One-on-ones are the most valuable time you have with your boss. Yet most people treat them like throwaway meetings. They fail to prepare and rush through them, rattling off a few tasks they’ve completed and calling it a day.

I’ve spent almost 15 years coaching leaders at companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple. In my book, “Managing Up: How to Get What You Need From the People in Charge,” I talk about how the people who get promoted fastest don’t treat one-on-ones as a status report. The highest performers use this time to connect their work to business impact and to uncover stretch projects they wouldn’t hear about otherwise. 

Leaders promote people who don’t need to be managed and who’ve proven they’re already operating at a more senior level. Here are five phrases to use in your one-on-ones that will change how your boss sees you and the opportunities that come your way. 

Open by walking through what you’ve accomplished since your last meeting and why it matters. This lets you highlight wins and prevents the conversation from getting derailed by whatever is top of mind for your boss. What you share here is often passed up the chain, making it easier to gain visibility with decision-makers.

Try this: Skip vague status updates and link your work to business outcomes. Instead of “We’re reaching out to new clients,” say, “We contacted eight prospects last week and have three demos scheduled, keeping us on track for our Q2 goal.” 

Even a 30-minute one-on-one can double as a focused problem-solving session. This phrase positions you as a partner to your manager, not just someone who takes orders. It shows you’re thinking critically about challenges and taking initiative to solve them, which is the kind of behavior that gets people promoted. 

Try this: Don’t bring a problem without sharing what you’ve already tried or the options you’re weighing. Instead of, “I have no idea how to handle this team conflict,” say, “There’s been some miscommunication with the marketing team. I’ve tried [X] and I’m considering [Y] next, but I’d love your take before I move forward.” 

Most people only talk about their own work in one-on-ones. Turn the tables and ask what’s happening at your boss’s level and above. This gives you insight into priorities, pressures, and changes that could affect your work before they trickle down and surprise you. When you engage in a thoughtful conversation about strategy and the things leaders care most about, you set yourself apart from peers. 

Try this: Ask what your boss has coming up or what initiatives are on the horizon, then offer to assist. You could say, “I know you have a lot on your plate. Are there projects where it’d be helpful to have me step in to lighten the load?” Or, “I’d be happy to attend that meeting in your place so you can be heads-down on other priorities.” It’s a win-win: You help manage their workload while gaining exposure to growth assignments.

Your promotion isn’t decided at your performance review. It’s decided in the months leading up to it. This phrase is a subtle but powerful way to make it known that you’re interested in — and ready for — additional responsibilities. 

Try this: If your boss mentions a new direction for the company, you might say, “Great to hear we’re expanding. How are we approaching regulatory issues? I’d love to contribute on the compliance side.” Or use it after positive feedback: “Thanks, I enjoyed working on the program. I’m looking to take on more work in that area.”

Ending one-on-ones with a noncommittal, “Sounds good, talk next week,” is how things fall through the cracks. You’ll end up frustrated that your manager doesn’t follow through. Instead, close with accountability. Summarize what each of your action items are. 

Try this: If your boss agrees to do something, get specifics. Ask, “Is Wednesday doable?” or, “Can I count on having that by Friday?”

Melody Wilding, LMSW is an executive coach, human behavior professor, and author of ”Managing Up: How to Get What You Need from the People in Charge.” Get her free training, 5 Steps to Speak Like a Senior Leader, here. 

Want to get ahead at work with AI? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course, Beyond the Basics: How to Use AI to Supercharge Your Work. Learn advanced AI skills like building custom GPTs and using AI agents to boost your productivity today. 

When my wife and I got married 23 years ago, I earned roughly three times as much. I worked two full-time jobs and was the primary earner in our household.

Today, that dynamic has intentionally reversed. My wife earns about five times more than I do.

Our situation isn’t unusual. Income roles are more fluid than they were a few decades ago. In the 1970s, men were far more likely to be the sole or primary breadwinners. Dual-income households are now the norm, and women are increasingly out-earning their partners.

As a financial counselor who works primarily with couples, I’ve seen firsthand that we all have different financial realities. What feels fair in one relationship may not work in another.

Still, one thing has remained constant in our marriage: We’ve always managed our money together through joint accounts — and our relationship is stronger because of it. What’s hers is mine, and what’s mine is hers. Here’s why.

From the beginning, we approached money the same way we approached marriage: as a shared project.

With joint accounts, there’s no mental math about whose income covers which expense. Our lives are intertwined, and our financial system reflects that reality.

Research supports this approach. Studies show that couples who use joint bank accounts, particularly engaged and newly married couples, tend to experience greater relationship satisfaction over time. They also report fewer conflicts about money and feel more confident about how household finances are handled.

Much of the work that keeps a household running, like caregiving and domestic labor, doesn’t come with a paycheck. That doesn’t make it any less real.

We decided early on that assigning line-item dollar values to each contribution would invite scorekeeping and create unhealthy power dynamics. When money starts to represent status or control, tension follows.

Dividing finances strictly by income can also breed resentment, especially when one partner’s work inside the home enables the other’s earning power outside it.

On average, women still have less leisure time than men and spend more hours on caregiving and household management, even when they earn more. When one partner consistently has less rest, flexibility or downtime, frustration tends to build.

A fair financial system should account for the full picture of work and recovery, not just what shows up on a pay stub.

People’s relationships with money are shaped by financial trauma, family norms, past relationships and cultural expectations. Because of that, a single “right” system doesn’t exist for every couple.

For example, couples entering second marriages may feel more comfortable keeping some finances separate. Partners with very different spending styles may benefit from a hybrid setup: a joint account for shared expenses like housing, childcare and utilities, paired with smaller personal accounts for discretionary spending.

I’ve hosted many conversations with national experts about the challenges and opportunities that come with changing income roles. When earning dynamics shift, relationships can feel destabilized.

Earning is closely tied to identity, security and control. Acknowledging the discomfort that can accompany these changes makes a big difference.

Many couples experience these transitions quietly. Women who earn more may feel pressure to overcompensate at home. Men may struggle with anxiety tied to relevance or economic security. When traditional roles flip, unspoken tension around pride, power and equity can surface.

How you split your money matters far less than whether your system reflects mutual respect, shared responsibility and honest communication. 

This was what worked for us. Our tension around money has mostly originated from having three kids, getting married with no money to begin with, being financial opposites, and for most of our marriage, sending our children to very expensive private schools.

Income will rise and fall. Careers will change. Life will throw curveballs. What holds a marriage together is a shared understanding that both partners’ contributions count, regardless of what shows up on a paycheck. 

Brian Page is the founder of Modern Husbands, a company dedicated to helping couples manage both financial and home responsibilities as a team. He holds a master’s degree in education and is certified as both an Accredited Financial Counselor® and a Fair Play Certified® domestic labor specialist.

Want to get ahead at work with AI? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course, Beyond the Basics: How to Use AI to Supercharge Your Work. Learn advanced AI skills like building custom GPTs and using AI agents to boost your productivity today.

This story is part of CNBC Make It’s Millennial Money series, which examines how people earn, spend and save their money.

Charly Stoever is staying put. Well, sort of.

The 35-year-old financial coach has lived in Portland, Oregon, since August — but you’re unlikely to find them at a particular address for more than a few weeks.

Stoever, who uses they/them pronouns (but also answers to he and “papi”), has spent the past 18 months working remotely while booking a steady string of in-home pet-sitting gigs in lieu of renting their own place.

For someone like Stoever — an animal lover who has had their share of tricky roommate experiences — the lifestyle comes with some obvious upsides, a major one being not having to pay for housing costs, including rent.

But more importantly, Stoever says it affords them the ability to do what they want, when they want. In April, when they picked up and embarked on a monthslong tour of Europe, working and pet sitting along the way, there was no manager to report to or time off to ask for.

“I am my own boss. I am the first trans, Latinx boss I’ve ever had and will ever have,” Stoever tells CNBC Make It. “So that’s the best part, being able to call the shots and have the freedom that I’m already accessing.”

In 2025, Stoever traveled to 10 countries while running their business, Traveler Charly Money Coaching, through which they provide clients guidance for paying down debt, building credit and saving for retirement. Six months of private money coaching, which includes biweekly hourlong calls, costs $6,000.

Last year, the business brought in a little less than $60,000. Stoever takes home less than that after business expenses and taxes, but supplements their income with the occasional paid pet-sitting gig (most of the ones they take are in exchange for free accommodation) and performances at a queer burlesque.

Stoever says that working as a pet sitter in exchange for living rent-free allows them to treat themselves now while working toward a secure financial future. It’s the same balance they hope to help clients achieve through their coaching.

“I wanted to give back to my community and help people like me who were LGBT, BIPOC, first-gen, trans people [and] estranged from family,” they say, using an acronym for Black, Indigenous and people of color. “I wanted them all to feel that sense of relief that future me is set up. Future me is good.”

Stoever first looked into pet sitting in 2022, when they had moved back to the U.S. from Mexico (they hold dual citizenship) and were crashing with friends.

“I said, ‘Well, I don’t have to stay with my friend. I’m not tied to this place. So let me just start pet sitting and seeing what happens,’” Stoever says. “And in 2022, I made $4,000 in three months pet sitting through Rover,” an app that connects pet owners with professional sitters and walkers.

At the time, it felt like a win-win, says Stoever. They got paid, and families taking long trips away from home knew their pet was being cared for.

Stoever started to consider full-time pet sitting when they relocated to the Pacific Northwest in 2024.

“I just started looking at apartment prices as a single person who has had horrible roommate experiences over and over, and I was like, ‘I need my own space, but I hate living alone. I love the companionship of animals.’”

Paid gigs were difficult to come by on a consistent basis, though, they found. So Stoever signed up with TrustedHousesitters, a networking site where pet owners and sitters pay an annual fee to list a profile. Other than that, little to no money changes hands.

Stoever spends a couple hours a week managing upcoming pet sits, generally booking stays one or two months in advance.

“Usually I’ll look out for one-week, two-week, three-week … six-month-long sits are chef’s kiss because I don’t have to move around as much,” Stoever says.

For the few days in a given month when they don’t have a pet-sitting gig, Stoever says they will typically travel to see friends, book a local hotel room or plan a quick getaway, such as a weekend ski trip in the winter.

Of course, some travels are more intentional. Last February, Stoever found a pet-sitting gig in Alaska during the Iditarod. Their spring travels in Europe included a 10-day stay with a “bougie” orange cat in downtown Paris — a gig that Stoever says was so competitive it felt like applying to Harvard.

“It was unpaid, but it was still worth it because I got to save thousands of dollars on an Airbnb,” Stoever says. “And the cherry on top of that was that I got to see Beyoncé perform in Paris on Jay-Z night at the Stade de France. Pet sitting has allowed me to unlock so many core memories that I’m so grateful for.”

Stoever’s itinerant lifestyle means that they have to keep some things pretty simple. Pretty much everything they own fits in a 50-pound suitcase and another carry-on suitcase, which typically houses work stuff, like their laptop, tablet, notebooks, keyboard and other tech.

Stoever travels with clothes for all climates, from booty shorts to ski jackets. And because they like to dress stylishly, given the space limitations, adding cool new clothes often means that something else has to go.

“If there’s something that I haven’t touched or worn, bye bye. We don’t have time to wonder about if I should donate this old pair of jeans,” Stoever says. “If they don’t fit me anymore because I’m eating too many delicious croissants in France, then we’re donating those jeans and moving on.”

With no rent and little space for things, what does Stoever spend money on? Here’s how things broke down in November 2025.

• Dining: $618 on food, coffee and drinks out
• Health and wellness: $550 on massage, nail, salon and pharmacy costs
• Groceries: $338
• Discretionary: $328 on apparel, travel, entertainment and miscellaneous expenses
• Hotels: $222
• Transportation: $203 on ridesharing and public transport
• Subscriptions and memberships: $55 for Spotify, Netflix and a gym membership
• Phone: $25

The biggest piece of the budget is food. Stoever says they typically cook most of their meals, sticking to an organic and “vegan-ish” diet to help keep some chronic health issues at bay.

Stoever is happy to go out too, either to grab a bite with friends or to partake in Portland’s rich queer scene.

“I’ll meet up with friends, go to salsa classes, perform at burlesque strip nights, take a transmasc pole dancing class,” Stoever says. “There’s so much to do all the time in Portland, which is why I love sitting out here.”

Another major line item: self-care. Stoever tends to get at least one massage a week — two or three if things are particularly stressful.

One expense that’s conspicuously missing is insurance. Stoever let coverage lapse when they went abroad, and had failed to pick up a policy in November. Soon after, a blood clot sent them to the emergency room — an incident that was personally and financially stressful, but that could have been worse.

“Immediately after this happened, I got back on health insurance,” in the form of Medicaid, they say. “That was just a very hard lesson for me to learn that I feel like more people should know about, because there is a lot of shame in saying, ‘I’m uninsured right now,’ and there shouldn’t be.”

Stoever is keenly aware of the balance between present and future health and happiness. Despite having many irons in the fire — in addition to coaching and pet sitting, they host a podcast and promote their business on social media — Stoever generally works 40 to 50 hours a week and tries to wrap up each workday by about 2 p.m.

“It’s more self-care. I like to get massages every week. I cook most of my meals, I might go out to dinner, and since I’m single and with no dependents, it’s really up to me to take care of my emotional and mental health,” they say.

The future version of Stoever is getting taken care of, too.

“Not having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in rent a year has allowed me to put my retirement savings into overdrive,” Stoever says. “As somebody who still pays myself less than $45,000 this year alone, I’ve invested about $13,500.”

Stoever’s net worth currently stands at about $225,000, the vast majority of which is held in a mix of tax-advantaged and taxable investment accounts.

Each January, Stoever makes a maximum contribution to a Roth IRA and plunks another chunk of cash in a solo 401(k). A brokerage account acts as a hybrid retirement and cash account, with Stoever occasionally selling stocks to raise cash. They also maintain an emergency fund worth about $15,000.

The goal, eventually, is to get to “work optional” — a lifestyle with the flexibility to put investment income toward funding some or all expenses.

“The more you invest, the more you can say no to things and decide, ‘Do I want to work because it fills my cup or because I physically need the money to pay for my bills now, or to fund my retirement?’” Stoever says. “For me, being work optional and being on the trajectory of retiring early means doing a lot more outsourcing than I am now.”

In the meantime, Stoever is focusing on building their financial coaching business. Eventually, they say they’d like to add multiple coaches to their team and teach group classes. They could even see themselves having a TV show, like “Queer Eye” but for personal finance.

And while Portland feels like home for now, don’t expect to see Stoever signing a lease anytime soon.

“I keep waiting until the moment where I just say, ‘I’m so tired of living out of a suitcase and having so many options, and the world being my oyster,’” Stoever says. “Right now, it doesn’t feel urgent or romantic to be stuck in an apartment.”

What’s your budget breakdown? Share your story with us for a chance to be featured in a future installment.

Want to get ahead at work with AI? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course, Beyond the Basics: How to Use AI to Supercharge Your Work. Learn advanced AI skills like building custom GPTs and using AI agents to boost your productivity today.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday reiterated his push to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes, arguing that Wall Street firms have crowded out would-be homebuyers.

“You have these big companies, these big corporations, buying up thousands of homes and renting them or doing whatever they do with them,” Trump told CNBC’s Joe Kernen in an interview in Davos, Switzerland. “Some of them are flipping them for a big profit, but it got to be too much. We want people to be able to buy a home.”

Trump’s comments followed an executive order he signed Tuesday directing federal agencies to curb institutional investor activity in the single-family housing market.

The order gives the Treasury Department 30 days to define “large institutional investor” and “single-family home,” and directs federal agencies to issue guidance within 60 days to implement restrictions, including limits on acquisitions and the sale of federally owned single-family homes to institutional investors.

However, housing analysts remain skeptical, saying a lack of affordability is being driven far more by a lack of supply than by investor demand.

While Trump said Wednesday that institutional investors are “gobbling up all the homes,” they make up only a small share of the U.S. housing market. Firms that own 100 or more single-family homes control roughly 2% of the nation’s single-family housing stock, according to John Burns Research and Consulting.

In theory, widespread and growing corporate homebuying could drive up prices and make it tougher for families to elbow their way into a competitive housing market. However, the share of home purchases by institutional investors has declined from its pandemic peak, falling from about 3% in the first quarter of 2023 to closer to 1% a year later, as higher interest rates cooled investor activity, John Burns Research and Consulting’s data shows.

“The real problem is that we’ve added far more households than we’ve built single-family homes,” Jay Parsons, an analyst who tracks rental housing and development trends, tells CNBC Make It. “It’s all about supply and demand.”

Limiting investor demand does not add new homes to the market, and many housing economists say affordability will not improve without a significant increase in supply. Analysts at Goldman Sachs Research estimate the U.S. would need millions of additional homes above current construction levels to meaningfully ease price pressures.

In markets where institutional investors are most concentrated, analysts say their impact on prices and rents appears limited. A 2024 analysis by Parsons found that many of the most investor-saturated markets posted rent growth below the U.S. average, a pattern he linked to higher levels of housing construction.

“Institutional investors are just not the main market movers,” says Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute. “It’s mainly a supply issue.”

Want to get ahead at work with AI? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course, Beyond the Basics: How to Use AI to Supercharge Your Work. Learn advanced AI skills like building custom GPTs and using AI agents to boost your productivity today.

When a child is upset, most parents reach for the same question instinctively: “What’s wrong?”

It’s well-intentioned and it comes from care. But after years of teaching conscious parenting and studying over 200 kids, I’ve seen how often that question does the opposite of what parents hope. Instead of opening children up, it can shut them down.

Emotional intelligence develops when children feel safe enough to reflect. Without that foundation, even the most caring questions can feel overwhelming in the moment.

Across my research, one sentence reliably helped children pause, reflect, and communicate more openly: “Tell me what feels hard right now.”

This magic phrase works because it matches how children actually experience emotions in real life. Rather than pushing for clarity or explanations, it creates the conditions where insight can emerge naturally.

During meltdowns, after-school emotional releases, or moments of sudden irritability, children are already on edge. The word “hard” feels human and non-threatening. It signals to your child that they aren’t in trouble and don’t need to justify their feelings, making it easier to stay engaged instead of shutting down or pushing back.

Children don’t need to label emotions precisely. They can describe a situation, a sensation, or a moment that felt overwhelming. Over time, this gently expands emotional language, allowing insight to develop naturally rather than being forced before a child has the words.

Before problem-solving, before advice, before correction, this phrase tells a child: “I can handle what you’re feeling.” Emotional intelligence grows in welcoming environments where emotions are met with steadiness instead of urgency.

Rather than demanding an explanation, this question invites reflection. The child decides how much to share and when, reinforcing a sense of agency over their emotional experience, which is an essential foundation for self-regulation and confidence.

When children feel emotionally safe, their stress response begins to settle. This phrase is especially effective when behavior feels disproportionate or confusing because it prioritizes regulation before reasoning.

By focusing on what feels hard, parents communicate that emotions can be noticed without being rushed or fixed. It teaches kids that feelings can be experienced and moved through rather than avoided or suppressed.

Children learn emotional intelligence through experience, not instruction. When parents respond with calm curiosity instead of control or urgency, they model how to approach emotions with steadiness and reflection. These are skills children eventually apply to themselves.

Our job as parents is to create an environment where our children feel safe sharing their inner worlds. When you adjust your language, you shape the emotional tone of your relationship. Over time, children learn that their feelings are important signals that deserve attention.

Reem Raouda is a leading voice in conscious parenting and the creator of the BOUND and FOUNDATIONS journals, now offered together as her Emotional Safety Bundle. She is widely recognized for her expertise in children’s emotional well-being and for redefining what it means to raise emotionally healthy kids. Connect with her on Instagram.

Want to give your kids the ultimate advantage? Sign up for CNBC’s new online course, How to Raise Financially Smart Kids. Learn how to build healthy financial habits today to set your children up for greater success in the future.