I've heard it all now, apparently it is selfish for someone to get a job if their husband earns a decent salary?

[iwantajob]

I am a regular but have namechanged because I think the people who had this conversation are perhaps mumsnetters and I'd rather not be identified especially as I overheard their conversation.

It went along these lines. A couple of mums were talking about someone else and how she's looking for work. They then commented that she doesn't need to find a job because her husband earns a decent wage and that actually for her to find a job is selfish because it takes away a job from someone who genuinely needs it. I was

I am currently looking for work and my dh earns a decent salary. But I have been at home for seven years and I am now ready to go back to work now my children are at school. Of course the job market is difficult at the moment and competition is tough. But are there really people who believe that if you already earn a decent amount of money then someone like me is selfish for wanting a job of my own?

If I get a job am I selfish because I have potentially taken that job away from someone who is in a lesser financial position than I am?

Of course YANBU.

Can't believe some people still think like that

There are plenty of people - obviously not just women - who could, in theory, "DO" a better paid job .... if those bloody jobs existed, and/or if those jobs fitted round available childcare, and/or if those jobs were actually "better paid" once travel costs and childcare had been deducted etc etc etc.

Very few "better qualified" people take on NMW jobs for the sheer fun of it, or to pay for fripperies. The vast majority of them take on whatever work they can find - be it NMW or not. Quite frankly if a better qualified person gets a NMW job then good luck to them. Just 'cos you've got a heap of qualifications and experience these days it doesn't mean you can't be made redundant and be in dire straits. Considering it's an employer's market right now and many of them (through need or greed) are cutting pay rates anyway, then you're often lucky to be considered at all if you appear to be able to do something "better" (notwithstanding the fact there are often no "better" jobs about).

I've applied, in the past, for NMW jobs and have literally been told, after what appeared to be a positive interview that it was thought I'd be better suited to a different role in the organisation such as (insert whatever). They didn't explain though, a) how I got that role when none were being advertised and b) how I'd afford ad hoc and non-standard childcare to fit in with the flexibility demanded for that sort of role (which didn't exist at that moment in time). As you can imagine, it was a great comfort to me to know that although I was still out of work and broke, that I was well thought of. I eventually became self employed for a couple of years to earn something (better than nothing) and oh, the irony of it, ended up earning less than NMW for keeping really shit hours usually 7 days a week with no paid holiday but I guess that was my "fault". I would have killed for a NMW job instead of that.

I think this argument might be different if there was a plethora of jobs around to suit all abilities and circumstances. Only then might you be able to protest that silly/lazy/selfish/slumming it "qualified" people were taking jobs away from people who had absolutely no other choice. As things stand however, for many people, a job is a job, money is money and if your family's in need you're going to go for whatever you can.

Oh what utter bollocks. Best candidate gets the job. Whether it is a woman whose husband works or a single parent or a two headed lesbian.

NMW jobs at not some sort of social security system huntycat. They are jobs with a low wage. If someone chooses to take one for the hours or location thanks no more or less valid than a single person who lacks qualifications taking it.

Sorry .... have gone off topic with my post above.

Back to the point - an outdated and dangerous POV. It harks back to the days when men were expected to "keep" women, when married women were automically expected to resign as a result of their new status. My mum kept working after she was married but was expected to leave once she had children - so she tells it. Am not sure of the actual law surrounding that approach (early 60s) and I'm not sure it applied to all jobs/professions but smacked obviously of both women being possessions and de facto childcarers.

About 50% of girls go to university now.

There are not that many graduate jobs out there.

Plenty of people are overqualified to do the job they do. Not just women. Even if they do manage to get a job in their field, its not necessarily the right thing for them in 5, 10, 15 years time.

The idea that you shouldn't do a certain job because you are over qualified is just as laughable as the women in the OP.

I have friends with phDs and masters who have been unable to find work in their field who have removed it from CV just to get something.

Everyone is taking what they can. I don't think anyone should be making decisions based on other people's education, economic or social status though. You have to do whats best for you.

Very bizarre opinion to have.

Don't get that mentality at all OP and I'm one of those lone parents of a disabled kid who doesn't get any maintenance from dear daddy.

I was raised to believe that envy is the root of a lot of misery and that if you aren't happy with your own circumstances or life, bust a gut till it improves! It's an outlook on life that works for me.

In the current climate getting work after a 7 year gap is only gonna be acheived if you really put in a lot of effort - do that and it's "good on ya mate!". I respect those that put the effort in. A successful marriage takes work too.

The only thing I am thankful for is that my parents made me get an education BEFORE I gave birth. Training, evening classes etc are beyond the reach of most on NMW or benefits nowadays (let alone Uni), keeping many utterly trapped in a poverty trap.

This woman sounds envious.

YANBU. The premise of that kind of statement is that these women forfeit the right to financial independence or developing a career simply by being related to a wealthy man. There are a depressingly large number of women for whom the sum total of their ambition is 'marry a rich bloke, and never work again'.... and that's why feminism still has a long way to go.

Women like that are really old fashioned and probably are loving their life of not needing to work YANBU to want a job for whatever reasons good luck with your job search

It's understandable that people feel like this in the current climate, although it isn't necessarily true that there's only a finite amount of work. But the underlying assumptions are sexist.

A person making this argument must also apply it to men who choose to work when their female partner earns enough to support the family. If they both earn say 40k+, which is not especially unusual, the man is being no less selfish than the woman. And to well qualified men who choose NMW jobs to fit around childcare. They aren't perhaps as numerous as the women who do it, but they do exist, and should not be exempt from censure simply on the grounds of their gender.

What utter bollocks.
YANBU.

You're working for a pension for tax allowance, esteem, role model to your kids.

Hmm, that can be tough. My mum was on her own with us after dad died. We were 6 and 3 and when my DB started school she needed to go back to work as she didn't want to remain on benefits our entire childhood. Dad also left very little provision for her and she needed a pension etc. The perfect job teaching came up and she went for it. She knew the woman who got it. This woman's DH was in a very well paid job and the family wanted for nothing materially - big posh house, car each, holidays at their place abroad etc etc. By her own admission the pay from the job was to buy more luxuries as her DH thought she was lazy for living off him now the kids were older. Mum would have used the money to pay bills and afford new shoes for her kids as well as remove the stigma of being a lone parent on benefits (unfortunately people did comment and judge even though it was not her fault that dad died!). I can see why those affected by not being able to get a much needed job are bitter. She ended up working in a shop and probably someone thought that a qualified SN teacher working in a shop was removing an opportunity for someone else too so swings and roundabouts.

Should we reinstate the marriage bar then, and go back to a model where women relinquish their earning potential, talents and pension rights? My DP earns a decent wage, howevever i want to earn my own and am doing so on my own merit.

OP YANBU.

However, not hoevever. Although I am liking howevever as a conduit to expressing rage

What a load of rubbish

And I said the same to my Mum when she started on about feeling guilty for working beyond retirement age as a younger person could do the job (she's now retired and whilst not poor, is certainly worse off for not working so afaic she was as entitled to do the job as anyone else)

We could manage on DH's salary, but it would be a frugal existence and also we live in a rural area and we wouldn't be able to run a second car and would therefore be somewhat stranded.

It's my choice to work so that we can afford a better standard of living. I'm not on NMW but not hugely well paid.

Someone once said on here about mums with older children ie, secondary age, that they should not take term time only jobs in school as it takes away the jobs for those that need them...

Thing is .... how do you make a judgement call on whether or not to apply for any given job anyway - even if you subscribe to the idea that they should go to the most "deserving" of candidates ? As a potential applicant, you can have no possible way of knowing who else might also apply. You also have no way of knowing the background of any other applicant. The woman with the big house and high earning husband, may, in fact, be being financially abused with absolutely no spending power of her own (can remember at least one case like that here on MN) or, she may be planning to leave her husband and genuinely needs to build up funds of her own to do that.

As long as you don't bitch at single mothers who don't have jobs, I really don't care if you get one that you don't economically need (though surely if you got a decent one your husband could resign or you could both go part time and free up two part time jobs for other people?) If you do bitch at unemployed people and single parents on benefits then you're being a hypocrite to take a job from one of them. But then you shouldn't be bitching at people less fortunate than you anyway, so hypocrisy is the least of your worries if you are that kind of horrible human being.

You are as entitled to look for a job as anyone, irrespective of DH's circumstances.

My DH has a good salary.

I have 2 jobs. I took one of them as NMW, but it turns out I'm good at it so I've had two raises already.

Difficult isn't it? I certainly don't think it should be the woman that stays at home to look after the children; but surely, if you don't need the extra money and another family does desperately need the income, then it would be a better allocation of resources if the other non-working partner in a relationship flexed their non-maternal/paternal muscles outside of the domestic prison home in a voluntary capacity, thus keeping themselves sane, aiding a non-profit organisation and allowing a family who really needed the income to earn it?

I know several partnerships where the female is the greater earner, so why shouldn't it be the male half who stays home/ volunteers?

You might say that if you are the best person for the job, then it should go to you, but do we not also have some kind of moral responsibility?

Anyone who says something along the lines of "taking a job away from" is dangerously close to saying stuff like "all those foreigners taking jobs" too. Its DM nonsense and an abdication of responsibility. Everyone is trying to look after their own family first, and I see nothing wrong with that. You are not taking a job from anyone - its your job that you are perfectly entitled to, if you put the hard work in. Its extra security and about more than money.

I find WibblyBibble's attitude sad and rather confrontational. If you are on a higher income, you still have worries and concerns - you are not immune from financial worries and stress. A loss of the higher income earner's job can still lead to a loss of home and extreme stress, which a second income can protect you from and cushion the blow. We live in times where even secure looking jobs can suddenly disappear. And can we please not just see it as just about lifestyle too. Remembering debt / job loss is a leading cause of suicide here for example. Someone who previously had a good job is highly unlikely to qualify for benefits, so self-reliance is even more important.

And sadly there are a lot of people currently finding themselves in this awful situation. The reality is they are unable to sell their homes, saddled with expensive cars or financial deals they can't immediately renegotiate, not eligible for other help but having to go for charity boxes to put food on the table. Changes to lifestyle can help, but take time and won't necessarily prevent someone from suddenly loosing everything they have built up.

I also don't see why people should always be obliged to 'put those less fortunate than them' on their list of priorities in this respect. Not when you know you are going to be on your own if your circumstances change unexpectedly or unfortunately.

How sexist and old fashioned! I earn more than my DH, so should he give up work or is it just the DW that these people have a problem with?

I'm with you Thetokengirl - I earn much more than my DH and was wondering if they'd consider him "selfish" for working when he doesn't need to. I bet they wouldn't.

Everyone who has the choice is free to choose, aren't they? I am sure there are some people who don't need two salaries to subsist, but there are many other reasons for working: self-fulfilment, making the most of your talents, the desire to pay taxes to help wider society (perhaps not many takers there!), having disposable income to enjoy and increase general wealth / employment, building up a pension, setting an example for your children and, for real worriers, the thought that your DH might leave you / lose his job / get run over by a bus.

Yes surely the logic is that both should go pt? Why should it be the female. Dh and I both earn good salaries. We both pay bills and mortgage. We both have careers. Why is the husband the earner and the wife doing it for pin money? Why should women have to justify earning?