Dating someone who has less than you

moneyistooshorttomention

Carl31 wrote: »

I doubt shes single because of that, more likely because it sounds like she values possessions above people

How would she even know that people dont have anything before dating them?

In answer to your question, yes i would, in fact i did and I am now married to her

That's got middle-aged me puzzled there - ie as to "Hmmm....but this is a man married to a woman with less....errr...I don't get it....":rotfl:. That is certainly something that I wouldn't think to be a problem - and was very surprised that a few men in my generation thought it was (at least if they hadn't clapped eyes on me - when it became less of a problem LOL). To me = I never saw any reason why I shouldn't go out with a man who had LOTS more than me and I sometimes did (as I was a woman and he was a man....).

*****************

In my own case (ie female - late middle-aged) it would have been virtually impossible I would have thought for me to date someone with less than me. I was on such low income the majority of the time and was never even paid decent money, never mind good money (I wish......).

That being the case - the question pretty much didn't arise anyway.

However, when I was some way into middle age I dated a man for a few months who lived in (public sector) rented property - whereas I owned my own house. To me what that translated into was I was very good with money (ie to have been able to manage to buy a house) and he was bad with money (ie he was on a bit better income than me - but was running a car and pouring a lot of booze down his throat). To me - it was quite clear we had different value systems. My value system = you buy your own house if you possibly can and definitely don't have a car or drink a lot of booze unless you can afford to. His value system was = its okay to spend "housebuying money" on petrol and booze. End conclusion = we were obviously incompatible, as our values were far too different.

I suspect this is basically what it boils down in the case of OP's friend.

Voyager2002

VestanPance wrote: »

I'd imagine they do well because they did science or engineering degrees, not something like philosophy!

Everyone I know with a science or engineering degree is employed in their field of study, or something very closely related to it.

Actually, the people who do really well tend to have studied things like Politics, Economics and so forth: but at absolutely top universities. Science and Engineering lead to good but middle-range careers, and graduates in these subjects tend to be steered away from the fast track to top management.

I know people who have used Philosophy as a training in rigorous conceptual thought and gone on to become multi-millionaires, but clearly such people chose their universities well.

VestanPance

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Actually, the people who do really well tend to have studied things like Politics, Economics and so forth: but at absolutely top universities. Science and Engineering lead to good but middle-range careers, and graduates in these subjects tend to be steered away from the fast track to top management.

I know people who have used Philosophy as a training in rigorous conceptual thought and gone on to become multi-millionaires, but clearly such people chose their universities well.

What a load of utter !!!!!!!!.

a1fan

I typed up something then it refresh and disappeared

The last guy my colleague was with (who was a colleague of ours but was an agency so now gone) ended up feeling a bit resentful.

I think if I was with a guy who had much more than me I would worry that I'd feel inferior or he'd use it against me in some way such as threatening to kick me out etc (not that I'd be with someone who made such threats).

Contribution to a relationship is more than just money/assets. Whoever earns more now may not be the case in the future. As I said, my last partner earned more but had to pay out more as he had a child and other things to pay for. I therefore paid more financially throughout our relationship. I was happy to do this as I was comfortably able to. What I really did resent though, was that he has a lot of close family members (I have a fractious relationship with mine) therefore I did feel that 'our' time/money/resources were benefitting his side more and I never felt as though they were grateful for it.

Acc72

Some of the comments are interesting - I guess that they would have been even more interesting if the OP had been referring to a male colleague.


It is interesting that the colleague does not want to get involved with a partner who has less than them financially, yet this is exactly what they expect a prospective partner to do (as to meet the criteria they would need to have more money than the colleague).

Gloomendoom

barbarawright wrote: »

Do people really make so many enquiries about potential partner's finances before going out for a drink? No wonder she's single...

I thought the same thing. The thing that first attracted me to Mrs G was her hair, not the size of her purse.

Gloomendoom

OK, her hair and her bum.

missbiggles1

VestanPance wrote: »

What a load of utter !!!!!!!!.

Actually, he's right - you don't get rich from doing an engineering degree.

justme111

Gloomendoom wrote: »

OK, her hair and her bum.

Was it the same for her ?:)
Men and women are different in certain things, even if it is not politcorrect to say so.

VfM4meplse

Any woman who gets into a relationship with a man who earns less than her has only got herself and her romantic delusion to blame when it goes wrong and she ends up out of pocket.

Never be that woman.