Motherhood and Careers

[NewEnglandLady]

I'm pregnant. It was a big decision for my husband and I and we thought quite a bit about the impact it would have on our professional and personal lives. But it was our CHOICE to have a kid.

I would never expect anybody to fund my choice to take time off to have kids. Not my employer and certainly not the gov't. Nor do I feel my employer should be forced to keep my job for a year while I take unpaid leave...if they want to, that's fabulous, but it's a big expense for them and I'm not blind to that.

Did I explore several employment options before having kids? Yes. And I chose my current company despite getting higher offers elsewhere specifically because of their benefits. They have a parent transition program I appreciate and it was a win/win for both of us: I sacrificed higher pay elsewhere in order to get the benefits I wanted when it came time to have kids and my employer makes sacrifices in order to keep smart women who are interested in having families.

 

[QueenB29]

Bella, that totally sucks that your leave doesn't roll over. We can roll over 240 hours of annual leave, but no more. Sick leave is unlimited, fortunately.

Vc10um- hello from the Justice Department! I work in Gallery Place/Chinatown, but live in Springfield. Some leave tips- if you do plan on taking any amount of leave without pay, it's important to take at least some paid leave during that pay period, which keeps you in a paid status. Being in a paid status, as you know, means you keep accruing your sick/annual leave while you're out. Once you take more than 6 months of LWOP in a calendar year, it starts to affect your service comp date. So I took a 5 month leave with my 2nd child; I took one day each of sick and annual leave and otherwise used LWOP. It's also nice to have *something* coming in, in terms of a paycheck, even if it's only 16 hours worth of pay. Also, take any paid leave either the day before or after a federal holiday- for reasons I don't understand, that also allows you to get the holiday paid to you. It has to be immediately before or after, not just in the same pay period.

My agency's policy is to allow 9 months of maternity leave. My old agency, the Labor Dept, allowed women to take a year. DH's employer (Health and Human Services) allowed him to take leaves of 3 and 1 months respectively (not to make it appear they limited him to that amt- that was all we felt comfortable affording) and his supervisor didn't ask him to invoke FMLA. DOJ did, however.

Wow, that's interesting Logan Sapphire. I work for DOD and the chance of my being able to take more than 3 months LWOP when the time comes is zip. I didn't realize it varied so much agency to agency.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

QueenB29, that totally stinks for you that a longer LWOP isn't an option. I had been interested in possibly working for DoD and then someone told me that it's not a very family-friendly agency. It's odd how there's such variation amongst the different federal agencies just in general; at my agency within DOJ, we have to take any comp time or time off awards within a year of earning it. DH, however, can keep his with no expiration. You'd think OPM would get it together and standardize things....

 

[mayerling]

For those who say they don't expect the government to fund their time off to have kids, etc., is this the reason why you don't fight for universal healthcare either? Because the government shouldn't fund your attempt to get better?

Why do you pay taxes? Why do you fund the government to do what it does but don't think the government should help you produce the people whose pay will keep the government/country going?

 

[MissStepcut]

Here's the problem with so-called "personal responsibility"... It's about STRUCTURAL, SOCIETAL ISSUES, not you all footing the bill for me having a child. Don't think small, "oh that lucky woman, getting a paycheck for her crotchfruit." Think a little bigger than that.

There are certain social goods that we all benefit from. One of those goods is a next generation. You have two choices: significantly more immigration or depending on women in your own country to produce children.

More immigration is sustainable into the foreseeable future and I don't personally have a problem with it, aside from the brain drain effect (because we certainly aren't going to want to replace our next generation with the billion or so people whose brains and bodies have been stunted by hunger ).

So we're going to skim off the top of the world's poor, so those people will take advantage of our first world benefits, leaving their own people to languish.

Oh, and this ain't prospective, guys. This is already well under way, and it's why Americans aren't feeling the crunch of the population crisis Europe is (YET). My SO's family is part of this global brain drain we're currently involved in, and I sure am happy he's here. Stop any Pakistani person on the street and you'll find he or she is ten times more likely to be a doctor than any non-Pakistani American.

But hey, that's okay, right? We can just keep robbing the third world of their best and brightest infinitely, right? And if the third world starts to rumble, because this seems unfair, we'll just bomb them. Because our government is there to protect us from terrorists.

Or, we can rely on women in our own countries to take care of our own needs. Our women can take "personal responsibility" for all of society. Life's not fair, so they can just handle it, no matter the personal and professional costs, right?

But wait, it's a free society, and we're not going to make them. We let women decide if they want to have children. And who does, with all these costs to women who do so? Do you suppose it's the most financially stable, well-adjusted, well-educated, competent mothers? Or do you suppose it's the women who have the least to lose or are poor? The women who can't afford abortions and birth control, the women who we so resent for "tricking" men into children to bilk child support from them?

So, in my humble opinion, this is a STRUCTURAL issue that needs to be treated with better INCENTIVES.

(edited for tone)

 

[ksinger]

Here's the problem with so-called "personal responsibility"... It's about STRUCTURAL, SOCIETAL ISSUES, not you all footing the bill for me having a child. Don't think small, "oh that lucky woman, getting a paycheck for her crotchfruit." Think a little bigger than that.

There are certain social goods that we all benefit from. One of those goods is a next generation. You have two choices: significantly more immigration or depending on women in your own country to produce children.

More immigration is sustainable into the foreseeable future and I don't personally have a problem with it, aside from the brain drain effect (because we certainly aren't going to want to replace our next generation with the billion or so people whose brains and bodies have been stunted by hunger ).

So we're going to skim off the top of the world's poor, so those people will take advantage of our first world benefits, leaving their own people to languish.

Oh, and this ain't prospective, guys. This is already well under way, and it's why Americans aren't feeling the crunch of the population crisis Europe is (YET). My SO's family is part of this global brain drain we're currently involved in, and I sure am happy he's here. Stop any Pakistani person on the street and you'll find he or she is ten times more likely to be a doctor than any non-Pakistani American.

But hey, that's okay, right? We can just keep robbing the third world of their best and brightest infinitely, right? And if the third world starts to rumble, because this seems unfair, we'll just bomb them. Because our government is there to protect us from terrorists.

Or, we can rely on women in our own countries to take care of our own needs. Our women can take "personal responsibility" for all of society. Life's not fair, so they can just handle it, no matter the personal and professional costs, right?

But wait, it's a free society, and we're not going to make them. We let women decide if they want to have children. And who does, with all these costs to women who do so? Do you suppose it's the most financially stable, well-adjusted, well-educated, competent mothers? Or do you suppose it's the women who have the least to lose or are poor? The women who can't afford abortions and birth control, the women who we so resent for "tricking" men into children to bilk child support from them?

So, in my humble opinion, this is a STRUCTURAL issue that needs to be treated with better INCENTIVES.

(edited for tone)

Here's how I see it. You have several options when you don't address those structural issues and see childbearing as a solitary pursuit disconnected from the society you live in...

You can continue to pay the lazy, shiftless breeders who have children just to get more public funds. (A view of the majority of people on public funds that I don't subscribe to, but is very pervasive and popular). Hopefully, the parents of said kids will use some of that money to raise those kids. But you are supposedly rewarding bad behavior...

You can stop paying the parents above, leave the kids with them, and hope that it is enough to discourage breeding somehow, and that the kids still have a semi-decent raising, get decently edumacated (even if mom and dad are functionally illiterate themselves) and don't starve or turn to gangs to provide the things that their parents can't.

You can stop paying the parents above, take the children AWAY from those who clearly can't afford them, and raise them at state expense. You don't reward the bad behavior or support adults, and you get to raise the children supposedly better than the parents could. Cheaper and more targeted than above.

We could have forced sterilization of people who spit out kid they can't pay for. Gets rid of the problem permanently.


And for anyone thinking I'm being snarky...only a little. Everyone wants to pay ONLY those who exhibit the requisite amount (who determines that?) of personal responsibility. These are a few REAL options to weed out those who don't. They ain't pretty...

I'm open to other ones I haven't considered.

But just for the record, I prefer MissStepcut's analysis of the lack of personal responsibility as part of a larger, societal issues.

I should just sit back and let her do her thing. She's far more eloquent than I.

 

[vc10um]

LS, thank you so much for that information! I am saving it and storing it away for future needs! QueenB, sorry to hear that you won't have as much flexbility with your department.

It IS crazy how much things vary from department to department. LS, we too have to take our compensatory time within a year of accruing it, and have no opportunity for leave bonuses. My agency is on a special pay scale, so that may have something to do with that difference, though.

Also, my agency is production-based, and I have a docket of cases and time limits for moving them. If I don't return to work at least part time (8-12 hours per week) within about 6 weeks, I risk sacrificing some of those cases to other examiners in order to get them moved in time. So I'll probably take the first 4-6 weeks completely off, and then work a day a week or so for as long as we determine we'd like to go between 6 weeks and 5 months, according to your plan, LS. And I guess since I'd be working those 8 hours, I could just do the rest as LWOP and still remain in my paid status and not take my leave, since DH and I will have plenty of time to get ourselves financially set. Does that make sense, LS?

...sorry for the Off-Topic rambling, MissStepCut.

 

[MissStepcut]

KSinger, I left out welfare on purpose because a true libertarian would want to do away with that too, but that's really the rub. We specifically incentivize having children for the people that you'd think we would least want to charge with the task, and impose heavy heavy penalties on the people who you'd think we'd want to.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

For those who say they don't expect the government to fund their time off to have kids, etc., is this the reason why you don't fight for universal healthcare either? Because the government shouldn't fund your attempt to get better?

Why do you pay taxes? Why do you fund the government to do what it does but don't think the government should help you produce the people whose pay will keep the government/country going?

Taxes aren't exactly optional.

And yes, my personal belief (that I am responsible for myself and have no right to others' property) does affect how I vote.

 

[mayerling]

For those who say they don't expect the government to fund their time off to have kids, etc., is this the reason why you don't fight for universal healthcare either? Because the government shouldn't fund your attempt to get better?

Why do you pay taxes? Why do you fund the government to do what it does but don't think the government should help you produce the people whose pay will keep the government/country going?

Taxes aren't exactly optional.

And yes, my personal belief (that I am responsible for myself and have no right to others' property) does affect how I vote.

You're right. I'll rephrase. What are you paying taxes for?

 

[Puppmom]

This conversation has gotten interesting - especially for someone who is trying to decide whether or not to have another child. The main deciding factor is the cost of childcare. I would have to move from an individual contributor role to a management role to be comfortable with the additional expense. That role would mean more time away from the family. So, here were are in limbo.

For reference, two children in daycare in my area would cost between $1,600 - $2,200 per month.

 

[Pandora II]

I'd guess quite a few of those of us from other countries aren't political socialists. I'm very Thatcherite in my outlook - but I applaud every word of MisStepcut's post.

We would also love to disincentivise certain section of society from relying on State hand-outs, but we don't believe in punishing the deserving because of them. I used to look at the girl who lived next door who was 10 years younger than me, had 2 children, lived in a house that my taxes paid for and got free nursery places because she was 'vulnerable' - whilst we had to do the sums to see if we could afford to pay the mortage and childcare for one - and feel furious.

One of the issues we really struggle with in the UK compared with other EU countries is affordable childcare. Unless you are very well-paid or have close family to help-out nearby, then most of the time it is pointless going to work if you have more than one child as daycare fees can easily hit $1800 a month per child. I use an incredibly cheap nursery for my daughter and just for going 9-4 I would pay over $1000 and that would only allow me to work 10-3.

I've been trying to suggest that we scrap the $30 a week child benefit and instead offer free childcare to all from age 1 to when your child starts school - would make it much easier for all women to go back to work.

 

[Sha]

A long way of saying that it sucks, but I don't know what the answer is.

Beth, it really does suck and I agree with your post in every way. There are so many sides to this whole issue but I will say that unpaid leave should be a given and seeing what my sister went through was very upsetting. If she didn't go back when she did she would have lost her job and she has been there well over a decade. And she is a great doctor. But there are lots of people waiting in the wings to take her place...

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to get pregnant next fall and while I am fairly certain we won't be (much) closer to any real solution at that time I am pretty certain you and your family will figure it out and do well. Sending good wishes your way!

Thank you Missy I see I should have read all the posts before I posted rather than just skimming because I also agree with almost everything you said, and really respect you for offering a differing opinion and standing up for it **Ducks**

Our whole system of maternal care and leave in the U.S. is far from perfect, but I will take our messed system and be thankful for it, because in so many parts of the world, childbirth involves a very real and very high risk of death for the mother and baby. When I do have a baby, I won't have to worry about whether I can feed him or her or whether we have clean water. I can also do little things like vote and drive a car and have my own bank account. I am profoundly grateful for this

Right, but all of the other countries with the same standard of living as the U.S. enjoy much better benefits. Sorry, but the whole "At least I have food and clean water!" argument seems disingenuous. Yes, at least we don't live in Somalia-how does that solve anything? Not to mention the fact that many people in the U.S. do have to worry about whether or not they can feed their children.

Yes of course we can do better -- that's not what I meant. I'm sorry if it came off the wrong way. I just think that in a conversation like this, we're essentially discussing levels of privilege, benefits that many women in the world probably can't even contemplate. I just think that's worth keeping in mind. And being grateful for what I have doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are real issues that need to be fixed

(And without getting into a debate and sidetracking this thread, yes, of course there are people in this country who have trouble feeding their kids. But at least they have SOME options other than watching their child literally starve before their eyes. There are at least some gov't programs that help.)

There's a lot of countries that enjoy a high quality of life and great social benefits as well. I think the quality of living in my country is pretty good, even though we're a small developing country, and we enjoy essentially the same democratic freedoms that you do. Of course there are other things that are not as great - like shopping, for example. But we don't pay a lot of taxes and have a good maternity leave policy as well as reasonable healthcare and childcare costs.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

And a response to missy's post above about people having the right to live whereever they want to - True, but I wonder how realistic that is. How many people can easily uproot their families and settle in another country, and how many would want to, even if they could?

 

[Bella_mezzo]

For reference, two children in daycare in my area would cost between $1,600 - $2,200 per month.[/quote]

Pupp, I'm jealous! Where I am daycare for 1 is $1200-$3000/month and for two...well, you so the math. basically, the most cost-effective option for two is a nanny which is $1600 (off the books, non-english speaker) to $3000+.

Yes, affordable health care is a huge issue!

NEL-yes, taxes are not optional but what are they paying for? that's my issue. The amount of federal funding (from our taxes) that goes to support utterly assine items and/or items that stem from lack of quality maternal and early childhood care is mindblowing. If those funds were used more strategically and wisely I believe that not only would we alleviate pressures surrounding working mothers and the future of our population and society, but we would make a dent in related issues such as education and childhood obesity.

Again, I'm not yet able to discuss healthcare, though I think it is certainly related and would have a even greater collateral impact...I pay $1250/month for my family insurance premium yet it has a limited network, involves tons of red tape and paperwork to get the coverage done correctly, AND I can't switch to another plan b/c my employer pays 100% of the portion of individual premiums (the total premium is like $1950/month, yes, my employer is an idiot, yes they have a sh%tty play and yes there is not an HR dept....but it's a company with over 100 FT and 300PT employees, one of the leading non-profits in the US and, in its sector, in the world...

 

[Missy]

I love hearing everyone's thoughts and analysis of this topic. What would be wonderful is if some of the more ambitious young women here would run for political office and make a real difference in the way things are. Because what we really need to improve conditions is for real people to enact real changes that will benefit society. It's easy to talk about the ideal system and much harder to actually change things for the positive.

(and Bella yeah, affordable health care is right up there as something we sorely need here. The question is how to do this).

 

[Missy]

Just wanted to add that I'm not sure where MissStepCut is getting her statistics from but in my social circle many of the best and brightest young families are choosing to have children and make the necessary sacrifices in order to do so. So while I find your posts interesting and thought provoking I wonder about the accuracy of some of your numbers. I see lots of bright resourceful (not rich) young people procreating all around me. Hmmm that sounds funny but you get my drift...

 

[distracts]

Here's the problem with so-called "personal responsibility"... It's about STRUCTURAL, SOCIETAL ISSUES, not you all footing the bill for me having a child. Don't think small, "oh that lucky woman, getting a paycheck for her crotchfruit." Think a little bigger than that.

There are certain social goods that we all benefit from. One of those goods is a next generation. You have two choices: significantly more immigration or depending on women in your own country to produce children.

Or, we can rely on women in our own countries to take care of our own needs. Our women can take "personal responsibility" for all of society. Life's not fair, so they can just handle it, no matter the personal and professional costs, right?

But wait, it's a free society, and we're not going to make them. We let women decide if they want to have children. And who does, with all these costs to women who do so? Do you suppose it's the most financially stable, well-adjusted, well-educated, competent mothers? Or do you suppose it's the women who have the least to lose or are poor? The women who can't afford abortions and birth control, the women who we so resent for "tricking" men into children to bilk child support from them?

So, in my humble opinion, this is a STRUCTURAL issue that needs to be treated with better INCENTIVES.

(edited for tone)

We specifically incentivize having children for the people that you'd think we would least want to charge with the task, and impose heavy heavy penalties on the people who you'd think we'd want to.

This exactly. The fact is that wealthier, well-educated people have fewer children than poorer people, and I think a big part of that is because they don't want to jeopardize their careers. I think that even making six months unpaid maternity leave standard would go a long way to rectifying that, though I would prefer it being part paid, to allow people who can't get by on one income to still have children. Tax breaks aren't going to cut it, because people want to keep their jobs, and currently the system is set up so that it's really, really hard for women to keep their jobs and have children.

We need more children in our country, and in particular more well-educated, ambitious children, to continue having economic growth in the future. I do think it is part of the government's duty to encourage that. It is not the job of companies or individuals to look out for America's future prospects, which leaves government as the only thing that can, and one way they can do that is by ensuring that the future generations are sufficient to continue growth. So, while I don't think government has to support every individual's choice, I DO think that the government should look to the bigger picture, and if part of the bigger picture involves paying people on maternity leave in order to encourage higher birth rates, then so be it.

 

[Matata]

So, while I don't think government has to support every individual's choice, I DO think that the government should look to the bigger picture, and if part of the bigger picture involves paying people on maternity leave in order to encourage higher birth rates, then so be it.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. I don't think encouraging one particular country to have more children to ensure its economic growth is looking at the bigger picture. I think it's thinking inside the box.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

To be clear, I am not advocating maternity leave to incentivize more children/a higher birth rate in America. I am advocating maternity leave, health care, and quality early childhood daycare/education to promote a more vibrant society and economy through a healthy, well-educated, inquisitive, creative workforce now and in the future.

 

[mayerling]

So, while I don't think government has to support every individual's choice, I DO think that the government should look to the bigger picture, and if part of the bigger picture involves paying people on maternity leave in order to encourage higher birth rates, then so be it.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. I don't think encouraging one particular country to have more children to ensure its economic growth is looking at the bigger picture. I think it's thinking inside the box.

I don't think distracts was talking about the planet's economic growth; I think she was discussing the US in particular.

 

[iugurl]

For those who say they don't expect the government to fund their time off to have kids, etc., is this the reason why you don't fight for universal healthcare either? Because the government shouldn't fund your attempt to get better?

Why do you pay taxes? Why do you fund the government to do what it does but don't think the government should help you produce the people whose pay will keep the government/country going?

Someone potentially dying and or living with chronic pain because of an illness and lack of $/insurance and a mother not getting to stay home for a year isn't the same in my book. I don't really see how a year of maternity leave has anything to do with universal healthcare...

 

[Pandora II]

I love hearing everyone's thoughts and analysis of this topic. What would be wonderful is if some of the more ambitious young women here would run for political office and make a real difference in the way things are. Because what we really need to improve conditions is for real people to enact real changes that will benefit society. It's easy to talk about the ideal system and much harder to actually change things for the positive.

(and Bella yeah, affordable health care is right up there as something we sorely need here. The question is how to do this).

LOL, that is what I did - I stepped down when my daughter was a year-old because it wasn't possible to be a politician and serve my constituents as well as being fair to my family. Much of that was due to being in an inner city constituency with a very high level of poverty and deprivation - those in more rural and very affluent areas had a much, much smaller work-load.

A lot of the time you also spend fighting with your own party and beating your head against a brick wall.

However, I like to think I helped contribute towards make a difference to some things and chipping away slowly at the block does eventually get there!

 

[iugurl]

To be clear, I am not advocating maternity leave to incentivize more children/a higher birth rate in America. I am advocating maternity leave, health care, and quality early childhood daycare/education to promote a more vibrant society and economy through a healthy, well-educated, inquisitive, creative workforce now and in the future.

I don't really see how maternity leave will make our population more educated, healthy, or creative. Can you elaborate? Are there studies that show kids who were not in daycare the first year of life makes them more successful (more educated, healthy, etc)?

 

[LJL]

iugirl - I think what bella is saying (and sorry if I'm wrong) is the idea is that the people who have the highest level jobs are smarter, more creative, harder working and we want to give them generous maternity leave and no consequences for going on it so that they can make more babies.

more smarter babies + same number of babies from less educated, less gainfully-employed = smarter population overall.

I dont have any opinions on the incentivizing baby-making in the upper classes thing, but I will say that overall I think I agree with Missy on mostly everything. I think there should be an option for unpaid leave for 6 months and your job should be there if you want it, but also prescribe to the idea that the country at large shouldnt be paying for your privilege of having a child (though I know that it happens through welfare, WIC, etc but thats another can of worms). I don't view having children as a right, I think of it as a luxury- you have as many kids as can afford, not as many as you think would be nice. Maybe part of the problem is that the more educated are more reasonable and forward-thinking and will only have as many kids as they can afford?? America's maternity leave laws are part of the bigger picture of America as an individualist country. Yeah, the government COULD tax and provide the same benefits that are seen in parts of Europe but I think that makes a lot of Americans feel uncomfortable. Part of the American dream involves self-reliance and the idea that you got where you are without major help.

FWIW, when the time comes, I will be seeking the more flexible, non-partner track when I go work at a law firm. SO will be seeking the partner track and thats something I'm happy with. However, I do acknowledge that I am probably less ambitious than the average future lawyer.

 

[MissStepcut]

<snip>

FWIW, when the time comes, I will be seeking the more flexible, non-partner track when I go work at a law firm. SO will be seeking the partner track and thats something I'm happy with. However, I do acknowledge that I am probably less ambitious than the average future lawyer.

LJL, have you been through recruiting season or OCI yet?

I don't know of a single law firm (big, medium or small) that actively recruits for the "non-partnership track" or operates on anything other and an up-or-out model. There are some exceptions for "of Counsel" positions, but those are far from guaranteed and are generally only created when a lawyer has some special expertise that the firm finds valuable (for a while, an example would have been ERISA but I think the need has largely been met so it would be pretty difficult to guess in advance what specialty might land you an "of Counsel" gig).

If you look at the bi-modal distribution of lawyer salaries, there's pretty much no middle ground when it comes to being a lawyer. It's either high-powered ambitious jobs, or IBR-qualifying work.

 

[LJL]

Yes, Ive been through OCI. I'm not looking to work for biglaw, just a firm with about 25-50 people. SO got a biglaw offer at a firm that I know has an option for part time - I met a woman who worked there for 8 years, had 2 kids in during that time and was on 9-5 M-Th (which I consider part-time enough). I think its because we don't live in a tremendously large market (Chicago, NY, DC, etc). I've seen on a ton of firms' NALP forms (I know, kinda a joke) that they have part time and I've spoken to women who make it work. Of course I wouldnt be going to an interview saying "I want to work part-time!" - you just go and work hard and OOPS, I'm pregnant and I'm automatically not on the partnership track anymore. A lot of firms I've applied for have 12 week paid leave which isn't ideal but I'm hoping will be good enough. As far as money, no, I haven't looked at the salary distributions but I don't need to make 150K/yr or even 100K to be happy. The cost of living vs. anticipated salary of SO are such that I can seek a more flexible job that pays less. Of course, we'll see how it all goes.

unrelated note: ERISA - yuck!

 

[MissStepcut]

Yes, Ive been through OCI. I'm not looking to work for biglaw, just a firm with about 25-50 people. SO got a biglaw offer at a firm that I know has an option for part time - I met a woman who worked there for 8 years, had 2 kids in during that time and was on 9-5 M-Th (which I consider part-time enough). I think its because we don't live in a tremendously large market (Chicago, NY, DC, etc). I've seen on a ton of firms' NALP forms (I know, kinda a joke) that they have part time and I've spoken to women who make it work. Of course I wouldnt be going to an interview saying "I want to work part-time!" - you just go and work hard and OOPS, I'm pregnant and I'm automatically not on the partnership track anymore. A lot of firms I've applied for have 12 week paid leave which isn't ideal but I'm hoping will be good enough. As far as money, no, I haven't looked at the salary distributions but I don't need to make 150K/yr or even 100K to be happy. The cost of living vs. anticipated salary of SO are such that I can seek a more flexible job that pays less. Of course, we'll see how it all goes.

unrelated note: ERISA - yuck!

I just am not sure how realistic it is to think that will work out, based on my own encounters with lawyers (I'm not working in NYC/Chi/DC either) and what other lawyers in the U.S. have shared in this thread. I am wondering if, when you start working as a lawyer and see how few family-friendly jobs there really are (at any wage) and how few jobs that claim to will let you actually switch to part-time, if your opinions will change. I think you might be disappointed by how well your employer takes "oops, I'm pregnant!" in the legal field.

The majority of first-year jobs pay either $100k+ and come with $100K+ demands, or ~40-50k (and often enough these jobs come with $100k+ demands too, in private practice). I know I wouldn't be able to service my debt on $40k/year since my loan payments will be around ~$1500/month for 10 years. The reality of the job market and average law school debt load pushes many female lawyers into gov't or non-profit work, so they can qualify for IBR and LRAP. Now I am not making any assumptions about your debt load, and maybe making $50k a year is totally feasible for you, but for most law grads, the debt isn't going to be manageable at that salary without loan repayment assistance of some form.

 

[LJL]

I have already had interviews for jobs that pay in the 80-90 range and have two more interviews set up at such firms for January. There might not be a ton of those firms, but they exist. Despite the positivity in some of my threads, I'm actually a realist. I am saying what I anticipate based on first hand accounts of the market I will be working in. I really do think that markets vary (like people!) I DID look at government work but the more I looked into it, the more unappealing it seemed in my market. My debt isn't pretty but I'm going to go into this situation with a hard working positive attitude and take whatever may come. Like I said, SO's anticipated situation gives me more options - I will let you know how my interviews go! hahah - and I'm sure in five years, I'll be holding a breastfeeding baby with one arm and using the other to simultaneously update work and write on PS. I know you think I'm being unrealistic and maybe a little naive but I assure you - while I may not know much about other cities' law market - I know what I am getting myself into and I know that the situation I described is possible and not uncommon at the firms I am looking at.

 

[NovemberBride]

Actually LJL, I think that what you are aiming for is totally doable if you are not looking at biglaw and not looking to go part-time right away. Kudos to you for not being seduced by biglaw prestige and salaries and choosing a career path that works for you.

 

[MissStepcut]

LJL, it's not that I don't think any one given person can do it (and I do wish you the best of luck! especially on all the upcoming interviews) it's that I don't think it's realistic for female lawyers on average.

SO and I also both have good job prospects paired with crippling debt... It's hard to think of a less family-friendly set up. And I hope my secondary market firm will honor their family leave policy, and not push me out for getting knocked up... but I don't assume that will happen. I don't even think it's likely.