Should we be educating young people about the danger of financial vulnerability?

[Brefugee]

Don't want this to be a TAAT but there is one running right now that is quite shocking.

Do we have a responsibility to young people - maybe in secondary school as part of their (what is it? PHSE?) lessons to learn or show how things like "common law marriage" don't actually exist? And that it is sensible to try to be as watertight as you can regarding finances both out of and within a relationship? And that leaving yourself open to poverty in your later years because you believed your partner wouldn't dump you (and children) without a penny?

How can we cut down on this happening?

It's a no brainer

💯 per cent should be raising awareness about being financially savyness skills the pitfalls to know about and try and avoid etc,

need to be real about things like that topic in more ways than one this
a lot sooner when there in school so much better,
than after the horse 🐎 is bolted ect metaphor...
Funny enough i was thinking about this subject a while ago...

I will make sure my sons see a family lawyer before they get married so they fully understand the financial implications if they subsequently get divorced.

I agree with PPs that school is too early and kids won't really listen. Even if they listen in the moment, they won't remember it.

A public education campaign would work better. Possibly even aimed at 20-30 year olds who are in the prime 'getting married' stage of life. Or even educating parents to pass the message down.

I definitely think it needs to be promoted more, probably not at school as like PP's have said teens will think it's irrelevant for them at that time.

However, I see so many friends moving into their partner's homes and wanting to have kids without marriage etc. and I try gently to mention protecting themselves/being careful but get lots of "he would never do that" or "he's not the type to leave me" type naivety. I say that as someone who also thought this way in my 20s and then my world came crashing down, and I think sadly a lot of people just don't believe it will happen to them until it does.

Actually teaching this sort of thing in schools could cause more harm than good because governments, laws and legislations change. You can educate a 15 year old on the current rules as it stands today but those rules might not apply in 15 years time when it actually becomes applicable to them but they might mistakenly think they do.

We’d be much better off teaching kids critical thinking skills so they can navigate life better informed.

There aren't any British Values lessons it's cross curricular.

I think education about money can only be a good thing. This should include budgeting, information on cumulative interest, the impact of inflation, pensions and how marriage and divorce will impact finances. I think women in particular need to be aware of the perils of having a child whilst unmarried and be aware that having a child is likely to impact a woman's earning potential, even if they think it won't.

Personally I think that the emphasis doesn't necessarily need to be on financial autonomy/independence within a relationship but can also include ensuring financial equality with pooled finances and making sure that individuals are relatively future proofed if the worst was to happen. This doesn't only need to encompass divorce but also illness and death so things like life insurance should also be included. There also needs to be much more knowledge about financial abuse and control and the early signs of this.

I read this article earlier today. Given that schools are saying that 25% of children are starting school and are not toilet trained I think schools have more than enough to be doing from 4 year olds upwards.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/primary-school-children-toilet-covid-skills-teachers-b2503858.html

Tbh I think we need a complete mind set change to encourage women never to allow anyone else to prioritise their career abd ability to generate financial income at their own expense.

How we do that I don’t know for several reasons. One being the frog in the pot - it’s fine for a while and you forget the situation is getting worse in terms of your own ability to earn, your pension contributions, your right to assets as the person in work accrues them abd you benefit from them (eg living in a house you have no claim in). The other one being the depressing fact that I got my are handed to me on a plate on here once when I said we really should expect more of men only to be told repeatedly any man was better than no man pretty much and if women wanted a relationship and family there weren’t enough men who are decent human beings to go around. Also the rose tinted glasses when you fall in love that make pretty much all of us a bit irrational for a while at least.

Wuth regards how we get the realities out there though, it’s obvious we can’t rely on parents to explain the practicalities when many of them aren’t aware themselves surely? The public service tv ads sounds a good idea!

I know schools are overloaded already but I think the issue with saying it's parents' responsibility is that often the kids who most need teaching about relationships, finances etc are the ones whose parents are least equipped to teach them.

Maybe there should be the equivalent of the theory test for your driving licence before you can get married (doesn't solve the issue of unmarried partners not understanding their rights tho)?

Yes we should be. More should be taught about practical lessons for life.

I’m a teacher and we do teach this as part of wider financial literacy. Although I do think it’s the parents’ responsibility - along with ensuring one’s child is potty trained by the time they go to school, neurodivergence or disability aside of course. When I teach PSHE to my tutor group, I’m pretty surprised that many teens have apparently never had a conversation about pretty basic fundamentals in financial literacy among other things with their family.

(doesn't solve the issue of unmarried partners not understanding their rights tho)?

The other side of a right is a responsibility, so maybe more time should be spent teaching that?

Not my experience although I agree to an extent. I teach in an affluent area but had the opposite kind of upbringing. I knew far, far more - taught by my parents. We definitely didn’t have the MC conversations around the dinner table.

I think the bigger issue needs to be addressed as a society because it is almost always women who are left financially vulnerable and it is almost always due to the fact that society sees women as the primary caregiver.

Ultimately, nothing is going to change as long as we live in a sexist society.

No. If women choose to have children and remain as SAHM that is their choice and not because society is sexist.

But the parents don't know this stuff, that's the point.

I think we need some public adverts on this, like they used to do about AIDS, domestic violence etc. the misconceptions around this leave individuals in poverty and those costs are picked up by the state. Poverty is one of the main causes of poor health.

leaving it to schools is not good enough, actioned is needed now and it’s people aged 16+ who need to know.

Everyone is influenced by society to a certain extent. There's a reason why more women are SAHM's, more women go part time if they do go back to work, why a gender pay gap exists etc.

But it's clear that far too many women don't know this, so I agree that this does need to be covered. If parents don't know how are the children going to?

I know which thread the OP is referring to. It is depressingly sad. There are far too many similar threads on mumsnet from women who have put themselves in a vulnerable position.

Schools already do cover a lot through the financial education that they deliver in PSHE, Maths, etc.

However, the idea of promoting the message of being individually watertight and considering future negative situations and their effect on you, etc. might not have the effect you're after. For the higher earner in a relationship, whether male or female, getting married is almost always a net financial negative, particularly if the marriage breaks apart in the future. You'd be potentially discouraging higher earners from entering into marriages in the first place because the financially safer thing for them to do could be to not share finances, ownership, bills etc.

No. If women choose to have children and remain as SAHM that is their choice and not because society is sexist.

For every person I know, that choice was directly dictated by finance. Whose income would matter less if it was lost or decreased (many people don't earn enough for childcare).
As women begin to earn more in general, I have seen more fathers take up childcare roles in place of employment (so maybe dropping to PT or compressed hours).

Incidentally many people are also not in the position of choosing whether or when they can have children.

I would have been in a far better position if that had been known and predictable.

I can't understand how people can't work this out for themselves. I am married and decided to become a sahm and was telling my friends how it's hard to get your head around being so financially vulnerable. And they were saying don't be worrying I'm married I'm entitled to half the assets. I was like yeah that's great but I've no salary, I've a gap in my cv and once we're split his obligation to me ends. They were only seeing the assets split. (Also to be clear everything with dh is split 50:50 in terms of leisure time and financially- so currently I'm not financially vulnerable but I'm aware that if we split I would be)

That poster didn't mention SAHM. They said primary care giver. Which is true and makes you and your full time job still financially vulnerable as you're supporting yourself and your children including childcare off one salary.