Large income gap, would you expect the lower earning partner to still work for money?

kimwp

MinnieBin said:

kimwp said:

MinnieBin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Tree_pipe99 said:

I think some are rushing to judgement on B without knowing the full picture. Depending on the trust and understanding in the relationship I think B could be reasonable in thinking there could be an element of control in this.  

How is it controlling for both partners to maintain an independent income? How is it controlling for A to not want B to make themselves filly financially dependent upon A? How is it controlling for both partners to be expected to work and contribute to the household?

On the one hand, yes. But B's income doesn't materially affect their standard of living, it is virtually invisible. Their gardener or cleaner likely earns more, and it often feels as though A is trying to assert control by reducing B's importance to the same level as those roles. How must B feel watching A spend several months' worth of B's hard earned wages on a single handbag (or whatever it is), without even blinking?

But it's not B's wages paying for the handbag though? If A can afford it, why should they be restricted from buying it?

If B can work, then it seems reasonable for them to contribute. If A is making B feel controlled or devalued (or having to work in a way that is affecting their health), then they need to talk to A and if nothing changes and they are unhappy, leave the relationship. 

Not B's wages directly, but an amount equivalent to what they contribute to the joint budget. For A, it's effectively pocket money that barely registers. For B, it means working more than full time, being permanently exhausted, and running themselves into the ground.

Unless A is taking B's money to spend on fripperies, then it's not really relevant how long it would take B to earn that money.

I do tend to advocate for joint earnings to be split between partners, on the basis that a partnership is building a life together, and there may be reasons (childcare, job opportunities, disabilities etc) that one financially contributes less than the other. This is on the basis that in a romantic partnership, one shouldn't want the other to have less than them. However there may be reasons for this not to be the case, for example, one of the partners spends everything they have access to.

You say it is an amount equivalent to what they contribute to the budget, but what proportion of the bills do they contribute to? (Separately to mortgage/house repairs if they don't co-own)

p00hsticks

MinnieBin said:

BungalowBel said:

If the couple are older (pensions maxed so assume so), and it is a relatively new relationship, then I would expect each partner to carry on working , but contributing to the household budget commensurate with their earnings.

I would not expect the lower earner to not work at all.  However, I also would not expect them to 'break their back' doing overtime.  Just their standard hours.

B is older than A. A still has some time until retirement (not sure about their pensions arrangement), and probably doesn't appreciate how precarious B's position is.

but surely B's situation would be far more precarious if they gave up work and the relationship broke down  ? 
It already sounds as if they are on shaky ground, and if B is living in A's house being mainly supported by A already, how would they manage if they split and B had to move out ?

With no joint children, no marriage and only having bee living together for a year there's not going to be any maintenance coming....

badmemory

One person having to work overtime whilst the other has lots of spare money is not a partnership.  I would be wondering if A actually understands B circumstances or was B too embarassed to explain properly.

Emmia

badmemory said:

One person having to work overtime whilst the other has lots of spare money is not a partnership.  I would be wondering if A actually understands B circumstances or was B too embarrassed to explain properly.

Or B doesn't want to be a sponge... Personally in B's situation I wouldn't be expecting handouts from A. I might be seeking better remunerated employment to reduce the income gulf.

sheramber

What they decide on as a couple is the only important factor.

said on party is not happy then BOTH parties need to sit down and talk about it.

They also need to look at their relationship and where it is going in the future? 

What a load of strangers on a public forum think is totally irrelevant. 

In fact, if their views matter then there is not much depth to the relationship. 

Savvy_Sue

MayDogsandCoffee said:

Same as Spendless I don't know why expectations were clear ahead of marriage, but then there isn't much information given to make valid comments.  

No indication of marriage here, and if 'just' living together I'd be advising B to look for sustainable better paid work, especially if they are responsible for any of the not yet adult children ... 

But it has to be a discussion between A and B. If B is unhappy with the situation, that's the first step.

Pollycat

This reads like a typical MMD but with the OP drip-feeding additional information along the way.

I wonder if B is aware that their relative has posted about what they confided to them in the public domain - however anonymous it may seem?
I'd be furious.

Is A so blind that they are unware of the effect that 'back-breaking work' is having on their partner?
Who has the principles here? ("it's heartbreaking to see them pushed into back breaking work purely as a matter of principle.").
Does A expect their live-in partner to continue in 'back-breaking work'?
Doesn't B have any chance of changing jobs to something a little less 'back-breaking'?

Have A and B even talked about how each other feels and about their expectations of each other going forward in this relationship?

MEM62

MinnieBin said:

If you were Partner A, would you expect Partner B to break their back for 10% of the wage you are making? If yes, why?

In my personal case, I care more about my partner than I do money.  That tells you where I would go with it.   

Sapindus

I wouldn't necessarily "expect" the lower earning partner to work for a living, but it would depend what they were doing with their time instead. Playing into that is also the possibility that the lower earning partner might need to work again inf the relationship broke down or the higher earning partner lost their job or became chronically unwell.  There must be alternatives to "breaking their back", such as doing voluntary work or a less strenuous job to maintain workplace skills.  Or they might be active in maintaining the home, gardening, growing and cooking food etc.  I wouldn't be very happy if they just gave up work and sat around all day playing video games or watching netflix.

Emmia

Sapindus said:

I wouldn't necessarily "expect" the lower earning partner to work for a living, but it would depend what they were doing with their time instead. Playing into that is also the possibility that the lower earning partner might need to work again inf the relationship broke down or the higher earning partner lost their job or became chronically unwell.  There must be alternatives to "breaking their back", such as doing voluntary work or a less strenuous job to maintain workplace skills.  Or they might be active in maintaining the home, gardening, growing and cooking food etc.  I wouldn't be very happy if they just gave up work and sat around all day playing video games or watching netflix.

I always think that "housework" like cooking and cleaning which is unpaid labour shouldn't be the expectation of the alternative to paid employment. It financially disempowers people who can then be trapped if the relationship turned sour.

Paid employment gives a degree of power and choice to individuals.