To resent my husband for not making enough money?

[Mummy252]

I'm on maternity leave with our first baby, love being a mummy so much and I do love my husband to bits but I am also feeling very resentful towards him.
We've been together 10yrs since we were very young, he's from a good family and works for the family business, has since we met. His family are financially comfortable, mums a "lady that lunches" and has never worked.
We always planned for me to work but also wanted a family. With the recession etc his business isn't doing too well but it hasn't stopped his parents going on 6 holidays a year whilst he continues to work 6/7 days a week and earns half what I do. A lot if the income is from dividends and his dad and grandparents still own 90% of the shares, he has 3%. He says there's nothing they can do its hard for all of them but I am hugely resentful that I'm having to go back to work full time and leave my gorgeous baby because his parents won't give him a fair share of the business. His mum saw all her children grow up, I'm happy to work and understand this recession has hit lots of ppl but I just feel cheated because I always expected him to at least match what I earned,not have me as the major breadwinner. I want to be a mummy like we always planned and ideally go back 3 days a week but I can't because of our financial situation.
He doesn't see why it upsets me because he works 50-60 hour weeks and has about 3 weeks holiday a year whereas I'm a teacher get long holidays etc. he does work very hard but financially he isn't bringing in anything like we expected so I feel a lot of the financial burden has fallen to me.
I know we live in an equal society but I want to be a mummy, I don't want equality, I want time with my little baby!

Coming from a farming background I think this is the norm for a family business, you suck it up on minimum money for around the first 20 years and then you begin to reap the rewards. I'm not saying it is right, but it is the way it is.
For the record I am sucking it up in my family business and will reap my rewards in about 5 to 10 years, I've already put in 14 years and around £250,000.

People are guessing that the DH hopes to inherit / come into a lot more of the business later on. OP hasn't said that though and we don't know how many siblings there are or even if his family might do something odd and leave it to the cats home or anything.

More likely the DH just enjoys his work and working with his family for the family business and having worked there all his life would find looking for alternative work just too scary?

Possible anyway.

sardine, the OP said
He believes he will get his share in the future when the previous generation retire

Oh whoops missed that! Soz.

It could be all he is worth to the business at this stage is the £20k he is earning. I cant see where the op states what type of business it is or what sort of work her oh does but if he is an unskilled labourer then being the owners son wont make a blind bit of difference to his pay.

On the other hand he could be skilled and bringing extra value to the business in which case he would have a strong case for wanting a larger wage or going elsewhere.

Very good points LydiaWickham - and perhaps if DH sees a way of him getting the benefit of spending more time with the children instead of just making the sacrifice of his little treats and the OP getting to spend more time with them, he might be more open to doing it. It also confirms the fact that the OP isn't a lazy freeloader who wants to play house, but is willing to make the same sacrifice which she's asking of her husband in working full-time whilst he gets to stay at home - which to my mind makes it a completely fair equation.

I'm also willing to bet that given the choice of being a SAHD or asking for clarification on the payments from his family's business, he'll start to see sense...

As well as your budgets OP, why not do a NPV calculation of his inheritance. It may not be worth all that much if its a long way off on current depreciation rates, never mind assigning a probability of the business failing before DH gets his share.

I entirely agree cantspell. The bottom line is, if he's worth more to the business, then the Fil won't want to lose him. If he isn't, then tbh he's going to have to wake up to that harsh reality. Either way, the op knew the situation when she got together with him, she has accepted being the major earner by a long way all these years. It's unrealistic to blame him suddenly for not earning more. And to return to the actual OP - if you read the title it is about actually wanting him to earn more money. Thats hardly fair- unless he is seriously under selling himself. I do think it's quite reasonable to expect him to cut back on spending though- and indeed he will have to, with the additional burden of childcare costs. The op does come across as quite resentful that the PIL had certain lifestyle which isn't available to her , but resentment is just pointless and negative. This is borne out in her comment that the grandparents passed on a much bigger share of the business to the inlaws when they were relatively young, and enabled them to have a lavish lifestyle, and she therefore cant see why the inlaws don't do their children the same favour. That's a naive view though. Maybe the business situation isn't exactly as Good as she thinks it is. Also, the inlaws may view her as a very capable professional woman who doesn't need propping up. Every situation is different and ultimately no one has a 'right' to anything job- wise. You are free to take your skillset to whoever will pay you most and give you the best conditions.

Assume that OPs husband is paid a minimum wage threshold so as not to attract employer contributions, and the rest in dividends. That means the family business is probably making a profit of £400k or more a year. This is supporting three generations. Perhaps four families, if DH has a sibling in the business...?

Now in bad times this could come down significantly. Even if DH owned, say, 10% of the business, he would at max get £50k as salary and dividends, and it could go down to £30k, if the business halved. Not that much income to support a family.

OP, it seems your job has the higher income path, and you need to consider carefully whether going part-time will jeopardize your career and the future financial security of your family.

I know a few people who own/work for family busineses, I would summarise the Fam Biz owners' mindset as follows:

1. The business is the Most Important Thing, it is My Baby. Anything that the Business needs me to do to help it survive is justifiable

1. I worked damned hard and now its up and running I deserve my success, and spending money on me makes me happy so is a Good Thing for the Business

1. The Workers are just drones employees. All surplus must be returned to Me. All capital spending is to be Viewed With Extreme Suspicion as it reduced My Dividend.

1. If I can get others to subsidise the business in any way (eg crap salaries so that spouses have to work as well) then That Is Good!

1. Giving away Equity is Anathema! This business is my pension. Over My Dead Body will i give up control. Give as little as possible, and as late as possible, even to Family. (OP you may want to look at who owns what, and where control is in the business. I'd bet Grandparents still have control, but handing over much more to DH would dilute that too much)

Now, I have seen family members both overpaid and underpaid, there doesn't seem to be economic logic involved, so it may be that all DH here has to do is ask for £12k more pa because the Dear Grandkids are arriving, and it will happen.

Going part-time is quite normal for teachers, and in my experience if they have got as far as the OP has it will do her career no long term harm. 3 days a week is a minimum often to be considered for promotion, 4 days is absolutely fine. Even leaving teaching for a few years as long as they try to keep up with changes is usually seen as fine.
I think the title is more provocative than it needed to be, but if they are all prepared to tighten their belts then there is no reason why the OP can't go part time. Yes she may feel her DH is being taken for a bit of a ride by his family, working such long hours for so little reward.

They also have to plan their finances better, because anythign could happen. What if this child is ill for a period of time? What if it has a SEN and needs more support as it get older? Lots of us know how much life just doesn't pan out simply, and a lot changes when you have a baby.

I dont understand why you think MIL should start sharing the money from the business that she and her husband own, with their children just because you'd like some of it!
It's really theirs and up to them as to how they spend it or divide it up. You mention your DH is not really skilled or qualified to work elsewhere so at least you are lucky that he presumably has some job security, unlike most of the rest of us! Just because your MIL has (and had) some luxuries like being able to stay at home or go to lunch, go on holidays etc, I dont see why you think you should have the same. Some of us earn (much) more than our husbands. I do. When we met though our earnings were the same. I dont know begrudge him for not keeping up!

ladydeedy the OP is not wanting her DH's parents' money. She is happy to have less money so she can spend time with her child.

It's her DH who's the problem pissing away their money, pretending he's earning it, and saying she can't go part-time because then it'd be obvious he's not the main earner.

I haven't read all 6 pages of this thread, so someone may have made this point.

I'm not sure why the DH needs to have much of a say in whether the OP cuts her hours to three days a week. OP says this will leave them with enough money to live on, but it means her DH giving up some luxuries. It would be different if it left them and their child on the breadline, but that's not the case.

I'd just put in the flexible working request and tell him I'm going back to work PT.

The ball is then in his court - he can either cut his spending on luxuries or ask for a wage rise.

One other thing that puzzles me is how he had a private education but managed to emerge without any transferable qualifications or skills?

The OP doesn't want her DH to stay at home with the baby! She wants more time with the baby herself, and I don't blame her. He is clearly happy with his working hours.

OP, I think you should do what your mum says regarding the money. It's ridiculous that he's buying himself expensive cars etc when he's earning £20,000. That is a very low salary for such long working hours - what would happen if he left the job? Surely they'd have to employ two people, or at least 1.5 people to do the job?

Are you happy with this man, OP? He sounds very selfish to me.

no, she might not want her DH to stay at home, but it might just be the shock he needs to see that economically, they'd be better off if he resigned and was a stay at home parent. He might be doing the longer hours, but he's bringing in less money so he's not the main breadwinner and his isn't the 'priority career'.

But also, if the OP does go part time, it might be better for them as a family for her DH to work part time as well and be off when she's at work rather than her part time, him fulltime and paying a nursery/nanny to cover the hours she works.

Imperial blether
you are missing a point here
DH is not on a salary. he is not an employee trying to justify his existance to a boss.
He is a shareholder (albeit a minority one) who has ambitions to get a much bigger stake in this business.

MIL may well be under the delusion that you are a career girl - saying to her friends oh my DILs are not like me thay want to be back at work full time when the opposite is the case.

Can you speak to your MIL at all perhaps on the pretext of sorting childcare eg is she likely to want to do some childcare?

Talk openly at family events - we went to see a nursery to day it costs £9,000 a year. We are considering all options. Your IL's may be astounded at the cost.

Don't sort childcare on your own - it is a joint decision-DH will need to see options with you. The stark reality may hit home of his baby being there 8-6, 5 days a week (especially as he had a SAHM) and he will hear first hand policies such as pick up by 6pm or £x fine for every 15 mins.

You will at least need to know what the company's family policies are - do they offer flexible working, sabbatical, computersharevouchers towards childcare.

Let us know what you decide to do.

I think there are several issues here OP:

Firstly your DH does sound as though he feels entitled to things regardless of the fact that he cannot afford to fund them, such as the cars and the holidays. He needs to realise that if he wants these things it isn't up to you to provide the money for them and he needs to find ways of earning the money himself, whether that's getting more qualifications and subsequently a new job or earning more in his current job.

Secondly, I think it's coming across that he's being controlling insisting that you go back to work full time when you can earn the necessary income with you working only 3 days per week.

Thirdly, I think he needs to grow a pair and try and negotiate himself a new earnings deal with his family. Perhaps as he's willingly worked for 15 years for a low salary and done long hours without saying anything about it, they assume that he's happy with it. Perhaps they think that if he wasn't happy he would say.

Oh gosh- i would be just telling him this is how it will be- I will be going down to 3 days and we will need to cut our spending.
This is not negotiable- those baby days are so precious and you cannot get them back.
I feel so grateful my husband has not once suggested I go back to work- unless I want to- but I am the economiser in the family encouraging him not to but stuff on e bay we can do without- harder to do when it is not you earning the money to waste....!But we are not talking luxury cars- just things he takes a fancy to for the home!!?

OP, I just want to warn you that I have known quite a few people who have worked for virtually nothing for family businesses in the hope of future affluence. This worked fine when they were single but once they met their husband/wife and wanted to start a family the lack of income and time (particularly in businesses where other family members were living high on the hog and doing little work) soon became intolerable. In virtually every case the whole thing has ended in disaster when the worker partner requested a raise and/or more time off and either the business has broken up with great acrimony causing a huge family rift or the business was sold from under the nose of the poor sod who has flogged their guts out for years in the fond hope they would receive future recompense, leaving them with nothing. In fact I was engaged to someone where this happened once, he worked for £70 per week for years after being told he would be 'given' a house when he got married. When we were planning to get married we were told that we weren't actually being given the house it would still belong to his parents after all. As he and his father didn't really get on anyway I refused to live in a house his parents owned - particularly as I no longer trusted them - and wanted to take out a mortgage and buy our own house. When my fiance refused I realised he was completely deluded about what he would receive in the future so I broke off the engagement. A few years later his father sold the business and my ex ended up with nothing - no job and no house.

This is all quite apart from the fact that businesses fail all the time and there is no guarantee that the business will last long enough for your husband to reap the rewards he thinks are coming to him in the future.

OldMac, shareholders who work for an organisation still get a salary. Shareholding and being an employee are two entirely different things.

He owns 3% of the business and earns £20,000 pa. That's what I understood the OP to be saying, otherwise that £20,000 would fluctuate.

Have read first page, not everything but it's obvious this thread is mis-titled, the question is 'AIBU to ask my husband to stop spending my money on luxuries for himself, so enable me to spend more time with our baby?'

You've been extremely generous to date and funded your husband's luxuries without question. I wouldn't have done that. Letting him know that his subsidised play-time is over, or paused, because, while willing to play a part in supporting the family, you now have another priority in your life which will cost you earnings, is absolutely fine.

I think your mother is right. Everyone budgets differently, our joint account is for necessities only and all shared discretionary spending is discussed. We got together later, when both earning, you threw in your lot together early and pledged to make your way together come rain or shine, it is different but your husband is taking the piss - his sense of entitlement regardless of ability to pay is completely unreasonable.

Some practical questions occur e.g.

• do you both know the cost of childcare?
• does your husband earn more per hour than childcare costs? (looks like this has been opened up already, he may not want to work part time, nor you full but it's a potentially useful discussion).
• is there a reason your husband could not earn some qualifications, so improving his employability (or even his value as an employee to the family firm)?
• does your husband recognise that you spent years earning qualifications in order to secure a career and well-paid job, thus patently work is not 'all about hours', rather you had foresight? I'm not saying everyone has the ability to earn the same or you should rub his nose in this, and he'll think he showed longer-term foresight by working in the family firm but he must see that you put in a lot of unpaid hours earlier and are now reaping the reward.
• do either of you recognise looking after children as a job? How do those hours, for both of you, factor into his equation? If he's working 60 hour weeks you're going to be doing a lot of childcare on top of working, like it or not.

The taking him round nurseries suggestion above is good. Sounds like you need a wider discussion on parenting - what's important, how would you both like to do it, how will decisions be made. Good luck.

What about waiting until Xmas dinner with the in laws and throwing into the conversation that you are sad that you won't be able to afford to stay home with the baby but will be forced to go back to work full time. If the MIL stayed home with her babies, mightn't they be sympathetic to you wanting to do the same and maybe consider giving your dh a larger share of the business? It sounds like he deserves it with all the hours he works. Your in laws may just not be aware of the situation and that you don't want to be forced to go back full time.