38370903)

If your choice was to make $500K and your wife make $100K, or you both make $300K - you would only pick the latter option if you were a bubbling cuck with less confidence in yourself than you have in your wife.

Sure there is less chance of ruin if you and your wife both make $300K, but there SHOULD be a MUCH higher chance of losing that $300K if your wife is making it, than if you are making $500K. Why? Because you are you and you control your career and your impulses. Your wife is a woman (and she is mandy). She might get laid off, get fired, quit in a fit of histrionics, get pregnant, etc.

Lol at thinking having a woman be responsible for 50% of a family's income is the safest proposition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38369802)

It could be if I took some of those offers to talk to large law firms. I have zero interest and have never even started a preliminary discussion.

"you would only pick the latter option if you were a bubbling cuck with less confidence in yourself than you have in your wife."

Not really, because any job that would pay me $500k would a) suck, b) be unstable, or both. Two decent, sustainable $300k/year jobs would be better.

"Why? Because you are you and you control your career and your impulses. Your wife is a woman (and she is mandy). She might get laid off, get fired, quit in a fit of histrionics, get pregnant, etc."

I understand that you work at a firm and therefore are somewhat insulated from some of the charming facets of the modern lib workplace. We have a diversity metric that is literally 100 - % of white males. I remember an article gleefully noting that the metric is "improving." We live in a world where firing me improves a key metric.

Whether I get fired or she gets fired isn't just about whether I'm awesome in my area. It is primarily shit like politics, how deep cuts are and where they are focused, etc. And I think you can guess how great I am at politics. For one, I WFH 90% of the time.

It very well may be that I get cut and she survives. And sure, vice versa could happen too. Either way, each one of us earns enough to allow the other to get on their feet without it being a crisis. If you weren't insecure in your relationship for some reason you would see how this is actually pretty awesome.

"Lol at thinking having a woman be responsible for 50% of a family's income is the safest proposition."

Idk why you think this is crazy. My mom worked for decades in a high paying job and retired with a full pension. So did my dad. Neither ever got laid off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38369896)

Even if you trust your wife’s choices and abilities, I would always prefer putting the responsibility in my hands rather than a woman’s - unless she is filthy rich and i don’t have to work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38370140)

Of course you wouldn't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38369750)

The reality though is that when a woman stays at home and the husband makes $400k, she’s a mom who lives on the coasts and feels the entitlement for a privileged lifestyle (maid, at least part time nanny etc). She is not cooking and doing housework and doing all the childcare. She also feels some need to prove herself in some other area to society that she is more than just a mom and she has something like a “business” blogging about food or whatever. If the hypo was $150k split or one provider in are country, then one provider of course.

$250k is about at the point where a job may be teetering on the edge of being still somewhat lifestyle versus actually demanding. You don’t think women can maintain demanding jobs and I agree with this generally, but I think of $250k in mid career as the kind of stable job that a working mom can handle. Its obviously different if she is a 2nd-3rd year associate in biglaw.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4278276&forum_id=2#38370759)