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

MattMattMattUK

Pollycat said:

Is A so blind that they are unware of the effect that 'back-breaking work' is having on their partner?

When the OP first used "back-breaking" it sounded totally hyperbolic, when they used it again it comes across as an attempt to try and get the answer that they want, rather than any real reflection of the work they are actually doing. The same with the drip feed, I wonder of this is even real. 

Cressida100

This thread reads like the OP had nothing better to do on Christmas Day IMHO. 

kimwp

Emmia said:

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.

I'm not sure I follow - if  partner B said to A, I want to quit my job and hang out with friends, go for coffee instead, would it not be reasonable for A to say, ok, but I think you should do more of the housework while I'm at work, then we have more free time together?

Emmia

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

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.

I'm not sure I follow - if  partner B said to A, I want to quit my job and hang out with friends, go for coffee instead, would it not be reasonable for A to say, ok, but I think you should do more of the housework while I'm at work, then we have more free time together?

Or, you hire a cleaner?

I'm not in favour of people not working and relying on the income of their partner... So B would be working not chillaxing at their partners expense.

Like I said "paid employment gives power and choice to individuals"

Sapindus

Emmia said:

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

Or, you hire a cleaner?

I'm not in favour of people not working and relying on the income of their partner... So B would be working not chillaxing at their partners expense.

Like I said "paid employment gives power and choice to individuals"

I do see your point.  But if a couple have come to a mutual agreement that one of them staying home and putting a lot of time and effort into "housework" or childrearing means they are contributing an equal amount to the partnership, that's their business.  Going out to work just to have £ in your hand and then having to hire a cleaner or pay for childcare makes no sense to me.   

kimwp

Emmia said:

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

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.

I'm not sure I follow - if  partner B said to A, I want to quit my job and hang out with friends, go for coffee instead, would it not be reasonable for A to say, ok, but I think you should do more of the housework while I'm at work, then we have more free time together?

Or, you hire a cleaner?

I'm not in favour of people not working and relying on the income of their partner... So B would be working not chillaxing at their partners expense.

Like I said "paid employment gives power and choice to individuals"

Perhaps I was being too rigorous about your wording- paid employment is not an alternative to paid employment - it's the same thing. So eliminating paid employment from the equation (and assuming no other commitments such as caring for a child and sufficient capability), then B would be petitioning to have a free ride from A - I think additional responsibility for the housework is a reasonable expectation in that case.

silvercar

There’s also the career limiting issue. If something needs dealing with at home in working hours, be it kids, aging relatives or a leaking boiler, it ends up being the responsibility of the lower paid, just because it makes more financial sense for the lower paid to sacrifice income and that has a knock on effect on career potential. Same as if higher earner plans a mammoth holiday and the lower paid is denied annual leave, is it worth sacrificing a world cruise to do a minimum wage shift in McD?

Emmia

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

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.

I'm not sure I follow - if  partner B said to A, I want to quit my job and hang out with friends, go for coffee instead, would it not be reasonable for A to say, ok, but I think you should do more of the housework while I'm at work, then we have more free time together?

Or, you hire a cleaner?

I'm not in favour of people not working and relying on the income of their partner... So B would be working not chillaxing at their partners expense.

Like I said "paid employment gives power and choice to individuals"

Perhaps I was being too rigorous about your wording- paid employment is not an alternative to paid employment - it's the same thing. So eliminating paid employment from the equation (and assuming no other commitments such as caring for a child and sufficient capability), then B would be petitioning to have a free ride from A - I think additional responsibility for the housework is a reasonable expectation in that case.

Women doing this kind of unpaid labour is exactly why they frequently have lower pensions, lifetime earnings and poor career progression. I get it's a choice - but it's one with ramifications for the whole of someone's life. 

If I was A, there is no way I'd be letting B sponge off me like this. A cleaner is frankly cheaper than 100% financially supporting your OH. If I was B I wouldn't want to be 100% financially dependent on A, I personally like to have choice, and your own independent income gives you that.

We don't agree, so I'll leave it there.

kimwp

Emmia said:

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

kimwp said:

Emmia said:

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.

I'm not sure I follow - if  partner B said to A, I want to quit my job and hang out with friends, go for coffee instead, would it not be reasonable for A to say, ok, but I think you should do more of the housework while I'm at work, then we have more free time together?

Or, you hire a cleaner?

I'm not in favour of people not working and relying on the income of their partner... So B would be working not chillaxing at their partners expense.

Like I said "paid employment gives power and choice to individuals"

Perhaps I was being too rigorous about your wording- paid employment is not an alternative to paid employment - it's the same thing. So eliminating paid employment from the equation (and assuming no other commitments such as caring for a child and sufficient capability), then B would be petitioning to have a free ride from A - I think additional responsibility for the housework is a reasonable expectation in that case.

Women doing this kind of unpaid labour is exactly why they frequently have lower pensions, lifetime earnings and poor career progression. I get it's a choice - but it's one with ramifications for the whole of someone's life. 

If I was A, there is no way I'd be letting B sponge off me like this. A cleaner is frankly cheaper than 100% financially supporting your OH. If I was B I wouldn't want to be 100% financially dependent on A, I personally like to have choice, and your own independent income gives you that.

We don't agree, so I'll leave it there.

I'm in complete agreement with you that I wouldn't want anyone sponging off me and that if possible, no-one should be financially dependent on anyone else, I didn't think this what we were discussing, but happy to leave it there.