If your DH was a big spender, would you work

[luckyme]

to support it?

My one friend just recently went back to work part time. She wasn't happy about it, as they have 3 kids, a small side business she runs, plus they have rental properties and she does all the bills for everything.
Her DH is one of those who would spend every single penny they had if he could, so he has always been on an allowance, and she handles all the finances. He hates it, but they would be in trouble if she didn't.

She was recently offered full time and decided she didn't want to do it, but he pushed and pushed and now she feels guilty not taking it. She knows their expenses will only rise to meet their income, because of DH. But he will resent it if she doesn't.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Nope. I would not. But then again I am single.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Nope. HE can go get another job if he wants to spend that badly.

[whoisjohngalt]

Yeah, right....

Lena

[Deleted]

I'd love to hear his side, because her side will of course sway people in her favor.

[8 Bit WWBG]

What is in it for the worker? If the DH in the OP was a great SAHD and had a fantastic relationship with his kids, and took care of chores, and just had a spending habit... maybe. But if all he did was sit around watching sports while she did everything, then you have to ask what she is getting out of the deal.

And maybe "what she is getting" may simple be that she has companionship, or she keeps the family together, or she preserves the peace or whatever.

If I was offered a job making more money, my taking it would be contingent on the absolute non-negotiable demand that I'd better get to ENJOY a fair cut of the benefits of said job. If it just meant that DF could get hair/nails done twice as often, or that now we could get the drapes she wanted or the furniture she wanted, or another pet, or a whole list of stuff that I don't care about, then why bother.

People whose happiness is contingent on what they have are seldom, if EVER happy. Any happiness they have is ephemeral, and the second they focus on what they don't have, the happiness disappears. When one spouse demonstrates to the other that all roads lead to unhappy, why work hard just for them?

If she took the extra job so she could hide money to escape... that is a different story.

[Deleted]

Yes. I live it every day.

[Phoenix84]

Well, I wouldn't have a spouse who didn't work full time in the first place, so it's a moot point for me. I couldn't stand having a SAHM, and I work, so the question really isn't applicable.

But I wouldn't take on a second job or anything like that to support a spouse's spending.

[thyme4change]

So, the double standard is that she doesn't work at all, but has to? Sounds like her husband could come here and post a very similiar question.

[hoops902]

"She knows their expenses will only rise to meet their income, because of DH. But he will resent it if she doesn't. "

Written another way this would be "Their standard of living will rise to meet their new incomes, DH will resent the fact that he's (presumably) working full time while she's not".

Presumably he's currently working to support her choice to work part time (and previously to not work). The phrasing is particularly interesting. Why is she working to "support his spending"? She could just as easily be working to support her portion of the family bills no? Thereby giving him more of his own paycheck to spend rather than spending his paycheck on the family bills while she works part-time?

"Nope. HE can go get another job if he wants to spend that badly. "

You really think that? He should get 2 while she has 1/2 or previously none if he wants to be able to have nice things or enjoy his life? (I do think the time involvement for each in their side business/rental properties should be considered though).

[Phoenix84]

"So, the double standard is that she doesn't work at all, but has to? Sounds like her husband could come here and post a very similiar question."

I agree, staying at home while your spouse works is a luxury and not a right, a want and not a need. I guess I’m having a hard time sympathizing. For all we know the husbands spending needs are reasonable and he can’t have what he wants because his wife didn’t work. That would get old fast if I worked and my wife didn’t but I couldn’t buy things I wanted. As willbegrown put it, why should I work if I can’t afford some of my wants (within reason of course).

[Deleted]

May 16, 2011 10:52:30 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

What is in it for the worker? If the DH in the OP was a great SAHD and had a fantastic relationship with his kids, and took care of chores, and just had a spending habit... maybe. But if all he did was sit around watching sports while she did everything, then you have to ask what she is getting out of the deal.<snip>

If I was offered a job making more money, my taking it would be contingent on the absolute non-negotiable demand that I'd better get to ENJOY a fair cut of the benefits of said job. If it just meant that DF could get hair/nails done twice as often, or that now we could get the drapes she wanted or the furniture she wanted, or another pet, or a whole list of stuff that I don't care about, then why bother.

People whose happiness is contingent on what they have are seldom, if EVER happy. <snip>

Amen. Been there, done that with the spendthrift spouse. The money got spent on the crap he charged on the credit cards (well, it wasn't really crap since he demanded the best of everything and it all had to be name brands), the liquor bills and the occasional deep-sea fishing trip at $1,200 a pop back in the 1980s. We also had a cleaning lady and lawn service since such work was beneath him and I couldn't do it up to his standards even if I'd had time. I yearned to travel to Europe but that wasn't his priority and I'd have had to cut back on savings to do it.

Never again. For some people, all you can do isn't enough.

[tskeeter]

Let's see ... I suspect that she manages the house, is providing child care for three kids, manages the rental property, has a small business that she operates, and has a part time job. And that's not enough? Sounds like a pretty full plate, to me.

Even if DH is preparing meals, doing laundry, or cleaning the house, I'd say that the wife has the equivalent of a full time job.

Just wondering, how much of a full time pay check is left after paying the additional child care expenses for three kids? For the folks I've worked with who don't have family to provide free child care, it seems that it isn't worth holding down a paying job if you have to pay child care for two kids.

[thyme4change]

laralei - how old are the kids? Are they preschool age, or are they in school?

[Anne_in_VA]

We don't know the ages of the kids, how many hours she's working, and it seems she's running a small side business as well as taking care of rental houses, taking care of the family and all the bills. We don't know if she has a garden, cans, bakes her own bread, etc. so we don't really know enough to make a judgement call on this one.

That being said and depending on how old the kids were, I would probably take the full-time job.

[8 Bit WWBG]

laralei if you know anything else about the true situation, we'd love to hear it. This could really run the full spectrum from "he busts his butt and gives up cable so she can sit on her duff" to "he has champagne tastes and a beer income, and it is much easier for her to work more than him to improve his value".

After the doxie thread, I'm not sure I have it in me for another one...

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

You really think that? He should get 2 while she has 1/2 or previously none if he wants to be able to have nice things or enjoy his life? (I do think the time involvement for each in their side business/rental properties should be considered though).

That was more about us than the OP, but if her DH is like mine then yes I do think that. DH can spend money like it is going out of style and it isn't really sustaniable.

If we made more that is awesome, but if it means the outflow increases then we really haven't solved anything, we're just in the same spot with more money.

I do also work full time. I've told DH that if he wants to have more to spend HE can get another job because I'm done working two jobs.

I'll do it if I have to for our family or if we have a particular joint goal that went met I could quit the other job, but not in the name of DH having more spending money.

If we couldn't barely meet our obligations and there wasn't a penny to spare, that's a totally different story too.

Sames goes for me though, I don't expect DH to work longer, harder, more jobs so I can have increased spending money.

I suppose it really depends on what exactly "more spending money" means in the OP.

In our case as our lives stand right now it'd really be so DH could have more play money on top of what would already be coming out of our budget.

We actually had to have a conversation about it a few months ago and he agreed he was out of control and that just because we HAD the money doesn't mean he gets to spend it all.

We're back on track now. More money would certainly be nice, but not at the cost of it all flowing out of DH's wallet. His money habits have to change before we increase income.

[Deleted]

I know people that consider "Pampered Chef" and "Creative memories" running small businesses, so it would be interesting to hear what her real load is and the age of the children.

[hoops902]

"Let's see ... I suspect that she manages the house, is providing child care for three kids, manages the rental property, has a small business that she operates, and has a part time job. And that's not enough? Sounds like a pretty full plate, to me."

I think the important points are:

1. She runs a small side business...doing what? How profitable? If I start my own small side business out of a hobby I have and it makes almost no money, that's a hobby, not an excuse not to work.
2. For the rental property all the OP says is that she pays the bills for it all. Paying bills isn't a job. It matters very much what either of them does in other aspects of that. Are they doing repairs, etc?
3. I assume she's providing child care for 3 kids, but a full time job counteracts that, so she can't get credit for childcare and the job both unless she's working off-hours.


"Just wondering, how much of a full time pay check is left after paying the additional child care expenses for three kids?"

This seems like the bigger issue. Though simply reading the OP there must be something left if the worry is that he's going to spend the "extra" money, and spending childcare money isn't an issue if he's on an allowance and bills are paid first.

[thyme4change]

I know people that consider "Pampered Chef" and "Creative memories" running small businesses

Me too - how much money does that business bring in? Because if it isn't funding their lifestyle, close it down and get a real job.

[hoops902]

May 16, 2011 11:27:45 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I know people that consider "Pampered Chef" and "Creative memories" running small businesses

Me too - how much money does that business bring in? Because if it isn't funding their lifestyle, close it down and get a real job.

Or keep doing it as your hobby if you enjoy it. Just don't use it as an excuse not to work a real job. No reason she can't do that also in her free time. If you're going to have a hobby, better one that makes money than loses it. You just gotta realize it's a hobby and nothing you get credit for as a job.

[thyme4change]

I know we are told to diversify - but these families that have businesses, and rentals and jobs, and part-time jobs, but still don't have enough money - I always wonder if they focused on doing just one or two things well, instead of trying to be semi-successful at 12 things - maybe then they would have the success and income they desire.

[hoops902]

May 16, 2011 11:33:38 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I know we are told to diversify - but these families that have businesses, and rentals and jobs, and part-time jobs, but still don't have enough money - I always wonder if they focused on doing just one or two things well, instead of trying to be semi-successful at 12 things - maybe then they would have the success and income they desire.

In this case I'm unclear if the problem is them "not having enough money"...or them having enough money but hubby wanting a better quality of living even while having plenty to get by. Done right rentals shouldn't be such an issue. I do think the idea of the side businesses and such tends to be the potential issues. "Oh my business is doing great, I made $20K last year". Well it's great your not losing money, not so great you skipped a $40K/year job to make $20K though. I do think people get so locked into the idea of owning their own business that they completely ignore the fact that while they're making money, they're making far less than they could in a business that is not likely to ever amount to much.

[thyme4change]

In this case I'm unclear if the problem is them "not having enough money"...or them having enough money but hubby wanting a better quality of living even while having plenty to get by.

I guess I meant "not enough money to make them happy" not really judging what amount that might be. I mean, I could make "enough" money in any number of ways - but I don't care to live that lifestyle.

[brdsl]

I wonder how the tone of the thread would be if it said "If your DW was a big spender, would you work...

[brdsl]

btw. What does the DH do? Does he work? Does he actually do the repairs on the rentals?


Seems like alot of info missing...

[hoops902]

May 16, 2011 11:50:38 GMT -5 brdsl said:

I wonder how the tone of the thread would be if it said "If your DW was a big spender, would you work...

I think the difference would be that there's this automatic assumption that if someone is a woman they are doing all this other work with the kids and house and etc. It's almost a default assumption that a woman (mother specifically) already has a "full time job" that the father doesn't get credit for.

Obviously with further information you get a better judgement. But the default seems to be that SAHM is doing a full time job...and SAHD is just at home making a mess with the kids for mom to clean up later.

[thyme4change]

I wonder how the tone of the thread would be if it said "If your DW was a big spender, would you work...

There would be a whole bunch of people telling him to man-up and get a second job.

[Miss Tequila]

Why can't she work? I had children and rentals and worked. For the record, rentals aren't that complicated unless you are rehabbing constantly. Once they are done and rented they are pretty easy to take care of. What is the side business? How much effort does it really take versus what she is actually making? I could have a side business as a Mary Kay consultant but that wont' replace my CPA salary.

He sounds like spender and she sounds lazy....I will never understand a person who assumes they should be supported by someone else. If both partiers agree, great...but if the one doing all the supporting doesn't want to be supporting you, get a freaking job!

[hoops902]

"He sounds like spender and she sounds lazy....I will never understand a person who assumes they should be supported by someone else. If both partiers agree, great...but if the one doing all the supporting doesn't want to be supporting you, get a freaking job! "

It's all in the phrasing. In the OP it's made to sound like her job would finance HIS spending...which just sounds unfair. In reality though, her job would finance her share of the household, leaving him with more discretionary spending coming from HIS paycheck...which then sounds reasonable. (of course with all detail omitted so that any judgement about how much work she actually does or doesn't do outside of a traditional job is based 100% on speculation about what her days might consist of)

As written in the OP though it's clearly written so as to evoke specific reactions and purposely vague so as to avoid any real examination of the situation itself.