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?

While I've been enjoying the spitting contest between Near and Puddles, not to mention the overall snobfest on this thread, I do feel Puddles made the crucial point:

"I do not under any circumstances think it's wise for a woman to be dependant on a man without any form of income if you do not have any personal wealth or savings which are separate from your partner."

It doesn't really matter whether your grandma left you half a country in her will or you're a delivery driver - the objective point is that, without independent income, you're in a frighteningly precarious state. In the current political context of mass unemployment and vicious benefit cuts, it's a rare individual who could be confident of whisking up a decent, independent new life for herself and any children.

Every woman in that situation has made herself a servant to her partner - paid or unpaid (and there's another word for an unpaid servant.) She has effectively put a value on her husband's love - the income she'd have if she were working. I understand, of course, there are a thousand other factors at work: family, household and other social duties; outsourcing costs; geographic mobility, and more. We live in a very imperfect world. But, if a non-working partner relies on their partner for a living, and that partner doesn't pay her a regular amount from which she can save, then she's gambled her future on the relationship. I think she'd be wise to alter the terms of her bet.

Yes I agree with that, nicely put.

We met aged 19 & 22 both at Uni and penniless. As it happens, when we had the DC he was earning enough for me to stay home for them for about a decade. I am used to the standard of living we have now, but at the time we threw our lot in together, it didn't cross my mind.

This must be the single most depressing thread on Mumsnet. I'm quite dismayed to see so many women expect to be "kept".

Staying at home whilst your children are pre-school age, okay, although still not as wise as keeping a hand in the job market on a part-time basis, should your circumstances suddenly change.

Not bothering to get a job after they are at school (or even university!) is ridiculous. No doubt these are the people who, if their H had an affair, would forgive and turn a blind eye because they actually don't have any other option. So many of the affair threads on relationships are by SAHMs, and often, when people say leave, they say they can't as they can't support themselves.

Even if your income is dwarfed by your husband's, still earn it and have your own little savings account, that's yours and you can rely on should you find yourself in a situation of need, be that your spouse dying, leaving you, becoming ill, getting fired, going to jail for fraud, whatever.

I wasn't aware that SAHMs could have their own savings account. Lucky I read this thread, now I can move my money from under the mattress.

I don't think the fact a person has not thought about the future and pensions means they lack intelligence. It just means they haven't thought about it and about the long-term implications.

Okay, not ridiculous, (poor choice of words) but ridiculous to still describe it as being a SAHM like it's a job. You just don't work and live off your husband, entirely a rightful choice but just accept that is the choice you make, don't try and justify it being necessary in order to adequately run a household and bring up your children successfully.

I don't see it as a job, more as a lifestyle.

Well to be fair, being a homemaker is a job. It works for some people, and a lot of people probably just wound up in this position rather than setting their sights on it. Like I said, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to pass judgement on this on an individual level, it makes more sense to consider what it means that most SAHP's are women.

And, really having a job does not mean you escape the fate of a dullard. People are interesting because they know what's going on in the world, this has precisely nothing to do with your job. I find nothing worse than going to a party and listening to people talk about interest rates.

It makes more sense to consider what it means that most SAHP's are women. - Yes, and the conditions leading to this state of affairs are the same ones that lead to a lot of people just winding up in this position.

Crowler, you don't have to be in paid employment to have a view on how interest rates are going to go. So what do you find interesting to talk about in a party?

I thought Crowler meant people say who work in banking and talk about their jobs.

I don't work. But I love talking about interest rates. I find it really interesting. I probably instigate the conversations about interest rates at parties/dinners. (Along with instigating conversations about the English cricket team....)

What sort of thing would you want to talk about, Crowler?

RRudyR, it's not that teenagers don't need parenting, but they don't need parenting between 8:30 and 4, which leaves a lot of free time, if you use your time efficiently.

Creamy put it much more elegantly than my attempt, it is a lifestyle choice.

I meant interest rates more as a metaphor for endless nattering about finance at dinner parties.

For those who stay at home once children are at school ft what do you do all day? (genuine q)

I'll read the thread again later and accept I was probably a bit hard on puddles.

I do think it's sad though that here are women, from any walk of life, who nowadays accept they should do no work at all because they are women - whether they have a private income or not.

I am twice Puddle's age (and a teeny bit) and probably am an "old woman" to girls in their twenties and I fully accept I am past full bloom - although not yet withered.

But I do know that one of the reasons I loved being a SAHM (with little or no help from DH because we made a conscious and informed decision that he would put his all into his career) was because after 13 years of long, hard, disciplined, albeit very fruitful, graft in the City, I was ready for it, could deal with the boring bits and cherished the "freedom" it gave me. We could only make that decision because I entered the relationship with my own capital having married entirely for love albeit with someone who shared my work ethic and other philosophies.

After 8 years as a SAHM I was ready to go back to work and had to start again at the very bottom at 43 and that was very hard but it isn't something I regret. I do agree that working doesn't necessarily make one interesting but I think if one has a privileged life style it does make one a little more aware of the world one lives in and a little better able to apply opinion; it also helps one keep in touch with points of view across different ages, races and value sets.

I don't have to work but I value it and as I have said it gives me a purpose as well as many other things and I do think it is good for the DC. It has made them a bit more self reliant and has set them a good example. The DC will be comfortably wealthy; not mega rich but if they lived modestly they would not have to work but I doubt they would be able to fund a lifestyle and grow their capital so I appreciate we are probably not in Puddles' league but I would be very disappointed if they came out of education without a work ethic. They tough will have the luxury of being able to pursue more artistic or esoteric careers and having a cushion should they do so.

Both DC have attended or attend the very best schools where there are hugely rich families but without exception all of those families expect theri children to be successful and to work in their own right and Puddles pov genuinely surprises me in 2014. It was common still in the 70's when I grew up and I know lots of women from wealthy backgrounds from my era who grew up with those expectations and who have ended up alone, with children who have flown and a little too much time on their hands now their looks have faded and they haven't kept apace as the world has moved on.

My DH advises some of these very rich people and we talk about their children and often they will say how much they worry about the child, often one of more, who is living the playboy or playgirl life and how they wish they would knuckle down a bit. I say that with no ill intent but it woukd worry me too if mine didn't work or want to work.

No, not all. We earn enough for what we need and that is all that matters.

No one should give up financial independence other than temporarily.

I don't know what they do Noddy. I did it for a year when dd started school. At that point I was spening half of every day doing voluntary stuff and generally being harangued and thought if I was using my brain and my time, I might as well get a job and be paid. No one has ever been as demanding since than the Chairs of the PTA and governors, the local vicar and a local charity network.

But when I wasn't doing stuff and was at home I had all the jobs done by 10.30, would go for a potter up the high street, ring DH or my mum, polish all the stainless steel in the kitchen and although you can have a chat to the oven; it doesn't answer back! Pick 3.30-600 was hectic but tedious and easily sub contractable I found. I had certainly sat beside the swimming pool enough when I did it for a second time.

That sounds such a lonely existance Near. Are things better now?