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?

Wouldn’t it be better to teach the importance of financial independence and responsibility.

Too many people, mostly women, think they deserve financial security at someone else’s expense just for having children. It’s fine to teach about how to avoid becoming financially vulnerable as long as it’s balanced between both sex’s stereotypical positions but the basis of that should be that everyone has a responsibility to financially provide for themselves and their children, no one else.

@Brefugee of course it should be taught.
From a younger age at least when they are more open to listening...and different scenarios put to them to make it real.

We need to do far far more to support students financially with learning from an early age.

It's pretty obvious many many families are caught in a trap of ignorance.

@TinyYellow

I agree, it definitely needs to be taught both ways with boys being taught the issues around raising children and supporting them etc and flexible working is coming into law soon I believe that should help that balance.
Boys /men should definitely be taught, drummed in, if they bring a child into the world they must take total responsibility for it.
Re women it's tricky isn't it because giving birth and having a teeny human relying on you does of course make you vulnerable etc. Unfortunately by the very nature of reproduction surprises do happen.

All the education in the world won't change the Cinderella mindset of so many women. They think career progression, savings, pensions etc are irrelevant to them as their Prince will come along to keep them financially, and he will never leave her to fend for herself.

Look at this report on the BBC about women in South Korea. The birth rate has collapsed because having children puts women in a highly vulnerable situation in a “traditional” society that expects women to give up work when they have a child.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139

Whilst the situation is not quite the same as it is here (majority of children there are born to married couples), this is what can happen when women realise they’re being screwed by the system - good on them I say!

I always work this into Economics. And PHSE. And Careers. If you want to you can...

This is a good video. I last showed it to a mixed audience and I said everyone needs a running away fund. It saves you getting stuck in an awful job as well as an awful relationships.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ypsry

The toilet training thing is due to modern nappies in my opinion. I used cloth nappies and both of mine voluntarily gave them up before the age of 2.

I have a full time job and my own pension. I’m profoundly tired even with a fully interactive DH who takes on half of everything. I don’t want this kind of life for my DD. I want her to be able to spend time with her Dc like my mum did with me. My mum was a sahp who had time for actual hobbies.

We can’t rely on parents to teach this as too many of them are clueless.

There seems to be an awful lot we cannot rely on parents to do for their own children!

Whilst I don't think anyone is too young to learn financial responsibility. I do think teenagers are the wrong age group to learn this stuff as they believe it will never happen to them.

And how many put off starting a pension because they think it’s too far in the future to worry about. Assuming you are otherwise financially stable, one of the best things you can do is open a pension for your child. Paying in even small amounts from a very young age will compound massively over their lifetime, and the earlier they start paying in themselves the less they need to put away. If they get into the habit in their early 20s they can get away with putting away just 10% of their monthly income, but even if they can’t afford that in the early days something is better than nothing.

Funnily enough, I was talking about this, just today at the school I work in. We were saying that it would be so useful for children to understand bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, interest rates, savings etc.

I agree there should either be greater protection for couples who are not married but financially tangled and that there should be far more open discussions about the dangers of not marrying when you have children and also, avoiding marrying when you have significant assets and the other party doesn't. The law needs a complete overhaul either way. Scotland do it better!

I don't think they should be teaching about law and legislation, it's about how important it is earn your own money, how to support yourself and never rely on anyone to provide a life for you, I think that is the message that should be put forward.

And sure, schools and parents could bang on about this every single day but I think many women would still take the gamble because of the cost of childcare. (Fewer, yes, but even so.) Unfortunately, when the patriarchy means it’s the norm rather than the exception for men to earn more than their partner in heterosexual relationships, of course women might be the one to take the sacrifice. Not saying this is right.

The childcare situation has a lot to answer for. It is utterly shameful how it plays such a massive role in the gender gap when so many countries are doing it better. And when women make this sacrifice, all it does is inadvertently enable men to earn even more money knowing their family life is taken care of. It’s the most vicious cycle. But I think women get blamed for this far too often on here. But nothing new there. As if they take the decision to leave employment and play this Russian roulette lightly… I’m sure some do but I like to think most do not.

BTW, I say this as someone who took the risk and left a career for a few years so I’m really not one of the totally anti SAHM posters I often encounter here, who seem incapable of realising many feel compelled to become one. I fortunately didnt: I wanted to spend the early years with my DC.

I feel this way. They won’t listen. My sister in her 30s with 2 small children, unmarried and who is totally financially reliant on her (possibly cheating) DP won’t listen to me.

This isn’t a third world country with no safety nets, so people just assume the state will look after them if it all goes tits up and generally speaking they’re right. Costs the country a fortune and is in part the reason for our financial ruin.

It's a great idea in theory, but the chances are the audience you're trying to reach will go home, tell their cohabiting parents that they aren't "common law spouses", who will then tell them that it's all utter rubbish.

It's easy enough to look up online. It took me about three seconds: Debunking common law marriage - Swinburne Maddison.

As a younger woman I thought the battle for equality was won. I felt pretty much equal to men. Until I had kids. Then all sorts of things happened, which I didn’t expect, but which added up to DH earning more than me and me becoming the default parent. The result was that I lost out in a number of areas including pensions and career progression, and if we divorce I’ll be in a huge hole.

Kids need to be educated about what might happen, not only to protect them, but also to highlight these issues and hopefully prevent both men and women perpetuating these problems.

I think it’s a very educated middle class perspective to say that parents should teach their kids. Lots of parents don’t have the first clue - leaving them to teach their kids just perpetuates the inequality. The only way to address the outdated attitudes of previous generations is to teach better attitudes at school.

Its called life skills and is part of the education you receive in life from parents, friends, mentors, youth groups and so on.

the "rules" may change. But the law isn't going to change (around marriage and the responsibilities that brings when/if it breaks up) and the fact that women stopping their career for 20 years to be a home-maker as an unmarried unpropertied person are leaving themselves open to a hard and uncertain future.

Do you not realise what a privileged perspective this is? To assume that kids have access to parents and mentors who have this knowledge? To assume they have access to youth groups? The only way to promote equality is to teach the important things at school.

Even though it’s outdated my Mum used to say you don’t need a licence to have kids but you need one for a dog. This was when she was judging someone’s parenting and decision making.

She taught me about finances and to never rely on a man for money.

The bottom line is some people should not be parents but down that line lies eugenics and that’s not a road anyone should ever go down.

I agree with this. I think there is a danger that the better everyone understands the legal implications of marriage/civil partnership, the more there will be a conflict between those (mainly women) who will want the protection of marriage and those (mainly men) who won't want to provide it.

I often see higher earning women on here saying that they have no intention of marrying because they don't want to share their resources with their partner. Men have been doing that for years of course.

Boys /men should definitely be taught, drummed in, if they bring a child into the world they must take total responsibility for it.

No. They should be taught that they should take half of the responsibility for it. The child's mother should take the other half.

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

I don't agree with this either (in the UK at least). Obviously some people can't choose to have a baby, but in general the vast majority can choose not to. We have very good access to contraception and abortion here. I know that no contraception is 100% reliable but I suspect that the vast majority of accidental pregnancies are the result of carelessness.

The bottom line is some people should not be parents but down that line lies eugenics and that’s not a road anyone should ever go down.

I don't think it's eugenics as much as some people just are not equipped for parenthood. I know that I'm one of them and so decided that it was best for all concerned not to have children.

It’s in the pshe compulsory section about relationships.

People need to engage their own brains sometimes, schools have enough to do without needing to teach common-sense

Do people think any more? But parents can always parent