Dating someone who has less than you

Lunar_Eclipse

fierystormcloud wrote: »

I know several people who did Media and Art degrees who are now working with multinational companies on £55-£70K a year, and they're still only mid 20s.

Several? That's an impressive salary at that age regardless of field/degree.

What degrees did they do and what are jobs are they now doing?

Are they the lucky handful do you think?

fierystormcloud

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I would do it yes. Mainly because I believe in love over materialistic possessions, but also because someone earning less than her and currently renting now could easily earn a lot more than her in 5-10 years time. In fact, I would bet on it.

At your friend's age, many people will still be renting. Earnings have the potential to increase exponentially, especially for those with a good university education and in well paying careers.

(You are right that not going to university is a massive sacrifice: statistically speaking your friend has significantly limited her earning potential. I've read it's by an average of 20%, but this is actually low because it takes into account everyone with degrees, many/most of whom don't end up in particularly high paying jobs, whereas graduate starting salaries at top law firms for instance now start on c80k in London! The vast majority of working women will never earn £80k in today's money.)

Very true. Right now I know several people at university who don't have a pot to pee in, and people of their age (18-22) who are on about £15-£20K, and raking in £275 to £325 a week from shop work and factory work. But then I know several people who left university several years ago who are on £50K plus. No way in a million years will their friends who didn't go to university earn as much as them - ever. Well, it's extremely unlikely anyway.

So although these people I know who are broke (and even several thousand in debt,) they will be rolling in it in a few years, while many of their friends who chose to not go to university will be struggling to get above minimum wage.

FBaby

No, the original gender assignment remains until such time that "persons" of both sexes can give birth. When hell freezes over.

This post really says it all. Amazing how women are screaming for equality as a right, but are only too happy to use excuses when it suits them. What has giving birth got to do with it? Most pregnant women can work until a few weeks before giving birth and only needs a few weeks to recover. Someone has to look after the baby, but it doesn't have to be the mother.

I have never read so much biased in terms of sexes than on this forum. Women who have chosen to be SAHM given the status of 50/50 of the family income just because they contribute as much to the household. Yet when one rare woman comes to say that she is more financially wealthy than her partner and wants to protect her money, then suddenly she is in her right to protect what she has worked hard to save. No discussion about wht the partner might not be as well off or what he might be contributing in other way than financially, he is automatically labelled as a liability.

I think we are still very far from true equality in this country and men get the raw deal. Still expected to support the family no matter what and lose more than 50% if the marriage break down, but turns things around and a woman in the same situation is expected to protect her assets.

Georgiegirl256

VfM4meplse wrote: »

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.

What a load of sexist twaddle! If that's your attitude, it works both ways you know.

Personally, I judge someone on their personality, their kindness, and how they treat me rather than the size of their bank balance.

So, are you saying that if you were with someone who you really really liked, who treated you well and who you could see a future with, that you would dump him once you'd found out that he was earning less than you?

Errata

There have been numerous posts from men on how they can protect their assets from a woman they plan to live with or marry. Responses come in only two flavours: how dare you, and here's how to do it legally.

ineed

a1fan wrote: »

Would you do it?

My colleague has her own property in London and has her own car. Apart from mortgage she has no debts. She's not a high earner but to have what she's got, she made a lot of sacrifices (such as not going to uni and working instead, saving hard and living cheaply/simply). She is in her late 20's and is single.

She claims she is single because many guys who are around her age do not own their own home and she's reluctant to risk losing anything.

I remember when my sister divorced, she felt she lost out on a lot of financial assets by sharing everything in the first place. It's now put her off to be with someone who has less.

I dated a guy who earned more than I did but over the course of our relationship (5 years) I contributed more financially as he had other outgoings like child support.

I would, it matters more to me that a potential partner shares my interests and there's a mutual attraction than money. She wouldn't risk her assists unless she married anyway, dating someone and even living with someone doesn't currently offer the same rights or protections as marriage if I remember the laws surrounding living together correctly.

I'm in my late 20's like your friend btw, and I'm also a homeowner with a small mortgage. Due to severe illness I also missed out on university (college diplomas educated only) but I'm studying with OU, which has gotten me quite a bit of positive feedback. It's never to late to get into or back into education should she wish to do so.

FBaby

Forgetting the pure financial aspect of it, the issue for me was not the salary package of my husband, but how ambitious and hard working he was. I was brought up to be ambitious and value this quality, whatever the sex, so for me, I would find it very hard to share my life with someone who didn't share than same level of aspiration.

Inevitably, the more ambitious and hard working you are, the higher the chance of earning a good income. But this means that if my husband had been penniless, but setting a new business, which I could see had great potential and worked all hours to make it a success, I would have loved him just the same, whereas if I'd found out that he had been enjoying a comfortable lifestyle supported by his parents, that would have been a total turn-off from the start.

Gaia2014

meritaten wrote: »

I must be from a different planet - never mind a different generation! unless things have changed unrecognisably over the years, men usually earn more than women and its 'relatively' normal for one partner to earn more than another. personally, I don't care if its the male or the female.
what does worry me is this attitude I have seen on here that marriage is not about 'sharing with your partner' but 'His Money' and 'Her money'. that isn't a partnership, and in my view certainly isn't a marriage. what you both earn belongs to BOTH of you - equally. what you 'Own' becomes your wifes/husbands on marriage (legally). yet, its like there is this great desire to keep ones own finances to oneself and marriage is more like 'housesharing'. So of course if one of the couple earns significantly less -with this attitude there is going to be tension. Over the years on here I am seeing more and more posts about this - and what is coming across is that the higher earner is reluctant to 'share' equally with their partner/husband/wife. perhaps society is becoming more selfish?

Couldn't agree more :T

DUTR

meritaten wrote: »

I must be from a different planet - never mind a different generation! unless things have changed unrecognisably over the years, men usually earn more than women and its 'relatively' normal for one partner to earn more than another. personally, I don't care if its the male or the female.
what does worry me is this attitude I have seen on here that marriage is not about 'sharing with your partner' but 'His Money' and 'Her money'. that isn't a partnership, and in my view certainly isn't a marriage. what you both earn belongs to BOTH of you - equally. what you 'Own' becomes your wifes/husbands on marriage (legally). yet, its like there is this great desire to keep ones own finances to oneself and marriage is more like 'housesharing'. So of course if one of the couple earns significantly less -with this attitude there is going to be tension. Over the years on here I am seeing more and more posts about this - and what is coming across is that the higher earner is reluctant to 'share' equally with their partner/husband/wife. perhaps society is becoming more selfish?

Perhaps it is, who is the more selfish though? The one with more to gain or the one with more to lose?

FBaby

Over the years on here I am seeing more and more posts about this - and what is coming across is that the higher earner is reluctant to 'share' equally with their partner/husband/wife. perhaps society is becoming more selfish?

Although I totally agree with you in principle, I think there is also a growing trend for married men to not be totally happy to be the main bread winners whilst the wives stay at home, expecting their husband to do more and more their share of housework, whilst refusing to go back to work.

It has definitely ben my experience talking with male colleagues over the years. Only last week, one of them was telling me that he had an argument with his wife the day before because they had agreed (or so he thought!) that she would go back to work once their youngest child was starting school (next September) but he thinks she is coming up with excuses not to because she doesn't want to whilst he is desperate for her to do so because he wants to enjoy the benefit of finally having more disposable income.