Building a life together. Still possible?

[jeff0011]

31 minutes ago, Elswyth said:

 

Also, in most marriages there is at least some extent of financial merging, so "paying half" is not really something that makes sense if you're talking about building a life together. I don't know any married couples that literally split the bills in half, normally it is paid from one joint account, even if both people have additional personal accounts. While you CAN do that if you want, just like anything else, there will be consequences for that choice. Most people will not want to "build a life together" with someone who views finances that way, and a woman would be a fool to sign up to be a SAHM without joint finances.

What would be the consequences of two working people paying half?  Isn’t that equality? Assuming home responsibilities are shared as well.

I know that makes some women cringe, but if both are working then why not ? I mean if a someone’s time is spent out of the home working for money, I am guessing it is all shared? If not what’s the point?

Do women feel less attractive and jealous of women who don’t have to pay bills? 
 

 
 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Els]

10 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

What would be the consequences of two working people paying half?  Isn’t that equality? Assuming home responsibilities are shared as well.

I'm not sure you understand what "joint finances" means? Obviously it is possible for the woman in a joint finances situation to be contributing to half of the account or even more than half... but people who are married with joint finances don't TALK about "I'll pay half of the rent and you put the other half in by Sunday". It's a ludicrous way of looking at things.

10 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

I know that makes some women cringe, but if both are working then why not ? I mean if a someone’s time is spent out of the home working for money, I am guessing it is all shared? If not what’s the point?

Of course it's shared, like I said, do you know what "joint finances" means?

10 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

Do women feel less attractive and jealous of women who don’t have to pay bills?

Probably not? I wouldn't know, given that I don't "have" to. But I do feel sorry for a woman who spends all her time at home cooking, cleaning, and doing childcare for a man who won't even share a bank account with her, and I would advise all women not to put themselves in such a terrible position.

Look, I'm not the one going around whining about how I can't find a mate because all women are this or that. Keep on doing what you're doing, I guess. I've spent enough time trying to "help" someone who clearly isn't interested in being helped. The rest of us will just keep building our own lives with our spouses.

[jeff0011]

No.  I mean for example. 
 

Woman and I know bills are about 4000 a month.  Both working.  Both throw in 2000. 
 

That way I can work less, or invest, or do whatever.  That would be an advantage. 
 

I think you are leaning towards saying what I have found to be true. When a woman works she views it more often times as “her money”, and doesn’t like the idea of paying bills. 
 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Els]

2 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

I think you are leaning towards saying what I have found to be true. When a woman works she views it more often times as “her money”, and doesn’t like the idea of paying bills. 
 

Yeah, no, my money goes into the joint account as well (in case you are unaware, that means a bank account owned by TWO people, and yes, that bank account IS used to *gasp* pay bills!). Yes, I put it in the joint account voluntarily, even though H does not require it. Got anything else? 🙄

[jeff0011]

7 minutes ago, Elswyth said:

Yeah, no, my money goes into the joint account as well (in case you are unaware, that means a bank account owned by TWO people, and yes, that bank account IS used to *gasp* pay bills!). Yes, I put it in the joint account voluntarily, even though H does not require it. Got anything else? 🙄

Ok. So you are paying half the bills. It’s what I have been saying makes sense. I didn’t understand when you said there would be consequences.  It is generous that you volunteer to pay for living expenses. 
 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Els]

8 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

Ok. So you are paying half the bills. It’s what I have been saying makes sense. I didn’t understand when you said there would be consequences.  It is generous that you volunteer to pay for living expenses. 
 

No, I'm saying that you're obsessed with "half" and what's "yours" and "hers", when that's just not how most people in happy marriages view things IMO. And no, I don't put in as much as he does, because I don't earn as much as he does. But I also do more housework than he does, because he works 60 hrs/wk and I work 40. And we don't even know or care what the current exact % is, because both of our incomes fluctuate and frankly it just doesn't matter.

The way you seem to view things, at least based on the words you choose, indicates to me the exact opposite of actually working as a team. That's all I'm saying. If it's just a word choice and you don't actually view things that way, then that's fine.

[jeff0011]

Ok.  Well I was assuming you make more than half of house bills , and if you deposit your money into the joint account it all equals out. 
 

My original post was about “working together”  I know my dad wasn’t in the top five percent of income earners when they met. That’s for sure.

 I just see a lot of strange variations that in this day and age should supposedly be outdated with the rise of working women and feminism. 

Mainly “I have all this debt.  And now I want to stay home and hate my job”

or as you said “I want to stay home but deserve 8 to 18 k a month and I can’t really cook or do home things anyway.  I just want to spend”

But it might be that they are very attractive women.  I’m not sure.  I haven’t met one that wants to put her money in an account for bills that she spent all week earning. 
 

I mean ultimately you are PAID to do something because nobody wants to do it for free.  I mean if they weren’t paying you , you would be doing something more enjoyable. You wouldn’t go work for free 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[BaileyB]

13 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

Mainly “I have all this debt.  And now I want to stay home and hate my job”

But it might be that they are very attractive women.  I’m not sure.  I haven’t met one that wants to put her money in an account for bills that she spent all week earning. 

My friend, these are the women you should be avoiding. BIG RED flag.

What we are trying to impress upon you is that MANY women want a partnership - the decision to work or stay at home, the division of labour and paying the bills - all negotiable with the right woman. And, a mature, responsible woman will want to give - not just take. Those are the women you want to date... 

As for the idea that a woman would feel less attractive or jealous of another woman who is in a relationship and doesn’t work because her partner pays her bills - that gave me a good Friday laugh.

[jeff0011]

2 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

My friend, these are the women you should be avoiding. BIG RED flag.

What we are trying to impress upon you is that MANY women want a partnership - the decision to work or stay at home, the division of labour and paying the bills - all negotiable with the right woman. And, a mature, responsible woman will want to give - not just take. Those are the women you want to date... 

As for the idea that a woman would feel less attractive or jealous of another woman who is in a relationship and doesn’t work because her partner pays her bills - that gave me a good Friday laugh.

Really?  I always thought that for a guy there are some women he would go above and beyond for, and some he would not.  Having her work to pay bills seems like the latter.  So I felt most women view it like that. Atleast I hear a lot of jealousy over “stay at home moms” usually, in one way or another. 
 

I figured most of it relates to money. When women are buying that LV purse, or like their big diamond ring it is a symbol to other women, not men. “See what I am worth! See what a man bought me” 

[BaileyB]

6 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

Really?  I always thought that for a guy there are some women he would go above and beyond for, and some he would not.  Having her work to pay bills seems like the latter.  So I felt most women view it like that. Atleast I hear a lot of jealousy over “stay at home moms” usually, in one way or another. 
 

I figured most of it relates to money. When women are buying that LV purse, or like their big diamond ring it is a symbol to other women, not men. “See what I am worth! See what a man bought me” 

Jealousy toward stay at home moms because these woman may want to stay home with their children, not work and put their children in daycare. Not because woman want a man to pay their bills... for many women. But, as you have learned - not all.

Although I certainly agree with you, there are some women who are more materialist than other, to whom designer purses mean social status, and for whom debt has become a way of life. But is it not the same for men - who enjoy their golf club memberships, their sports cars, and their electronics... What’s that old saying “The man who does with the most toys wins?” I would agree - materialism is not a new thing, nor is it gender specific.

[jeff0011]

24 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

 

Although I certainly agree with you, there are some women who are more materialist than other, to whom designer purses mean social status, and for whom debt has become a way of life. But is it not the same for men - who enjoy their golf club memberships, their sports cars, and their electronics... What’s that old saying “The man who does with the most toys wins?” I would agree - materialism is not a new thing, nor is it gender specific.

I think that is typically money spent with the money men earn themselves.  The items for women are typically meant to signify what a man bought them.  (Yes I know some women buy themselves diamond rings and fancy purses ) etc. 
 

But I think it is great more women can share the load.  Makes my Life easier. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Gaeta]

You have to move out of your town where people live and think like in the last century. I am a woman of 54 years old and I cannot relate to anything you're saying. I don't know 1 woman that wants her bills to be paid by a husband. Young women have debts yes, because they work, they can get credit, they have dreams like men, they want education, a car, a home and they pay for it just like men. 

 

 

[Ruby Slippers]

1 hour ago, jeff0011 said:

I just see a lot of strange variations that in this day and age should supposedly be outdated with the rise of working women and feminism. 

Mainly “I have all this debt.  And now I want to stay home and hate my job”

Not everyone subscribes to mainstream thought. I think for myself and even before Madonna said it, I said, "I'm not a feminist. I'm a humanist." I want all people to thrive. Do I think women have been oppressed? Yes? Do I think men have also been oppressed? Yes. I think people are oppressed and we all need to throw off the chains.

The world is full of strange variations and always will be, in spite of mainstream prevailing thought.

A woman who has a heap of debt and expects a man to rescue her is not a good bet for most men. But she'll probably have some takers, and there's something in that for those men. I'm starting to realize that some men think, perhaps even just subconsciously, that they can "buy" a woman, that once he takes her on, pays her debts, and pays the bills, she'll be obligated to do what he wants. And to an extent, I'm sure some women do. But according to divorce law, after a certain time, they could always cash out and leave. So in the end, it's not a great deal for the man.

[jeff0011]

No trust me.  I think it would be great to find a woman who wants to put her checks in the communal pot. 

Some other guys in this thread found ways to protect themselves and also have the benefits of a woman around.  If she pays half on top of it I have zero complaints. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Kitty Tantrum]

"Paying half" is a weird idea that has never sat well with me. That's only an "equal" arrangement if all NONmonetary contributions are split down the middle as well - and if both partners are making about the same wage for their work. Money is easily counted and quantified, but other things not so much. I think that for MOST couples, splitting all expenses exactly in half would result in a significant imbalance in relative work-burden. All the MONEY things can look perfectly equal on paper while the overall partnership is still wildly imbalanced.

Small wonder that the couples I've known who do this tend to bicker - not about MONEY, but about "who DOES more." I think that for most folks, a healthy partnership has to be more organic and flexible than that. If you have a relationship that prompts you to continually consider and evaluate who is contributing more vs. who is "taking" more, and whether you're "getting enough out of it," then wtf are you even doing? That sounds like another JOB in and of itself.

[jeff0011]

9 minutes ago, Kitty Tantrum said:

"Paying half" is a weird idea that has never sat well with me. That's only an "equal" arrangement if all NONmonetary contributions are split down the middle as well - and if both partners are making about the same wage for their work. Money is easily counted and quantified, but other things not so much. I think that for MOST couples, splitting all expenses exactly in half would result in a significant imbalance in relative work-burden. All the MONEY things can look perfectly equal on paper while the overall partnership is still wildly imbalanced.

Small wonder that the couples I've known who do this tend to bicker - not about MONEY, but about "who DOES more." I think that for most folks, a healthy partnership has to be more organic and flexible than that. If you have a relationship that prompts you to continually consider and evaluate who is contributing more vs. who is "taking" more, and whether you're "getting enough out of it," then wtf are you even doing? That sounds like another JOB in and of itself.

I am saying IF both people work full time, then checks are thrown into communal account and bills are paid.  Like with elsewyth.  Nothing to argue about.  

If the woman stays home and is cooking, cleaning, saving money etc   Then she doesn’t have to pay anything.  Or she can get a part time job for her own money after allowance  

Personally, and with other men I know, if they are in love with a beautiful woman, they tend to pay for everything and won’t accept bill money.  But if they are with a woman and it is stale, or so-so, then better pony up her half when the time comes. Or better go find a job to pay.  It’s pretty common 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Kitty Tantrum]

I don't know if being "in love with a beautiful woman" is necessarily the deciding factor. I think that early on in relationships, men often over-value beauty, and they certainly CAN end up in a position where they're just blissfully paying all her bills because she's hot and gives him all the right feels.

But in terms of long-term partnerships, the really stable ones that I've seen are the ones where neither partner is basing the health of the union on what they think they're "getting out of" the other. The partnerships that I've seen that just keep on trucking along are the ones where the union was formed with a shared purpose that is still relevant; most commonly raising children.

If one or both people go into the union with the idea that they're simply going to live happily ever after together because they're in love - but with no shared goal in mind, they're much more likely to turn to discontented bickering and hairsplitting when the novelty of the relationship wears off; no matter what the finances look like. If both people go into the union with a shared goal that they are willing to make sacrifices for, that lends to both parties contributing as much as they can in whatever ways they're suited to - even if their partner can't always contribute equally.

It's like two totally different relationship models.

One is "I have X. You have Y. I will give you a quantity of my X in exchange for an equal quantity of your Y."

The other is "I have X. You have Y. Let us collectively, together, put as much of our X and Y as we can spare toward achieving Z."

I think a lot of people start out in the "equal exchange" model, naively expecting that they can either maintain a perfectly equal distribution long-term, or expecting that this model will somehow SHIFT over time INTO the "shared goal/shared burden" model - and it most often does not. Instead it falls apart when one person sees that they're not "getting back" as much as they're "putting in."

[Ruby Slippers]

In my experience it's not hard to get men to pay for you. That's one of the easiest things to get from men. And women are aware of what you mentioned - the more he likes you, the more willing he tends to be to spend money. I've never asked a man to pay for a single thing for me - they always offer - and I've turned down a lot of offers. I guess this is why a lot of women don't "pony up." Why give up a benefit that's not all that hard to get? 

I'm attempting reconciliation with my recent ex, meeting him for dinner tonight, and I'm going to ask him what he thinks about going Dutch. He makes and has a whole lot more money than I do, but we've had power struggle issues and this is an idea I have for balancing the power so we can focus on our connection and ability to get along in a real romantic partnership, with the financial disparity aspect removed.

[jeff0011]

23 minutes ago, Ruby Slippers said:

In my experience it's not hard to get men to pay for you. That's one of the easiest things to get from men. And women are aware of what you mentioned - the more he likes you, the more willing he tends to be to spend money. I've never asked a man to pay for a single thing for me - they always offer - and I've turned down a lot of offers. I guess this is why a lot of women don't "pony up." Why give up a benefit that's not all that hard to get? 

I'm attempting reconciliation with my recent ex, meeting him for dinner tonight, and I'm going to ask him what he thinks about going Dutch. He makes and has a whole lot more money than I do, but we've had power struggle issues and this is an idea I have for balancing the power so we can focus on our connection and ability to get along in a real romantic partnership, with the financial disparity aspect removed.

Yes exactly.  Most women today don’t like to “pony up”. I don’t mean about dinner. I mean about life. 
Being at home is hard work too if done right!

Or work hard and pay as much as you can.

I just see an overall selfishness even in the replies, so can we just say women don’t truly want to be equal partners?  It all just seems fake like fake word play.  

it seems like “well I’ll contribute some. Maybe I’ll work part time? Maybe I’ll stay home for a bit? Maybe Ill try something new”. “I cooked thag meal last week!”Sort of like can’t be relied on.  Not wanting the responsibilities in a partnership 

I mean someone disciplined.  No matter what they are doing 

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[Ruby Slippers]

2 minutes ago, jeff0011 said:

I just see an overall selfishness even in the replies, so can we just say women don’t truly want to be equal partners?  It all just seems fake like fake word play.

Men are paid approximately 1 dollar to a woman's 70 cents for the same or similar work, and much worse. There are many reasons why, but however we want to analyze them, the fact is that men take home the lion's share of pay.

This is changing, slowly but surely. But until unmarried women gain significant ground financially, none of them are going to volunteer to give up the advantages they do have. You complaining about it isn't going to change anything.

If you want to change things, start a business and pay women equally for equal work, or advocate vocally for this.

[jeff0011]

7 minutes ago, Ruby Slippers said:

Men are paid approximately 1 dollar to a woman's 70 cents for the same or similar work, and much worse. There are many reasons why, but however we want to analyze them, the fact is that men take home the lion's share of pay.

This is changing, slowly but surely. But until unmarried women gain significant ground financially, none of them are going to volunteer to give up the advantages they do have. You complaining about it isn't going to change anything.

If you want to change things, start a business and pay women equally for equal work, or advocate vocally for this.

Naw.  That’s a fake myth.  Totally 100 percent fake. I can’t believe politicians even get away with lying about that. 
 

Women choose to work in lower paying fields. 
so obviously they make less.  But the tricky stats are used to create a problem that doesn’t exist  

why do businesses hire men if they could pay women 70 percent less to do the same thing? Lol

I own  a business.  If the woman is better j definitely want to keep her and I do that by paying her more. 
 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth

Edited January 24, 2020 by jeff0011

[sothereiwas]

11 minutes ago, Ruby Slippers said:

Men are paid approximately 1 dollar to a woman's 70 cents for the same or similar work, and much worse.

That's simply untrue, and also, in other news, illegal. 

[sothereiwas]

Hilariously enough, Elizabeth Warren (yes, THAT Liz Warren) wrote a book on this topic titled "The Two Income Trap"; it's actually pretty good, presumably from before the time when she had to lie about economics to get hired. Back then she just lied about other stuff I guess.  Google Books says:

"In this revolutionary exposé, Harvard Law School bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren and financial consultant Amelia Tyagi show that today's middle-class parents are increasingly trapped by financial meltdowns. Astonishingly, sending mothers to work has made families more vulnerable to financial disaster than ever before. Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs. This is "the rare financial book that sidesteps accusations of individual wastefulness to focus on institutional changes," raved the Boston Globe. Warren and Tyagi reveal how the ferocious bidding war for housing and education has silently engulfed America's suburbs, driving up the cost of keeping families in the middle class. The authors show why the usual remedies-child-support enforcement, subsidized daycare, and higher salaries for women-won't solve the problem. But as the Wall Street Journal observed, "The book is brimming with proposed solutions to the nail-biting anxiety that the middle class finds itself in: subsidized day care, school vouchers, new bank regulation, among other measures." From Senator Edward M. Kennedy to Dr. Phil to Bill Moyers, The Two-Income Trap has created a sensation among economists, politicians, and families-all those who care about America's middle-class crisis."

[SumGuy]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:50 PM, jeff0011 said:

...

But that brings up a good point. it does not seem like someone is "happy" with the old fashioned lifestyle. But then they are not happy working and being in debt either.  So it all leads to confusion.

Those are not the only two choices, that's the source of the confusion.   

 

 But as I pointed out in my first post, my parents for example WORKED TOGETHER and they made it easily on one income largely because of my moms selflessness and frugality. If my mom was the type to say "Nah, I don't cook!.. I want to eat out and vacation like everyone on Facebook. We all need new clothes and furniture! I have 50 k in debt!" it never would have worked. She would have jumped to a "higher earner", or they both would have worked and nobody would pay attention to the kids etc

The cost of living and real wages were very different in your parents day.  Housing is a much higher percentage of expenses, college and health care costs have soared, way beyond wage increases, real wages have stagnated for some time...that is once you adjust for cost of living many are making less in real terms than decades ago.  It also depends on where you fall in the income spectrum, the gap has widened since your parents day, the rich get richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class fades.

 

 

 

[SumGuy]

1 hour ago, sothereiwas said:

That's simply untrue, and also, in other news, illegal. 

It is not illegal in the US.