AIBU to think that money...

[Steaktartar]

AIBU to think that money, or rather, security is more important than love? I've often been criticized but i do get annoyed at people's comments like, ' money will come' or ' love will find a way'. Especially in today's world

Raspberry - would you still be happy ten years down the line if your financial situation doesn’t change . You’re happy now because you’re counting on your financial situation improving.

I left a job which was big bucks (think £70k+ package in Scotland) because it was making me really, really ill.

I'm still nowhere near 100% however life is so much simpler even though I'm still anxious as fuck and instead of flying to Paris for work I'm mainly going to Morrisons and doing the washing

I have inheritance to fall back on - I'm not lucky, just an orphan - we are very frugal and cutting our cloth for now.

I never want to go back to that.

It depends on what you mean by money. Having enough money to survive, have a roof over your head and buy basic necessities has to trump everything else, surely?

I have experienced this actually. Very wealthy first husband but there was no love. The marriage ended because I was so unhappy.

Second marriage, he will only ever earn minimum wage but I don't care, he is lovely and kind and I love him to bits.

Always love

I have always earned my own money and also paid out to my husband on our divorce who pays nothing for the children so I don't think choosing a man for money which he could withdraw at any stage is sensible for any women nor a way to protect their children. Instead earn their own money.

If you married for money rather than love wouldn't it feel emotionally empty? This may cause discontent - after all, the latest handbag, fancy clothes, big house and car, etc, aren't going to make you happy. They're just things.

OTOH if you're in love but too poor to afford food or rent then life is going to be a struggle. You could end up taking it out on each other. Isn't there a happy medium?

Your relationships are what make life living, not money.
You will need money to survive, yes and make life peaceful but if you have lots of money and are married just for the sake of it, that will never make you at all happy.

I don't believe it is a trade off. Unless you believe in love at first sight, you have a lot of control over who you fall in love with. You have to make an investment and build an emotional bond.

There is a pool of millions you could fall in love with. I dont think there is anything wrong with filtering those down by money.

Obviously, it is a bad idea to marry a twat just because he is rich

It probably wont improve for us money wise for a long time, it isn't like we are struggling through one more year, still have years and years of childcare to pay if we both work ft, I would rather have the love. I would rather be in love with my partner as we are, and as we are financially now for the next 10 years than go back and live a week as I used to while I was with my XH. I am not actually unhappy with our financial situation, but I know that a small amount extra can ease things.
MONEY DOES NOT MAKE YOU HAPPY!

I think it you want money and financial security you earn it youtself. You don't rely on someone else to provide it. Then if you wish a relarionship then that's when you focus on love, in whatever form that takes for you.

As for people saying money doesn't make you happy. I've been poor and few people find joy in poverty. Its fucking soul crushing.

I grew up pretty poor. So as an adult, I have always put my financial security and independence first. Then I was able to choose who I fell in love with (he also happens to be a high earner, but then so am I).

A basic level of money makes life easier, makes me a happier person as a result and able to relax and enjoy my relationship with my DH more. I like to think our relationship with DH would survive "for poorer" but would prefer not to find out.

Similarly, have retained my financial independence so should things not work out with DH I will be ok (hopefully!)

I wouldn't marry for money and I think is important for women to be financially independent. However, I would prefer not to be with someone who was financially dependent on me, if I'm honest.

I like the meme that goes "money can't buy happiness, but it can buy you a better class of misery".

I don't see the money vs love thing as a binary choice, but more as a balancing act. Or maybe a sandwich. First get the basic necessities of life covered, then love, then riches as optional extra. I can understand people who would rather put the riches before the love but I doubt love would survive long if the necessities were missing.

Anyway, time for a song. Or two songs. I wonder when they changed their mind?

Do you mean romantic love or familial/friend love?
If you just mean romantic, I would probably rather have money.

I know that money doesn't buy happiness, and that you can be happier poorer with someone you love instead of richer with someone you don't love.

But 'poorer' and 'richer' are just shades of comfortable / secure really.

The OP asked whether security was more important than love. Not just being a bit poor, but secure - which I interpret to mean having a roof over your head, able to afford food and basic necessities, not starving or cold.

If you didn't have a roof over your head and couldn't afford any food or clothes or shoes - would you really still think that love would be more important to find than security?

Personally I'd be looking to get the security sorted as my top priority. If I had love whilst being insecure financially it would be a massive support and bonus and I'd consider myself much more fortunate than someone without security or love.

Obviously we need both to be happy.

Love your honesty @purpletigers

Thanks for the honest answers guys. Yes. I believe it can be subjective. Love is wonderful yes but money problems is not.

@lazylinguist I actually should state, enough money to be comfortable and not worry if I'll make it to the next pay check. I have friends and family who stress like that. Some with kids. Not nice

If your income from your assets covers your expenses without going to work then you’re wealthy

That’s a very skewed perspective that I doubt 95% of the population could subscribe to.

I think it’s as much to do with attitude to money in a relationship as it is income. My ex and I had wildly different ideas, which made me very insecure; whereas now I’m single, and while I’m never going to get rich on disability benefits, I feel more secure. But familial love I think is different, I love my kids, and we wouldn’t love each other more, or less, if we were millionaires.

I agree OP security is very important to me

Sorry but total and utter bullshit.
My mum was from a poor family married very rich. Grew up with a violent abusive alcoholic father - yes in a lovely stately home MONEY is NEVER more important than trust, love, respect, fun, joy, happiness

I think it’s all relative, I know a few women who felt very secure in their financially advantageous marriages only to find themselves ceremoniously dumped when DHs fell in love with someone else.
I have often been judged for marrying someone who earns less than me and particularly when DH became a SAHP but I have always maintained that I am with him because I want to be with him not because I have to be with him. It works for us.
I know I will have security with or without love.

Emi- I didn’t say they did . I said it’s a good measure of wealth and therefore security .

How secure can you be if you’re always waiting for the next pay check ( regardless of how big it is ) . What if it doesn’t come ? What happens then?

We worry too much about teaching children to be book smart ignoring the fact that financial literacy is just as important .

You don’t have to marry for money either , just choose your spouse , partner , father of your children wisely . I do think that some people have incredibly low standards when it comes to choosing who to partner with .

@Purpletigers you said, "If your income from your assets covers your expenses without going to work then you’re wealthy"

I stated, "That’s a very skewed perspective that I doubt 95% of the population could subscribe to". To explain further, I meant that for most of the world's population your definition of wealth would be beyond their ken. You define wealthy as being able to live off income from assets. I was arguing that for most of the world's population wealth would be defined more like, being able to pay for food and shelter today. Therefore, for people in this country we are wealthy.

Try this everyone, www.globalrichlist.net/ I only work part time, yet I'm in the top 1% of global wealth. 99.3% of people earn less than me.