AIBU to think it’s rather sensible for young women to consider earning potential/ wealth when choosing a life partner?

[OompaLumpaLabrador]

My mum always said that it doesn’t matter how wealthy or otherwise a man is, as long as you love each other. Which I guess is easy to say when, as a young nurse, you fell for a very decent and lovable surgeon ( my dad).

But I’m 43 now, and the life choices friends have made are all coming out in the wash. And the reality appears that those of us who opted to spend our lives with men and women with money have by far the better deal. There’s more freedom around healthcare, education, location, travel and work ( give up, part time, full time). The unpleasant and time consuming household chores are outsourced. There seems less stress in the partnerships because there are no money worries. The partnerships just seem easier. And if it doesn’t work out, a decent divorce settlement means women aren’t left high and dry.

Of course, love comes first. And maybe I’m getting cynical in my old age. But I’m not sure I’ll be giving my daughters quite the sake advice as my mum gave me. AIBU?

If you can’t earn much, then it’s important to alter your lifestyle to fit your earnings.

Women should do this independently of who their partner is. You can earn a lot and spend a lot or earn a little and be frugal. You can also look at relationships that are not partner-based - parents, siblings, friends who you support and could support you if anything happened. Life is uncertain and risky, so it’s helpful to try and build relationships of mutual support (not just in nuclear family). Personally I think it’s unreasonable to expect a partner to do something you would not be willing to do yourself (eg earn a high salary or take parental leave).

It's not a zero sum game. In any case millionaires need someone to love them too.

I love how people say this as though all you have to do is want a well-paid career and you'll get one. Most people will never have a well-paid career, whether they want it or work hard or not.

I think the key message is that you should aim to be financially independent, that does not necessarily mean 'well paid', but enough at least to pay your way in life and have a bit left over for savings and occasional treats.

Surely if you want a certain standard of living, you work for it and make it happen? Or are you saying you need to find a man with money for that?

Also, I know some fucking miserable rich couples.

🤣We all probably know some poor ones too!

Most people will never have a well-paid career, whether they want it or work hard or not.

So where are all those hordes of well-earning men supposed to come from, that we should aim to catch instead of having our own incomes?

@NiceGerbil

Tractor- were you hunting or was it accident?

You can find both types in city of London.

Canary wharf the first type are more prevalent but still plenty of the second!

Good luck to anyone who is bedazzled by cash and fancy watches etc and settles down with type a...

Don't need to hunt - I'm a high earner in a male-dominated profession, Plenty of eligible singles about ;)

In fact DP and I both plan to go part-time, and we can afford to do this because we're both high earners

@DillonPanthersTexas

I love how people say this as though all you have to do is want a well-paid career and you'll get one. Most people will never have a well-paid career, whether they want it or work hard or not.

I think the key message is that you should aim to be financially independent, that does not necessarily mean 'well paid', but enough at least to pay your way in life and have a bit left over for savings and occasional treats.

What is a well-paid career? 30K is the median salary but loads of people thinking this is a huge amount. Many people manage at least that by the time they're 40

@WalkingOnTheCracks

I think you've got the question the wrong way round. You have to look for a partner who has an outlook and aspirations that are compatible with yours. So, yeah, if eventually you'd like a house with a swimming pool, then you should probably not commit to someone whose dream home is a yurt within hiking distance of Stonehenge. But that's not because you're considering long-term earning potential. It's because you're considering long-term compatibility.

One of my daughters is considering a profession which makes her happy but which is unlikely to make her materially 'successful'. She's aware of that, and she knows what she's doing.

Good for her, I say.

Neither is she on the look-out for a life-partner with 'earning potential'.

Good for her, I say again.

Also, I know some fucking miserable rich couples.

The questio is where there are mor miserable rich or poor ones

What is a well-paid career?
30K is the median salary but loads of people thinking this is a huge amount. Many people manage at least that by the time they're 40

Depends where you live I guess, £30k is not very much in London but probably not bad in Cornwall or the North West. Either way, geography aside, you give yourself options in life by being financially self sufficient rather then hitching your wagon to someone on the basis of them providing for you. I also believe that men who actively seek out to be the traditional bread winner and sole provider have a higher tendency to be the sort of controlling twats who get all insecure and upset when their partner earns more then them. They seek validation of their ill conceived alpha status by having a SAHM.

@DillonPanthersTexas Also the definition of 'well paid career' changes with time. 20 years ago, marrying a civil servant or high street solicitor probably would have been considered a solid option even in London. Today, while the civil servant in their 40s might have been able to get on the property ladder, he would be relatively poor compared to many people of the same age in London as his wage hasn't gone up relative to the top 1% or 5% where there is a disproportionate number in London. By the same token, someone picking a 22 year old guy working in the City because he earns 70k shouldn't expect that his income wouldn't fall in real terms; he could (like the civil servant and the high street solicitor) be struggling to pay childcare bills or upgrade to a bigger house in 20 years. Income inequality is only grow with time, unless you are the top 1%

Onlychildhamster

That's a really good point, and applies to both the partner and the woman.

Graduate jobs at the same level 25byears ago now have very very different management level salaries.

No one could have predicted a ten year civil service pay freeze and the massive gap between senior people in the public and private sector

“ I also believe that men who actively seek out to be the traditional bread winner and sole provider have a higher tendency to be the sort of controlling twats who get all insecure and upset when their partner earns more then them. They seek validation of their ill conceived alpha status by having a SAHM.”

Any evidence for this statement? Did you conduct a national survey?

Any evidence for this statement? Did you conduct a national survey?

Purely an anecdotal opinion. Never understand men who gets threatened by their partners earning more then them. Also never understand blokes who insist their partners quit their jobs and stay at home. All a bit too controling for me.

@DillonPanthersTexas

Any evidence for this statement? Did you conduct a national survey?

Purely an anecdotal opinion. Never understand men who gets threatened by their partners earning more then them. Also never understand blokes who insist their partners quit their jobs and stay at home. All a bit too controling for me.

But this is nothing to do with being a high earner. I know a few men that fit your description and they earn peanuts.

But this is nothing to do with being a high earner. I know a few men that fit your description and they earn peanuts.

Well, to a certain degree you need to be the higher earner in order to insist that someone quits their job and stays at home while you provide for them. Personally, a couple both working it all goes into the same pot, winner.

Not necessarily. Some men are very self important and despite the woman being the higher earner or with more earning potential still bully/demand she stays at home.
Anyway, I think it’s wise to pair up someone with similar values & priorities.

[quote onlychildhamster]@DillonPanthersTexas Also the definition of 'well paid career' changes with time. 20 years ago, marrying a civil servant or high street solicitor probably would have been considered a solid option even in London. Today, while the civil servant in their 40s might have been able to get on the property ladder, he would be relatively poor compared to many people of the same age in London as his wage hasn't gone up relative to the top 1% or 5% where there is a disproportionate number in London. By the same token, someone picking a 22 year old guy working in the City because he earns 70k shouldn't expect that his income wouldn't fall in real terms; he could (like the civil servant and the high street solicitor) be struggling to pay childcare bills or upgrade to a bigger house in 20 years. Income inequality is only grow with time, unless you are the top 1%[/quote]
But that's still a higher salary compared to someone in an unskilled job/job without major progression potential. Like a call center operator, warehouse worker, or driving examiner (yes, this last one may be surprising but plenty have quite because of this).

Now I'm sure someone will be along to tell me 'but I know so and so who started as one of these who is now earning the big bucks'. Of course, anything is possible. But again it depends on the age - someone in their early/mid twenties understandable. Someone in their mid thirties - what are they waiting for (barring adverse life circumstances such as illness or caring responsibilities).

In real life the majority of people aren't 'hunting' for very wealthy men, or dumping men who earn an okay salary in the hopes of landing one of your City men.

They are deciding whether to carry on a relationship with someone who lacks earning potential. And if they're on an upward trajectory themselves with a decently paid career - they wonder whether they can be arsed to carry a lower earning partner.

Now, if said partner is wonderful, a perfect match in every way, except for their earning potential - then there isn't much of a question! They should if they're that perfect happily support the higher earner. Just like how low paid women happily give up their jobs to support high earner husbands, right? right???

However what GENERALLY happens is that women are with an 'ok' man. They can see themselves falling in love with him, getting on well, but he's not the 'one'. In that case it would be wise to think of the practicalities of life together and whether they want to pursue the relationship.

And finally if you read the OP - she's not talking about luxury cars, or yatchs. But things that make life easier. Like outsourcing the housework. Money doesn't solve all problems but it solves a lot.

@GreenLeafs

Not necessarily. Some men are very self important and despite the woman being the higher earner or with more earning potential still bully/demand she stays at home. Anyway, I think it’s wise to pair up someone with similar values & priorities.

Well true - and in the OP's context attitudes towards money is also a value/priority. While her mother said 'just love is enough'. Not 'marry a rich man who can take care of you'.

I personally value earning potential and chose a career path that would lead to it. Money gives me choice and freedom. To pay for things that make my life easier like a housekeeper and a gardener. DP is the same. If our earning potential dropped of course we would flex but otherwise outsourcing these things are important to us.

I couldn't be with someone who expected me to do half the chores efficiently, or chose happiness in a job over money (of course if the job is toxic and stressful it's a different story), but sacrificing money for an 'easy life' workwise doesn't make sense to me because I'm very good at work. I'm shit at everything else in my life that other people can do easily, like housework.

That's just me anyway

@TractorAndHeadphones no the oP mentions a partner that can support her dd being a sahm or working part time
Women want it equal but then don't as you have almost criticised a woman supporting a man and being the higher earner
Being with someone just because they have good earning potential doesn't make it all perfect has to be more and money as well , just more to fight over in a divorce
And many high earning men do need a sahm etc in order to facilitate their careers
Although not impossible its hard to have two high earning , long hrs , career driven people and have a family without hiring lots of outside help , and whilst for some thats fine for others they want more of a family/ work life balance
People should choose a partner who they respect and who respects them , have similar beliefs etc

I met my now DH through online dating, and when I used to look at the adverts men put up I would always look at their profession and it would play a factor in whether I messaged them or not.

It certainly wasn’t about their financial status, but more about their life goals, their commitment to their future etc - I believe a man’s profession can sometimes say a lot about the kind of person they are.

It wasn’t that I was looking for a brain surgeon or anything like that, but I was looking for someone who had a good career and therefore likely to have ambition and good future prospects.

It isn’t a sexist thing though. I know a lot of men where a woman’s job/career plays a role in whether they choose to date them or not.

DillonPanthersTexas - again, you sent to be talking about bullying men who force their wives to SAH against their will. But this has nothing to do with income. You read all the time on here about men who do manual jobs or low paid work and are total pigs.

Being a SAHM when you have no money worries and it doesn’t limit your life whatsoever, is a totally different proposition to being a SAHM to a man who is a low earner and you have to watch every penny or forego things.

It’s like anything else money buys choice. For some, that will be the choice that life is better when only one person is working. These women are hardly oppressed - blimey! They are educated and confident in who they are and know precisely where they stand and what they’re doing.

The more money you have, the higher your expectations become. If you can afford for your children to do all sorts of things, then this becomes your ‘norm’ and the SAHM will be able to facilitate this. Perhaps you can pay for your kids to get into top schools and the mums do a lot of educational support. Perhaps you go a lot of entertaining, simply because you can? Or you get involved with various charities? Basically your lifestyle shifts and having a SAHM just seems obvious and practical to the point it feels essential - especially where there are three or more DC. Why would high-earning men not want the best for their children and why would they want some random woman facilitating all this when it’s obvious the mum is the best person and she actively wants to be doing it? This is very normal in some circles. Having a SAHM is nothing to be remarked on and many families have nannies and other staff as well! I am a SAHM and remember when my kids were younger, loads of people were shocked I never had a live in nanny or au pair. Or a cook or a housekeeper! They said, ‘But why not, how do you COPE?” Loads of men (neighbours and friends locally) told my husband to get me a nanny or a housekeeper as if there was something wrong with him. My neighbour had a woman in who did nights with the babies, even though she was a SAHM. I just never wanted some other woman in my house or involved with our 4 kids. It’s just something else to manage and it’s easier to do it myself.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@TractorAndHeadphones no the oP mentions a partner that can support her dd being a sahm or working part time
Women want it equal but then don't as you have almost criticised a woman supporting a man and being the higher earner
Being with someone just because they have good earning potential doesn't make it all perfect has to be more and money as well , just more to fight over in a divorce
And many high earning men do need a sahm etc in order to facilitate their careers
Although not impossible its hard to have two high earning , long hrs , career driven people and have a family without hiring lots of outside help , and whilst for some thats fine for others they want more of a family/ work life balance
People should choose a partner who they respect and who respects them , have similar beliefs etc [/quote]
Reading comprehension my dear - the paragraph right after I said that stated that if a man was the perfect partner and is willing to manage the household then there's nothing wrong with a high earning woman supporting him. That is truly equal.

But SAHD/part-time men are rare and the mental load often still falls to the woman even though she is the high earner. So what value is he bringing to the household?

Also if you read the OP's posts properly she mentioned taking time out in case of any challenges. Such as having a disabled child. Again the low earner here could be man or woman, doesn't matter, as long as the low earner compensates.

@saf1ya7

DillonPanthersTexas - again, you sent to be talking about bullying men who force their wives to SAH against their will. But this has nothing to do with income. You read all the time on here about men who do manual jobs or low paid work and are total pigs.

Being a SAHM when you have no money worries and it doesn’t limit your life whatsoever, is a totally different proposition to being a SAHM to a man who is a low earner and you have to watch every penny or forego things.

It’s like anything else money buys choice. For some, that will be the choice that life is better when only one person is working. These women are hardly oppressed - blimey! They are educated and confident in who they are and know precisely where they stand and what they’re doing.

The more money you have, the higher your expectations become. If you can afford for your children to do all sorts of things, then this becomes your ‘norm’ and the SAHM will be able to facilitate this. Perhaps you can pay for your kids to get into top schools and the mums do a lot of educational support. Perhaps you go a lot of entertaining, simply because you can? Or you get involved with various charities? Basically your lifestyle shifts and having a SAHM just seems obvious and practical to the point it feels essential - especially where there are three or more DC. Why would high-earning men not want the best for their children and why would they want some random woman facilitating all this when it’s obvious the mum is the best person and she actively wants to be doing it? This is very normal in some circles. Having a SAHM is nothing to be remarked on and many families have nannies and other staff as well! I am a SAHM and remember when my kids were younger, loads of people were shocked I never had a live in nanny or au pair. Or a cook or a housekeeper! They said, ‘But why not, how do you COPE?” Loads of men (neighbours and friends locally) told my husband to get me a nanny or a housekeeper as if there was something wrong with him. My neighbour had a woman in who did nights with the babies, even though she was a SAHM. I just never wanted some other woman in my house or involved with our 4 kids. It’s just something else to manage and it’s easier to do it myself.

Exactly. I don't know why all the people here are going on 'well some rich men are pigs'. Some lower earning men are pigs. And it's not like women go to a husband shop where they a choice of wonderful poor man or mean rich man.

The situation in which this is likely to occur is for example when pp was using dating apps - and chose whom to message based on their profession. In a situation like this going for luuuurve as OP's mother said is conventional wisdom but love itself is a complicated thing. Finances are a major reason for divorce and it's silly to pretend that this shouldn't be taken into consideration at all.

Most people end up with someone about on their level.

Wealthy parents, private schools, big jobs, they're likely going to marry someone from a similar background.

The other extreme of poverty, drug alcohol abuse, poorly educated, domestic violence, are likely to marry similar.

That said, I don't see much of a point for marriage.
It's not that beneficial to women.