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?

Yes it does.One of the reasons I was attracted to my now dh was because a I thought he would look after me-flame away I could not give a fuck.Sadly dh is feckless with money and my life is shite.Hey ho.

Why on earth do you presume that people who work always do so for someone else morethanpotatoprints? Or that every day at work is the same old thing?

I think you may have misunderstood what posters are saying about choices. It's not just the 'chosen few' who have them, but few lifestyle choices aren't narrowed by other factors outside of our control.

So to use a gender neutral example, if you were born into poverty to parents who didn't value education and lived in a catchment for a failing school, your learning opportunities and choices are going to be much narrower than someone whose parents were comfortably off, lived near the best schools and who both had a passion for learning.

That's obvious isn't it?

So to use a gender neutral example, if you were born into poverty to parents who didn't value education and lived in a catchment for a failing school, your learning opportunities and choices are going to be much narrower than someone whose parents were comfortably off, lived near the best schools and who both had a passion for learning.

nail meet head.

Lweji Yes, that is sooooo right. Everyone who was mildly offended by the fanjolodger bit, in relation to women who stay at home after their children go to school, are all just really lazy arses. And quite dull. And definitely, 100% not feminists.

Or MAYBE, that part of this thread wasn't quite as amusing as you all thought and was actually denigrating a whole section of society. Again.

My point from the start of me posting on this has always been, how come a thread that was supposed to be about whether each of us, regardless of our working status, found our DH's earnings part of their attraction. And BOOM! It was handbags at dawn and all about working vs sahm parents (of school age children).

Going back a little I realise, but having participated in both corporate and social functions involving the supposed 'elite', people do tend to flock towards and be enamoured of your 'wit and charm' (and of course, discount any negatives) if you have sufficient bank book, position, or social capital to make it worth their while.

I could give examples but that would probably break talk guidelines.

Purplesprout, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one hoping you break the guidelines!!

ZeeTeam agree this thread has made for depressing reading.

If a parent earns enough to enable a comfortable lifestyle, why does it vex some posters here if the other parent doesn't earn? Perhaps they see a benefit in there being no need for childcare after school, no need to spend your life chasing your tail.

Some of us only take paid work to live. Is that morally wrong? I can't see that myself. In modern money-based society of course there is a great pride to be had in earning (yes to that wonderful first pay packet and I was overjoyed to pay my board to my mum!) But there are other contributions that are made to partnerships and the business of living.

I just don't get the fuss over how other people sort out their family life.

To answer the OP, a partner no but the parent of my child, yes.

TheZeeTeam

You can argue with people who said women who stay at home after children grow up, but what I talked about was women who contributed very little to the family, workwise, or financially.

The expression fanjolodger was a specific parallel with cocklodger. Whatever you think a cocklodger is, then apply it to women.
I didn't say about certain women that they were kept. They said themselves here.

If women who are at home, regardless of children, and have no other source of income, contribute towards maintaining the home, and support their children and husband, I don't see that they merit the term.

And I ask any a woman who is "kept" if they'd be prepared to switch places and have their husbands be at home doing what they do. If the answer is yes, fine, if the answer is no, then think carefully if that is fair.

Also, TheZeeTeam you will find that I argued that people who stay at home can be more interesting than people who are at work, and that anyone can make useful contributions at home. It's only a matter of if they actually do make useful contributions at home or not.

Puddles, you've just proved you are dull. Dull dull dull. I can't imagine having the narrowness of vision and lack of imagination that sees one being handed over from parents to husband on the basis that one has a "busy social
Life". Don't you feel embarrassed that you will never, ever achieve something of your own?

And to sneer at someone for not attending balls that you're only invited to because of someone else's money (yes, that is what all those family trusts are) is hilarious. You're not there because of your wit and charm, youre there because your parents were loaded - and if it turned out tomorrow your dad was a crook & those trusts were unwound you'd be out on your arse in a red hot second. Pathetic.

Tbh, I was just talking generally about that section of this thread. I only named you as you made the comment ^ just there that said we would only be upset if we felt we WERE fanjolodgers....can I just write FL's instead?! It's so much quicker!

My DP earns a horrific amount, so much i find it intimidating and I'm privately educated, from a nice part of Surrey...

I've never dated anyone with a lot of cash before and strangely I kind of wish he wasn't as se off as he is.

I just reread my post and, in my tired state, I read it as "Fandodgers" Which, I'm pretty sure, is something else altogether!

I quite fancy being a Fandodger though. Next time I have dinner with a CEO, I will introduce myself as such.

puddles you are not financially independent, you are dependent on your family's wealth.

I am a lazy sod, but even I would baulk at another 60 odd years of that. The sheer purposeless of it all.

Nearthewindmill is right. Things may be hunky dory now, but give it another decade or so and the picture may not be so rosy.

No actually, scratch that puddles, your current lifestyle of gilded idleness doesn't seem to be doing you much good at all. You come across as spiteful, ill-mannered, shallow and a bit dim.

Considering I earn more than the prime minister, I would have a lot of difficulty finding a man who earns more. My personal view is that a man should definitely earn enough to be able to provide for his family, if he finds a career driven woman then lucky him, any woman should have an option to stay at home and nurse a young child. Once the children are school going age... That's. another debate altogether. In answer to your question, as long as his earnings can support him and any off spring then you earning more should not matter.

OP

In a word, no. We both share the same work ethic and life path and that is far more important to me than how much money my husband earns. Although we are on an equal par with earnings, so that may have a bearing on my thoughts.

I rarely talk about my work because it is difficult to explain what I do, without sounding a complete twat, and the reality, as opposed to people's perceptions of it, is quite dull.

I think Puddles is definitely nouveau riche. I know quite a few people who are "old money", who probably have similar lifestyles to her, who wouldn't dream of addressing anyone in the way she has. It brings to mind that Harry Enfield character - "I am so extremely richer than yowwwww."

I think that if either from the offset you meet someone with sufficient income or if over time their income develops, and it is decided by a couple that one person staying at home fulltime is what suits them and their family, then that's fine. (I think it is risky, as for the most part high earners are not so rich as to be 'set up for life' should divorce or redundancy kick in) but none of my business.

I cannot however fathom demanding that from the offset in a relationship.

Some of the examples on here clearly have very high earners on either side and I can quite see a second income could be an irrelevance in those circumstances, but if you are as I am the "squeezed middle" a second income would make a difference. I earn, at the moment, just under £45,000. I could afford to support two people on that salary but after children were school age a second income, even a small one, would allow savings to be put aside for the children to help them with future housing costs, weddings, university, cars.

I do think in those circumstances demanding ALL the money coming from one person (of either gender) is a bit selfish, sorry.

My partner earns just over £1000 pcm, although I'm not financially dependent on him it still worries me that if we had children we would struggle immensely on that wage.

lifeisforlivingkatie you earn more than the prime minister? Any jobs going? Haha!

LivingKate, Considering I earn more than the prime minister

I'm guessing you mean his nominal salary?

I sometimes think that not all women realise the implications that being a SAHM may have on them in the distant future. I realise you can't prepare for every eventuality. And now people are expected to work a lot longer than before things are changing.

I think lots of SAHMs do know the implications of not being in paid employment. When I hear that It sounds like an assumption we lack intelligence. And to whoever said up thread about getting a degree but not a job is a waste I also disagree with. I have had jobs since I finished mine but am not working now but I also use mine everyday. It's part of who I am.

I think long-term SAHM-hood is not great at a macro-level. There are lots of individual marriages where it works really well.