|
Post by stl76 on May 16, 2011 22:41:38 GMT -5
"...as well as tracking/paying the bills..."
Tracking/paying bills?? I have a ton of bills to pay/track on top of my full time job. I must be a genious.
To answer OP's question, no I would not work to support my husband's (not married yet but soon) spending habits (I would work to contribute to the household, which I already do). Having said that, she would not be getting the job to support his spending habits, she would be getting the job to pull her weight on the bills as Hoops stated. Why should he be the one working FT? Maybe he doesn't want to work FT either just like she doesn't. And I agree with whoever said the OP must not work, it sure sounds like she is trying to justify the woman's side.
|
|
|
Post by stl76 on May 16, 2011 22:46:28 GMT -5
"my first reaction/answer to that would have been: if you get off your ass and get a full time job I am sure we would be able to afford it."
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 16, 2011 23:03:35 GMT -5
"Me either. I mean, "blowing through money" has a very different definition when you're the one making it."
Well said and I agree. I'd have a problem if I was working and supporting a able bodied adult with the luxury of staying home who then turned around and tried to dictate what I could and couldn't spend on myself.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 16, 2011 23:05:04 GMT -5
"Every time this statement comes up about now that the kids are school age you can work FT, I always laugh. You must not have kids, or they're very young, or you have family helping out big time, because quite frankly, it is far easier to work FT when the kids are very young."
Then how come millions of families do it if it's so impossible? Both my parents worked full time for much of my schooling, and I lived to tell the tale. My dad put a coded entry on the garage door. When i got home from school I'd just enter in the house and keep myself entertained for a couple hours until my parents got home. Most school activities are right after school so you just stay late. By the time they're done my parents would pick us up, if not we got a ride from someone else. No big deal.
The OP obviously has a militant, pro SAHM agenda she wishes to push. I feel sorry for her husband.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 40,048
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 16, 2011 23:18:39 GMT -5
"Every time this statement comes up about now that the kids are school age you can work FT, I always laugh. You must not have kids, or they're very young, or you have family helping out big time, because quite frankly, it is far easier to work FT when the kids are very young.
You drop them off at daycare on your way to work and pick them up on the way home. Once the kids hit school age, it's not so simple anymore. Early dismissals, late starts, snow days, sick days, summer vacation, spring break, Xmas break, etc. In our area, the busing is very limited, so you also have to deal with getting your kids to and from school. That doesn't even take into account any activities your kids get involved in, community or school, unless you have them sit home all the time, so you don't have to bother with it. "
Growing up I either walked to school or took the bus. Only in very rare instances did my Mom ever drive me to school. One thing I noticed where I live now is that it is expected parents will drive their kids to school. Maybe expectations have changed or it is a state or location thing? I can't remember any school I went to growing up that has the steady stream of cars I see locally now at almost every school.
People make it work, they always have. I had a key to let myself into the house after school probably by age 10. I do know the expectation for how many activities your child should be in is much greater than it was for me growing up. I was lucky to do one activity. Now its considered bad form to not ensure your child can participate in anything possible, schedule and finances permitting.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on May 16, 2011 23:27:43 GMT -5
;D "Every time this statement comes up about now that the kids are school age you can work FT, I always laugh. You must not have kids, or they're very young, or you have family helping out big time, because quite frankly, it is far easier to work FT when the kids are very young." Then how come millions of families do it if it's so impossible? Both my parents worked full time for much of my schooling, and I lived to tell the tale. My dad put a coded entry on the garage door. When i got home from school I'd just enter in the house and keep myself entertained for a couple hours until my parents got home. Most school activities are right after school so you just stay late. By the time they're done my parents would pick us up, if not we got a ride from someone else. No big deal. The OP obviously has a militant, pro SAHM agenda she wishes to push. I feel sorry for her husband. Maybe she meant because when little - kids don't have the hormones kicking in and they don't really have to deal with peer pressure, along with various after school activities, etc. All of the stay at home moms I know realize how easy it was when they were little because they didn't worry about them having sex, drinking, smoking, doing drugs, getting bored and getting into trouble with the law because of peer pressure or hanging with the wrong group... Not to say that anybody here's children would ever do that. But it is still a worry. And if my DH was a big spender I would prefer to yell and scream at him to stop than go back to work. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 30, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2011 8:10:25 GMT -5
"For those who make more, it's usually to fiance the toys. "
LOL That is kind of how it is for everyone. With 3 kids there really would not be a whole lot to "blow through" after expenses and savings.
Fron the headline my gut reaction was "yes I'd work but I would his ass" which is what I did with my first husband eventually. But I'm not convinced the DH plans to be a "big spender". What does he want to buy?
|
|
CarolinaKat
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 16:10:37 GMT -5
Posts: 6,364
|
Post by CarolinaKat on May 17, 2011 9:40:38 GMT -5
I think it is best when spouses make within 20% of each other. Sniff Sniff... I don't wanna give up DBF because I make too much money.... WAAAAAHHHHHH
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on May 17, 2011 10:01:24 GMT -5
My first reaction when I read the scenario is wow- he works the job and she gives him the allowance! That's unbelievable to me. Maybe that worked for awhile, but it doesn't sound like it's working anymore and maybe it's time for her to help out with the expenses (more than their rental properties- since I don't think she can take credit for that income) so that everyone has a little more to spend.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 17, 2011 10:32:15 GMT -5
Geez,men and women trash the spouse who has a part-time job, a catering job, and 3 kids and a house. Just 3 kids and a house would floor me even if they were gone 6 hours a day. The amount of laundry 5 people generate is at least a load or two a day plus grocery shopping 2-3 times per week and the mess in the house. Just WHO is going to clean, do laundry, make beds, grocery shop, cook and clean up after meals and then drive kids all over hells half acre so they can do sports? Not to mention leaving pre-teen/adolescents at home alone and their friends know it. If her DH is willing (and I'll bet he isn't) to step up to the plate and do stuff around the house and for the kids, then I'll bet she'd find working OUTSIDE the home to be a hell of a lot EASIER than working INSIDE the home. Probably more fun, too.
|
|
|
Post by stl76 on May 17, 2011 11:12:05 GMT -5
"All of the stay at home moms I know realize how easy it was when they were little because they didn't worry about them having sex, drinking, smoking, doing drugs, getting bored and getting into trouble with the law because of peer pressure or hanging with the wrong group... "
This isn't a problem isolated specifically to stay at home moms. Working moms have to deal with the same issues...
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,022
|
Post by bean29 on May 17, 2011 11:14:38 GMT -5
Zib has a point. We are a family of 4. I work 40+ hours a week, DH works about 60 hrs a week. All afternoon Sat and part of Sun I did Laundry. I did a small load sun eve and a small load Monday eve - threw it in the dryer this am b/c DD needed jeans for school. DH cut the grass on Sunday am.
Personally I think the wife should work full time, however she is doing a lot, I know b/c I work full time, manage the rentals and do the taxes for DH's small business, the rentals, etc. But if she does not have her own income, she has to cowtow to the DH. I like having my own income, and find am am OK with DH spending more of what he earns without my input without keeping him to a strict budget. When I was not working I felt he wanted to micromanage my time and our spending.
My kids will be freshman/senior next year. I often think it would be nice to not work but I am only about 4 years from an empty nest and then what will I do with my time? If I don't work for the next 4 years, who will want to hire a 50 year old woman who has been out of the workforce for several years?
I had an Uncle who was a big spender, my parents always thought of him as a Gambler. He gambled on a small business and the stock market. He died relatively young - early 60's left his wife well set and his kids, and half the community working in his small business. Just b/c the guy is a spender does not mean he is not on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by stl76 on May 17, 2011 11:16:03 GMT -5
"If her DH is willing (and I'll bet he isn't) to step up to the plate and do stuff around the house and for the kids, then I'll bet she'd find working OUTSIDE the home to be a hell of a lot EASIER than working INSIDE the home."
Why does it have to be either/or situation? The housework still needs to get done. If she is working, the husband should help too but plenty of people do all of it every day all on their own (single moms or dads). I am not saying it would be easy but it is not as bad as people make it sound, especially if they are not all babies/toddlers. Just need to learn to be more efficient I guess.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 17, 2011 11:17:05 GMT -5
Geez,men and women trash the spouse who has a part-time job, a catering job, and 3 kids and a house. Just 3 kids and a house would floor me even if they were gone 6 hours a day. The amount of laundry 5 people generate is at least a load or two a day plus grocery shopping 2-3 times per week and the mess in the house. Just WHO is going to clean, do laundry, make beds, grocery shop, cook and clean up after meals and then drive kids all over hells half acre so they can do sports? Not to mention leaving pre-teen/adolescents at home alone and their friends know it. If her DH is willing (and I'll bet he isn't) to step up to the plate and do stuff around the house and for the kids, then I'll bet she'd find working OUTSIDE the home to be a hell of a lot EASIER than working INSIDE the home. Probably more fun, too. Yet millions of working moms find a way to take care of a house, family and actually have a job...and I would never assume full responsibility for the house. My husband would learn quickly to help (I would not wash his clothes, cook him dinner, etc.)....sure, it is much easier to be home but don't make it sound like it can't be done because you have quite a few members on here who manage to handle all of it.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 17, 2011 11:22:29 GMT -5
Sure she should work full-time and use that money to hire a maid/laundress/chauffer to make her life easier. Or she could just do it all herself like she already is. She should work another full-time job so her DH can buy a fancy car? How very un-YM. I know it can be done as I did it but the price I paid for doing it all was unreal and if I had a spouse that thought "just doing his job" was all he needed to contribute, he could kiss my keister. She has 2 part-time jobs and a full-time one. The SECOND SHIFT, it is called.
|
|
|
Post by stl76 on May 17, 2011 11:23:01 GMT -5
My mother did all of it, the full time job, 2 kids, all of the house cleaning (and she likes a VERY VERY VERY clean house)/grocery shopping/bill pay (and it wasn't even online), cooking (and no take out or frozen dinners, everything from scratch). She wasn't a single mom, my dad had to travel a lot for work but even when he wasn't traveling, my mom did it all because she preferred doing it herself. Sure it was tiring but nobody said having kids is easy work or working for a living.
|
|
|
Post by stl76 on May 17, 2011 11:26:46 GMT -5
"She should work another full-time job so her DH can buy a fancy car? "
She is not working a full time job. If you are refering to paying bills, taking care of the house a full time job then there are plenty of people who have 2 full time jobs everywhere. She would be no different. And no she would not be working the FT job so her DH can buy a fancy car, she would be working it to contribute to the household financially. yes the non-financial work she does is valuable but that doesn't pay the bills.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 17, 2011 11:31:58 GMT -5
Sure she should work full-time and use that money to hire a maid/laundress/chauffer to make her life easier. Or she could just do it all herself like she already is. She should work another full-time job so her DH can buy a fancy car? How very un-YM. I know it can be done as I did it but the price I paid for doing it all was unreal and if I had a spouse that thought "just doing his job" was all he needed to contribute, he could kiss my keister. She has 2 part-time jobs and a full-time one. The SECOND SHIFT, it is called. Then your husband was an ass and I wouldn't put up with shit like that. My husband and I both earn equal salaries and pay equally towards all expenses. I will be damned if I will come home from work and do a "second shift" while he puts his feet up and relaxes. The fact that yours did is the fault of both of you..his for being a lazy ass and yours for putting up with it. My husband learned early on that I was not his mother. We split household chores evenly, though he does more of the "manly" chores than I do. Whoever gets home from work first starts dinner and we divy up the chores so that we both do our fair share. I am not seeing what is so hard about this concept...
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on May 17, 2011 11:32:50 GMT -5
I don't see where anybody is trashing anybody in this thread. The OP asked a question: "If your DH was a big spender, would you work to support it?" Probably not, but then when you read the scenario that excludes any examples of being "a big spender" and he's the only one with a job and finally that she gives him an allowance! Well, then it becomes a different story that does not sound at all appropriate for the question asked.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,411
|
Post by swamp on May 17, 2011 11:33:11 GMT -5
DH hasn't figured out how to turn the stove on yet. Other than that, he's good.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 17, 2011 11:34:33 GMT -5
DH hasn't figured out how to turn the stove on yet. Other than that, he's good. We prefer it when my husband doesn't go near the stove...we keep the grill out all year and he is good to go...of course, a girl can only eat so many steaks a week
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,522
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 17, 2011 11:36:03 GMT -5
A lot of people don't want to work full time. That doesn't mean their spouse is wrong for expecting them to in order to improve their lifestyle.
Eh, yes and no. It really depends on the spouse's money philopshy.
DH has often remakred that if we just made more money we could have the stuff his BIL has. I have to mention that despite his BIL's salary combined with SIL's they are in debt up to their eyeballs for all that stuff.
They still cannot AFFORD all that stuff despite having a bigger salary.
Depending on your money philosophy more income doesn't always mean a better lifestyle. It might might mean more STUFF, like in the case of my BIL, but my SIL has told me time and time again that they are one small push away from disaster and if they didn't have his parents bailing them out. . .
I don't want to live like that. I DO want both of us to work towards a higher income because more money is always nicer, it leads to more options.
I am working with DH now while we don't have the money to blow that just because you have more money it doesn't automatically mean all your problems are solved and your dreams come true.
Then hopefully by the time we are earning more our lifestyle won't creep up to where we are in position where we make more money, but have more problems.
It'd really depend on what exactly "better lifestyle" means. If it means that the DH gets a shiny new boat while she's robbing Peter to pay Paul al la the Doxie thread, then her getting a full time job really solves nothing.
If it is because it'd actually benefit them and give them more finanical freedom then it makes sense.
Not enough information to say either way.
|
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by daisylu on May 17, 2011 12:09:30 GMT -5
Most families that I know with a SAHP felt so strongly that one was needed that they AGREED to make concessions in other areas to make that happen.
Either that is not the case here or the husband has had a change of heart. And we do not know enough to decide which has happened.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on May 17, 2011 13:18:49 GMT -5
Based on what little we know, it sounds like they needed to replace their old car. The husband is the only one who works a full time job and commutes two hours everyday to support a family of 4. They have rental properties and a small side business to bring in a little extra income. He wanted a new car to replace the old one, but they couldn't afford it on his income alone, so he had to buy a used car. It sounds like having a SAHP has been working for a while, but now there might be more benefits if both parents are working full time. I really don't see anything to support the reason being that he is a "big spender" and even wanted a "fancy" new car. But, who knows.
It also sounds like the wife in this scenario would prefer to continue to be a SAHP, keep the budget tight, expect her husband to continue to make sacrifices on their limited income and spend within the allowance she gives him.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,522
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 17, 2011 13:35:10 GMT -5
He wanted a new car to replace the old one, but they couldn't afford it on his income alone, so he had to buy a used car
I suppose that is not totally out of control or unreasonable, but I also don't see where it requires that she go out and get a job. No one died from not getting a new car.
Now if it is he is really unhappy with the arrangement and not getting a new car was the straw that broke the camel's back, then yes it is time to revisit and possibly change gears. I would agree that if one is unhappy with the arrangement it isn't going to work out much longer.
If one of us was a SAHP and the arrangement wasn't working we'd definetly rediscuss our options. However if it was just because DH was pissed he didn't get a brand new shiny car I'll admit I'd also be reluctant to go back to work full time.
If that's just one of many issues that are cropping up and it's the hill he chose to die on, then that's a different matter.
Usually when we argue it wouldn't be about the new car, it's a deeper relationship/communication problem.
Still don't really know enough about the OP's couple to say if that is the case or if the husband is like my BIL and just wants the biggest/newest thing because he can and wants to show up his siblings.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 17, 2011 14:06:17 GMT -5
Both times I kept the finances and gave allowances. Both husbands wanted it that way. The thought just about gagged me both times but they had their reasons which to them, made sense. I never would have gone along with "getting an allowance" from my spouse.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 17, 2011 14:28:56 GMT -5
DF insists that I not only give him an allowance, but choose the amount. He wants me to be in complete control of our finances. I would actually prefer he be a little more involved, but I can appreciate that he knows I'm good at this and enjoy it, knows I'm looking out for his best interests as well as my own, and knows that I'm not going to give him a $50 allowance and myself a $1,000 allowance.
I think it'll work for us, but it only works because it's what DF wants as well as me.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 17, 2011 15:34:20 GMT -5
He works full time, she raises kids, runs a catering business, and manages property. Um, she's already working full time. Taking a full time job would have been irresponsible, IMHO. She's got enough on her plate.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on May 17, 2011 16:05:43 GMT -5
Was it confirmed that she was bringing in money from the property and catering business? If you're not bringing in income of some kind, "if you want to buy X thing that you want and I don't, you should consider bringing in some money of your own instead of me working harder" can be a valid response from your partner.
Depending on a lot of things.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 17, 2011 16:17:46 GMT -5
He works full time, she raises kids, runs a catering business, and manages property. Um, she's already working full time. Taking a full time job would have been irresponsible, IMHO. She's got enough on her plate. There's no indication she does anything to "manage property"...only that she pays all the bills, including the rental property bills. A solid hour per week. She's not "raising kids" all day, they're school aged, with the oldest plenty old to watch the other 2. And if she's spending her other 39 hours per week running a tiny catering company that makes very little money then a full time job would be a much better use of her time. "Either that is not the case here or the husband has had a change of heart. And we do not know enough to decide which has happened" Does it matter? Yes he could have easily agreed to let her be a SAHM...that doesn't mean that she gets to saunter around the house all day because it made sense for them at one point in time. Just because someone is nice enough to let you get away with not working at one point doesn't mean they forfeit the right to have you pull your share of the weight in the future. I don't really see how it has any bearing whether or not he used to be ok with it and now has changed his mind.
|
|