to be itching at "of course, you earn so little" from DH ?

[dontsvetmuchforafatgirl]

During a friendly discussion yesterday about planning for the future, pensions etc, I was talking about making plans for financial security. DH can be quite blase about possible future disasters, death, disablement and so on. I said I felt it was very important for me to feel feel at least covered for some misfortune and DH came out with " of course, you earn so little".

I brushed it off, touche, etc. But inside it has me itching.

I earn 32k, he earns 48k. I work in an academic field, he is a sales and production manager for a mid-sized firm.

I am very happy with my salary itself. I feel very lucky, and work in the academic field I trained for, with well known institutions. Best of all I feel fortunate to get to meet all kind of experts, extremely interesting and knowledgeable people. It is a private sector job and I also know that I have to prove myself regularly as our company is not shy of showing people the door.

I have always enjoyed my job and felt it was worthwhile and felt my husband did too. But now I feel belittled.

It is not the money itself but the glimpse of my husband's character that I caught that so upsets me. Although said in jest, it was from the heart.

It seems he truly believes the measure of a (wo)man is money.

Or is he just saying this to make himself feel better?

Am I taking this too much to heart? I haven't said anything but it is nagging at me.

You earn about 2/3 of your husband's wage.

That gender disparity is about average in the UK regardless of what jobs you have.

I chose not to work for 5 years as I preferred to be at home with the DCs, DH was happy whatever I chose.

Yes your situation where there is agreement for one to be a SAHP is precisely where equalising spending money makes most sense.

If you are in an equal relationship and have both discussed and agreed to the arrangement then yes I think her financial contribution should change, you are a partnership after all. If you are leaving work for no reason and she does not want this then maybe that is different.

DW does not agree I should stop working.

Suppose the OP were able to earn 50% more in a more unpleasant job, or her husband were offered a job earning the same as her that was much more pleasant for him. With 50:50 their individual decisions have no immediate/direct effect on each other, and they are free to choose what suits them. With other models of sharing they have an interest in each other's decisions that might lead to conflict.

Different models make sense for different circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with £32k and if your employer is anything like mine was (university) then the benefits will swallow up that difference quite easily (holiday/pension/annual increments).

Are you sure he's not just taking the mick? It seems like such a small difference to me that he must have been joking.

LondonMan - I totally agree with what you have said, I guess in those situations it is probably better to have an agreement that suits everyone.

Londonman if one partner decides to stop earning for no good reason (ie no health or childcare reasons) then there is no reason why the earner should sub the non earner! That's entirely different. If it's an agreed decision, ie the earner fancies having a 'housewife' to run the house then of course finances should still be split equally. But I think situations where one person chooses not to earn for no genuine reason are rare.

That's really insensitive. FYI: we have more or less the same salary dynamic in my marriage (and roughly the same numbers too) but in my situation I am the higher paid partner.

I would never dream of saying my husband's salary is "so little." Even if it was a third of that amount. No financial contribution to household security should be belittled but 32k is well above the national average.

I would have been tempted to say "well since my salary is so low I may as well chuck it in and you can support us." Bet he wouldn't belittle it then....

Your salary alone is twice what you get where I live where the majority of jobs are minimum wage.

What I'm really interested to know OP, is how your DH thinks earning a good salary insulates him from needing a pension and insurance. (Maybe some tips there we could all learn from? )

If money is important to him then he'd feel the lack of it acutely, so should be especially interested in planning to avoid that possibility.

If money and a nice lifestyle is important for him, he must feel it's important for the DCs too, so he has a particular interest in ensuring they are kept at a good standard of living if he dies.

Working to earn as much as possible and understanding your own and colleagues' value in terms of salary are common attributes in his sort of work, where money is actually made, so it makes sense for there to be a direct link between effort and reward. He could just have been bringing a work attitude home.

I wouldn't assume that he doesn't understand that other sectors and types of job don't generate money, so there's no direct link bewteen quality of work and reward and all sorts of factors that keep salaries lower (it only takes a moment's thought, so someone would have to be quite mentally challenged not to understand that). So, I wouldn't assume he sees your work or you as being of lower value. He may be expressing, 'given all your qualifications, years of experience and hard work, it seems terrible to me that you are not far better rewarded and if the world was fair, you would be'.

So just to overstate my case, it could be a back-handed compliment; 'given how impressive and successful you are, I always forget you aren't paid much more, because in my field you would be (maybe more than me).'

Like the others I am puzzled why your DH has more disposable income than you? Why are you sharing the bills 50:50 when your incomes aren't identical? I earn a lot more than DH and so I carry the vast amount of the bills anything else would be unfair.

Hi, regarding disposable income. I suppose it depend what you categorise as essential spending.

Sorry I have a habit to use actual figures when making comparison but I try this with percentages.

After tax and what I consider essential spending - mortgage, utilities, insurance, pensions, food and household, childcare - split 50/50:

If I have 100% he has 180%

He still has two final payments - about extra 30% to boat and extra 40% to boat.

He would argue that both are family assets.
I would argue that the boat is a luxury and that the car is far fancier than needs justify.

Sorry 30% to boat and 40% to car

Your dh is a twat.

What planet does he live on where he thinks 32k is a little salary?

So broadly speaking, the "extra disposable income" that your husband enjoys pays for a boat and a car. Family car or a fun car for your DH to commute in style and park outside the office all day ? Slightly flip as turning up to clients offices in an old banger might not enhance his sales potential there.
Assuming you all enjoy the boat or he takes the kids off sailing and leaves you to do nothing on a regular basis then it doesn't sound wholly unfair.
Just tell him he was downright rude and where does he get off running you down like that. Remind him that if you lost your job there would in all likelihood be no money for a boat and to start valuing your contribution to the family coffers and take your concerns seriously.

OP why not just make some investments yourself? (with some of your money) Which pay out to you?

If you know what you are doing some shares would be good, if you made a profit he might be inspired to change his mind concerning what a good investment the boat is.

I expect you still have enough money for your own savings account, ISA etc. Say this is your hobby and will benefit the family as well.