Does it matter to you how much your partner earns?

[brusslesprout]

Not wanting to start a debate or anything like that just a general musing really if this is a really important factor for everyone?

I wonder when looking at the bigger picture does it make the relationship better/easier?

My bf doesn't earn much which bothers me a little sometimes but on the same merit has no debts or bad spending habits as he's always had to be careful.

Growing up my Dad had quite a well paid job but isn't too good with money so still is in a lot of debt when he should be relaxing into retirement.

So yes does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

Oh, no, pickledsiblings, I totally disagree. If you do that you've got no life bar work and kids. Too many women work in that way already - and the temptation for me, as a freelancer, is to do that too. I think we need delineations between work and the other bits of our lives, or it all gets into a terrible jumble when you're never really away from the boss.

No it doesn't matter to me what DH earns. Even though, right now, he works very hard in a very high earning job and I am a SAHM. I did the same job before having dd and had similar earnings, I am very well qualified and if I needed to get a job tomorrow, I hope I could find something, even if not close to my former salary. The way things are financially work out well for us at the moment but ever since I left my job, I have been totally clear with DH that if out circumstances changed and he lost his job or was I'll or whatever, we are a team and will deal with it together, and if that meant just me working, or both of us working, that's what we would do. He is happy with that and so am I.

But mother inferior they are young for such a short time. My point is that it would be both parents doing/sharing the bedtime routine for the first few years of their DC's lives. Plenty of time to work late at the office when they're busy with homework in the evenings and will still be up when you get back.

They're young for about six years. And that's only if you've got one child, or twins. A long bloody time to have no work-life balance at all, I really think.

Too many women already 'make up the hours while their children sleep'. It's not doing those women any good. One needs a life, beyond parenting and money-earning. And I like my job. (And my children, actually, as well.)

I think actually the world would be better if jobs had sensible hours. Honestly, if your employer genuinely think you need you be working 60 or 70 hours every week, they aren't employing enough people. Two people could have jobs with reasonable hours instead.

I think my main problem is with the idea that women should choose whether they want to work or not, but that men are expected to earn lots to facilitate that choice. Why don't men get the choice too? I think some of the posts on here have been imported from the Victorian age.

"Because basically what your posts have said is "Be a SAHM, have better kids". In other words, if WOMEN (not parents) work they are failing their kids and should feel guilty."

Yes, that is exactly what I think . And exactly what I see from the many, many families around me.

With the proviso that I think my definition of SAHM does not mean that (a) you cannot have all sort of things going in your life apart from home/DC (including earning work) providing that you can put those things aside to support your family when it needs it (b) men cannot be the SAHP (but most men don't want to be and most women don't want to be breadwinner to a SAHD as far as I can see) (c) it is parents who need to feel guilty together when they fail to support their DC adequately.

I don't think that bringing your DC up with high standards of care means that they don't learn to look after themselves but quite the contrary: when they have been well cared for, they know what a well-run household and well-cared for family look like and are able to maintain those standards themselves. Anecdotally, the only student in my DSS1's student flat at university this year who failed to care for himself (and had to move into catered accommodation mid-way through first term) was the son of two Cambridge GPs who had clearly been living in chaos at home and reproduced that same chaos (to the disgust of his flatmates) at university.

calamitous that would be lovely.

I often think it would be nice if DH could reduce his hours by a third and take a corresponding pay cut. But sadly, his business just doesn't work that way.

And yes he could employ more staff, all of whom earned less and worked less hours but they wouldn't want that. They want the filthy lucre .

I think it happens the other way around. Often one partner is already earning a lot and then as a couple there is a discussion and the other one leaves work. In my case it was a gradual process. We needed 2 incomes when we younger and then I worked less as my DH's salary rose. I dont know that this would have happened if we earnt a simular amount. Then my DS started to have extremely seviere seizures and was diagnosed with epilepsy and as a family and a couple it was a joint decision for me to be a SAHM and for husband to continue in his career he loves and moved 100's of miles away from where he grew up to be able to do.

wordfactory - I think you are projecting female values on men.

Most male breadwinners much prefer their life to any other. Indeed, my brother-in-law, who is extremely ill (dying), would much rather work FT in his last few months/years than stay at home with his family. He loves his children (very much) but his life is his work.

I'm not crazy about my boys "choosing" a high-flying career to which they're not suited to fund a SAHM & a hectic, expensive existence. If that's what they want then fine.

My husband makes way more than I do. It's not always been that way, he was a PhD candidate in archaeology when we met (so it wasn't looking great). He's a lot smarter than I am & has done much better career-wise. I'm also primary care-giver.

'Female values'

Bonsoir there is no way that you can know that most career men would choose the same path in the absence of a SAHM-wife. I reckon this is a fairly lonely & stressful existence at times.

Bonsoir I think your beliefs regarding SAHMs are built to support the particular circumstances in which you find yourself. Unsuprisingly you see positive confirmation of your paradigm all around you. This is natural, but often falsely comforting.

I suspect the reasons why you need to be a SAHM are various.

1. You want to be a SAHM. You enjoy domesticity. This is the single best reason.

1. You did not much enjoy your previous career. Perfectly valid.

1. You find yourself in France where the education system is shoddy and feel the need to make up the difference to what you'd be getting if you were bringing your DD up in the UK. Understandable.

1. Your DH has very high standards about the upbringing of his DC but won't/can't do it himself (eg picking up his DC at lunchtime).

1. You have very high standards for your home and domestic life but your DH and DC will not help out.

1. In France women are expected to do far too much and be far too many things. And you don't want to join that silly treadmill. I wouldn't either.

But here's the thing. We don't all walk in your shoes. Our circumstances are different. So what needs to happen for family life to work well will not be the same.

All it takes is a little bit of imagination to see how that might be .

And with that, I must do my tax returns which, sadly, my DC are not yet old enough to do for me...but I will train 'em. .

wordfactory - some of those reasons are true, and some are not true. I'm not going to write an essay in response .

My DP does do lunchtimes with the DC - he is doing one at this very moment (I am at home). And all my family help out at home. However, the children are not expected to take care of themselves on their own (this is very important IMO).

It is not currently fashionable to adhere to the importance of good household and family management. People are supposed to be able to care for themselves these days, or care is outsourced to low-paid low-skilled workers. This is what I disagree with most. I think all those things are highly important for human welfare and are difficult to outsource effectively without great cost, psychologically, emotionally, intellectually, to children's development (and to the well being of their parents)

I am not subject to the whims of fashion and care little whether or not my lifestyle is popular with the wider world. It is the one I believe in and that would be true wherever I lived.

Completely agree with motherinferior. I wish women would see their lives in the round more, in the way that men have always been encouraged to.

A life that was just about work, marriage and kids would be very dull indeed for me personally, much as I love all three. It's always been very important to me to have time for friendships, learning something new, volunteering and hobbies.

WRT to the thread question, it didn't bother me at all what a prospective partner earned when I was dating because it seemed irrelevant. My financial independence was sacred to me and I knew if I was able to work, I always would.

Once we had big financial commitments and children, if either of us had wanted to do something that would have meant a big drop in income, it would have mattered and would have merited discussion, because our financial commitments have always been so onerous and there are things we would have been loathe to give up. There have certainly been times when we've both wanted to change jobs or working hours to be happier- and we've supported those choices in the other. A combination of luck and a shared characteristic of wanting to make a success of whatever we do has fortunately never meant a major drop in income and occasionally taking those risks has actually meant a rise, long term.

Like others, I have seen contemporaries of mine who've never secured their financial independence, in dire straits in middle age. Not only because of their husbands buggering off with an OW, but because of marriages running out of steam and ending either by mutual agreement or because one of them has had enough. I also know a few people who feel trapped in terrible relationships but because they've lost earning power, simply cannot afford to be single.

While there is still a ludicrous pay-gap between men and women, it frustrates me that so many women still step out of the workplace for years without making provision if life circumstances change.

It also bemuses me that I see so many women whose lives are all about work, kids and husband while their husbands manage to pursue all manner of hobbies and interests. It's fine if that is truly your choice and we all want different things in life, but when I see the gender imbalance so starkly illustrated, I have to think this is political to some extent seeing as there's no evidence to suggest women are born with an innate dislike of hobbies or special interests, or that men are born to love golf, go-karting or the territorial army...

One acquaintance said to me 'I like to be at home when I'm not at work. I don't feel the need for a hobby' to which I enquired that if something outside the home really grabbed her, how easy would it be to pursue it?

'Oh my husband wouldn't want to look after the kids at night on his own after a hard day's work, so no that would be impractical'

Not a free choice then.

[anger]

For those talking about their DCs future jobs and reasons for choosing them, I don't think anyone initially chooses their career based on their possible future spouse / family do they?! When you're at university / school you choose to study something that interests you, go on to look for jobs in that field, and then later on meet someone and have kids - I don't know anyone that chose their career based on whether or not they would need to support a family later. Once kids have arrived, that's when you re-assess circumstances and maybe think twice about changing jobs, as that's when you have many more financial commitments.

'Bonsoir I think your beliefs regarding SAHMs are built to support the particular circumstances in which you find yourself. Unsuprisingly you see positive confirmation of your paradigm all around you. '

This is natural, but often falsely comforting.

I would like to add to this that not only can it be falsely comforting but when it comes to giving advice to other people who's circumstances are wildly different it can be insulting/damaging.

Seeing a 'positive confirmation of your paradigm all around you starts' first with convincing yourself. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that a little more transparency would be useful. As well as a bit of putting yourself in someone else's shoes in the broadest sense i.e. if you were them, with their particular set of circumstances/constraints.

I haver never noticed women having less hobbies than men, I guess it depends on your group of friends. My interests are swimming, sewing club, horse riding, seeing friends. DH likes gym and playing computer games, football games with DS or his friends.

"I don't know anyone that chose their career based on whether or not they would need to support a family later."

Really???! That is the very first consideration that we discuss with our DC when they are choosing what to study at university. No medicine! (doctors are paupers in France).

Well when it came to my own career decisions when younger, yes I did assume it would have to earn enough for me to support a family and the lifestyle I wanted. My aim was to find something I loved doing, that paid well.

I know that this was because of not having enough money to go around as a child and seeing a clever mum who wasn't given the opportunities to earn a high salary. I'm forever grateful that she drummed into me the importance of grabbing opportunities and being financially independent, which is also something we've passed on to all of our kids, regardless of gender.

Good grief I don't think I've got any friends who don't lead full lives, health permitting.

But I meet lots of people around and about and like most people, know lots of women who are passing acquaintances who I'll chat to. The woman I'm referring to whose husband wouldn't look after his own kids in the evening lives in our town, but is not a close friend.

"doctors are paupers in France"

Bonsoir, you do know that you live on an entirely different planet to almost the whole of the rest of France, to say the least, don't you?
When you make inaccurate, sweeping statements like that one, you undermine the relevance of anything else you might write.

I can see that salary is a consideration, I just mean for say an 18 year old deciding what to study at university, it's not the main thing I.e the thought process doesn't start with: "what are the best paying jobs around?" Then follow onto "what do I enjoy?" Maybe it does for some people but not for everyone. Leavenheath when I was a teenager we also had difficult financial circumstances but it didn't result in the same thought process - although I did end up with a very well paid job so I'm not trying to take some kind of moral high ground just surprised that supporting a family would be such a strong concern at a relatively young age. I think I came away with the view that you could still have a happy healthy family even without much money, so not to focus on that.

In 2009, the average monthly salary for a French GP was 6148 euros.

For a radiologist, according to this article from 2012, it was 12424 euros/mth.

It may be less now, due to a hike in various charges and taxes, but to describe someone earning that amount as a pauper is just silly.