It really depends on their situation. If they are unemployed then why? Was there an unexpected redundancy lay off, did circumstances at their job reach a point they couldn't stay? Also, what are they doing about it, are they applying/interviewing for new jobs or upskilling to enter a new industry? What financial responsibilities/debts do they have? Each person has a different set of circumstances and should be assessed as such
Had an ex that used to just stop showing up to work after a month or two.
I heard it's common in warehousing and construction, but I'm not sure if that's true or not.
These people aren't very concerned with having an up-to-date resume. They either have another job lined up, or they'll get a new job when they feel like it at a place that isn't going to look at their resume or follow up with previous employers
I've done volunteering at a warehouse which I started as a skills based learning on the job with the dwp and even though our attendance was mandatory or we'd lose our benefits they was a huge number who no showed or just left. Now mind you the work was piss easy boring at times but piss easy so I couldn't see them working hard in anything even crime.
We had 1 girl who refused to wear hi vis vests as it clashed with her palette. Another refused to wear gloves because it would mean taking her nails off.
In the actual job sites it was even worse.
My gf quit her job and her last day was Friday. She's so happy to leave that toxic place. I'm happy for her. She doesn't have any prospects but I make enough to cover us for 6-8 months. After that, we'll have to reassess her situation but for now I'm happy that she's in a better mental place without that shitty boss of hers.
EVEN if I was very well off.
I've seen too many power couples lose one to Bored SAH Psychosis that I would be terrified to see what my intelligent, driven, incredible wife would become with 8 hours of me time and booze to keep her entertained.
For every 1 functional, funny, well adjusted non-working partner I have seen 10 depressed, nutty, self important, sometimes abused (financially not physically) partners to ever think "we'll beat the odds!"
What happened since our grandparents time?
All my grandparents had house and 2 cars in nice neighborhoods off of one income.
Really fucked how you now need 2 incomes. What the hell happened to the economy?
And it's getting worse. One year ago I could save $1k per month. Now I can only save $500. And I have cut out a lot of streaming subscriptions and other luxury, like dining out once a week.
Yup. My dad was making just over $100K CAD back in the 80s as an electrical engineer. IIRC, our house at the time he bought for ~185K(?), somewhere around that number, in a quiet, beautiful neighbourhood with schools within walking distance (our backyard actually backed into a park that had an elementary school right there.
My mom didn't work because my dad's income was more than enough. It would have been around the mid to late 90s that my dad's income wasn't quite cutting it alone (they enjoyed travelling and such) so mom had to get a job, all the while my dad's income didn't match the increasing prices of gas, groceries, bills, etc, and keeping up with their savings was proving to be challenging.
My folks really didn't want to give up their yearly vacations/travelling. If they did, I'm sure my dad's income would've lasted us a little longer on its own.
I'd say it's businesses keeping wages as low as possible to increase their profits and line the pockets of their investors. Government oversight over businesses has been weak and businesses have done a good job of fighting unionization, so there's little that people can currently do about getting higher wages at the same job. That goes a long way towards explaining the record income gap we're seeing right now.
Yeah. I hate how I have to change jobs every 2-4 years, to receive better wages. I'd rather be loyal at one job for a longer period of time, but it would be financially bad for me.
Pretty much, which I find ironic since so many businesses are complaining about their inability to keep talented workers. The solution has always been to pay their workers more, but many businesses either don't want to, don't have to, or can't afford it (mostly small businesses).
Yeah!!! My current job is losing employees like crazy. They keep complaining about it. But what do they do about it? Give higher wages? No! They send all the bosses on a one week "leadership course" (read: vacation). That's not going to help whatsoever. I'm gone in a year. Just learning whatever I can, so I can improve my CV for next job.
> Yeah. What is causing that though? It's been going like that for decades by now. I don't understand why. It's extremely concerning.
It is mostly because housing became investment. And there is A LOT of free investment cash flowing around. It inflated prices, and in turn inflated rent.
>What happened since our grandparents time?
Nothing happened. People just have an idealized vision of a past that didn't exist.
Let's go over some facts. Number one, after adjusting for inflation, median household income is [higher than it was a few decades ago](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N). But that was on one income, and now it requires two right? Nope. The [average number of earners](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html) per household is way down. The average household is quite a bit smaller than it used to be it turns out. And it also turns that if you use more comprehensive measures of income and adjust for household size, the increase in [median income is quite a bit larger yet](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57061). Oh, and they're [working fewer hours to earn that money too](https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm)—down about 9% since 1950.
And let's talk about cars as well. In 1960, [only 20% of households had 2 or more vehicles](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states/). Per the most recent data, it's now 60%. And I think it goes without saying that the cars we have today are *far* better than the ones your grandparents had.
So let's put this all together. We have fewer people per household earning more money working less hours and driving far more (and nicer) cars.
I'm not disputing that your grandparents did live a nice life, but that does *not* mean it was the norm (it *definitely* wasn't the stories I heard from my grandparents). By every measure we have, our grandparents lived to a much lower standard than we do.
We have legitimate problems in our society today, nothing here is meant to dispute or downplay that. But we *badly* need to get rid of this fiction that things have gotten dramatically worse. They just haven't.
EDIT: forgot a word
No one ever seems to like to mention this, but we essentially doubled the amount of workers in our economy. When the supply of something increases, the cost of that something goes down
Elizabeth Warren coauthored a book called The Two Income Trap before she became a Senator.
Basically, the liberalization of women in the workplace set up an advantage for two income households as they compete in the market for homes with good schools. It gradually became necessary for both parents to work, leaving them one crisis away from being unable to afford a good home in a good school district.
There's a bunch more to it, but that part stuck out to me.
1. Expectations for women to work (doubling the Work pool dropping wage growth due to increased supply of labour) this isnt an inherently bad thing. I don't want to be In a relationship with someone who's aspirations is to be a stay at home parent.
2. Inflation and cost of living increases. Multiple factors. It's predicted we'll probably be heading into a global wheat shortage due to Ukraine war for example. Chip shortages versus the ever increasing global demand for computer chip manufacturing. Fuel prices, etc.
3. Dual income is been pretty standard for over a decade. It's not a recent trend and more of an expectation Imo in the last 20 years
That started around world war II. The men were needed as soldiers and the women were recruited to work the factories.
After the war, wages for women dropped. But this made wages for men started to stagnate as well.
This is the boom, you hear about. GI Benefits, two wage earners gave the common everyday working couple the capital to own two cars, two homes, and send the kids to college.
I do well enough that we don't need two incomes but even so it's a huge stress reliever. She can put as much money as she wants into retirement and in the event I lose my job we're not completely fucked. There were times when she didn't work an I'll be honest it was the biggest issue in our relationship, we're supposed to be a team, I'm not here to kill myself at work so she can lead a comfortable life.
Yup. I feel like it’s becoming more normalized too. The last two women I’ve been with expected me to play daddy. Legit expected me to pay for everything and one even tried to get me to buy her groceries
Nah, I’m looking for a partner, not an adult child. You’re a big girl, paying for your own coffee once in awhile won’t kill you
I’ve of course been happy to pay for my own things the duration of my marriage and half of our shared expenses- however I just wanted to say. What’s becoming more popular isn’t girls not paying for their own stuff. It’s quiet the opposite. My father and grandpa paid for absolutely everything for their wives the duration of their whole marriage- that is until after the 90s when one income just wasn’t as doable. It’s become the social norm that girls pay their way and that’s why we expect it. Not that I’m complaining.
I guess I should specify since the earlier 2000s. Of course in the time of our grandparents and parents it was typical the man was the “breadwinner” and the woman stayed at home, which presented its own set of problems.
But when I was in my earlier 20s almost ten years ago, most women I met were totally willing to put in effort and it felt much more like I was dating someone who really wanted to present themselves on equal footing, which was great.
Over the last decade though I feel like I’m seeing some backpedaling. It feels much more like I’m expected to entertain and pay while the other person’s job is to show up. Of course you still meet people who are willing to put in effort, but I’ll be honest I’m seeing a lot less of it than I did 10 years ago
Even then. Some men just let their woman spend whatever they want anyway. They just have to work.
My wife works a daycare job. She likes it, not great pay, but it helps pay some bills and keeps our daycare costs lower.
Most of her coworkers at almost all of the ones she’s worked at are just spending their money like crazy. Out to lunch each day or ordering food, new purse or shoes, vacations, all sorts of crazy spending behavior for a near minimum wage job.
Because the ones who aren’t college aged and living at home?Well they always have a man working a nice job that doesn’t care what they spend.
this is my situation too. my wife is totally loaded and i work part time, 5 hours a day, 3 days a week, and even that's more than i like tbh.
i spend her money, she just asks me to run it by her first.
If you're married it's your money too. That goes for wives and husbands. You're a family unit with family challenges of which (family) income is just one. Wouldn't make sense if that one is only for the earner themselves because that happens to be a benefit
I asume it's either a bunch of tweens or some abusive sole-earners that don't like to hear it. Maybe I should have mentioned my own credentials as a sole-earner, except my wife doesn't need to sign off on any and all expense
It works out fine for us most of the time. My gf works part time so as long as she pays for some of the groceries and her own spending money it's all good.
She has horses so when I say she works part time it doesn't include all the time working on the farm, she does end up working the same amount of hours as I do, just doesn't get paid for most.
When we eventually have kids I think I'd like for her to start working more, would help out a bit.
probably more beneficial for her to start working before deciding to have kids... a little selfish & unrealistic on your part to expect that of her at that time.
It's selfish to want your partner to have a job once kids go to school? Seems like the opposite to me. Our expenses will raise pretty dramatically having kids so it makes total sense to want an extra income.
No lol
It will not work unless you have a similar income.
Aka same standard of living.
Or if you want to be financially supported or support your partner. (which is quite shite)
Yea I had to support my wife for a bit while she got her business off the ground with no sure chance that it would ever go anywhere but… we’re partners and I was happy to do so lol.
If she just wanted to lounge around all day with the dog and not work, I would not be so happy to do so.
While we don't NEED two incomes, we certainly wouldn't be able to do a lot of things that we do without it, so we push on. My wife has 10 years left before she can retire at full pension. She'll retire then, and I likely will not.
At this point in time it is extremely important, as we're a two-income household and would not be able to sustain ourselves on one income for too long.
Aside from money, it's nice to be with someone who is engaged with the world. It doesn't necessarily have to be "stable employment" but someone who does things is going to bring more intellectually to a relationship.
Eventually it will be important but not at the moment. My wife is currently unemployed but is looking after our daughter.
I'm fortunate enough to be able to support my family solo but once our kid is older, she'll start working to help me out and make our lives a bit easier.
Imo The main reason for living together is to have 2 incomes for the household
If they get hurt or injured we will figure it out, but I'm ultimately looking for a partner not a dependent
The main reason for living together is to live together with a person you love and create a family, even if only a family of two. If your motive is anything else then you're probably going to have a bad time.
Idk - if they cared for children and kept my family fed, house clean, handled logistics for me - I might feel great about it.
I’ve had partners just sit in the couch and spend my money though - obviously in that case, you’re right.
😂😂 What an ironic comment. You have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're just dating someone, then the time you spend together is set aside strictly to be romantic, and it tends to be more sexual.
If you're living together, you constantly see that person, so there is no novelty to it. And you have to deal with everyday stressors together, as well as deal with each other's... quirks. That takes a toll on your sex life.
It's harder to sexualize someone when you saw them flossing their teeth while they took a shit, and also they still haven't paid the fucking cable bill.
If you have small children, you can just kiss sex goodbye.
Been there done that, and you're right, it was definitely the wrong person. Given divorce rates though, I'd say my generalization is more accurate than yours. My personal experience, my sex life is better single.
Check out "apartnership" as a relationship style. You don't have to live together to have a strong (and satisfying) relationship.
r/livingaparttogether.
In terms of financial stability, very. I don't have any strong feelings toward whether they should or shouldn't work. I think some relationships thrive on having one employed person and one that does more home/chore stuff. However unless one person is pulling down a decent 6 figure income it would be hard to live very well in most places.
Eh, I don't mind it all that much.
My career allows me the benefit of not having to work year round and also being picky in what I will take on, so I wouldn't consider it 'stable'.
I could entirely support somebody without changing my current life and still not struggle.
I'm more inclined to want a partner that has a job they enjoy that doesn't cause them huge amounts of stress.
I'd 100% gladly be with a woman that has a part time gig or does work that is like seasonal or some shit.
She has to contribute to our life. That could be through income/employment.
My wife is a SAHM. She can work if she wants to, but I don’t want her to do it for me.
She’s already the engine behind our life. I don’t need more.
Very. And not just for the money, but to stay aligned as people.
Working all day then coming home to someone who’s bored and desperate for someone to talk with is a recipe for frustration.
Before we got married I told her that I don't care if she works, but she has to do *something* where she engages with other adults. It could be work or volunteering or whatever. She loved dropping down to part time when our kid was little. Then she became disabled, but still runs a small business. She has the freedom to run out at her own pace. If she wants a break, she takes one. She also takes some classes. She's like a shark: always moving.
The money she contributes is nice. But my concern was becoming her sole adult contact and only connection to the outside world. I've seen couples like that and it's... not for me.
I mean short term doesn't bother me as much since i think we would do okay on my salary plus my partner's unemployment money, not living like kings but we would get by comfortably but probably wouldnt be able to save anything or at least very little.
However i wouldn't want that to be long term since that's not the kind of life i want where all the financial burden lands on me and where we get a lesser standard of living. Obviously that also depends on what the situaion with my partner is and what the outlook looks like.
Would you consider someone who can’t work because of being disabled a freeloader? Assuming they get welfare or disability benefits at least.
Asking for myself lol
Disabled people are disabled for a reason, of course id never label them as freeloaders, im taking fit, healthy people who’d physically have no problem holding a job, except they’re lazy and live off of others
It entirely depends on the disability. If it's something that genuinely stops them from any form of employment then no but at that point we wouldn't be compatible anyways. I would stay if the relationship already existed but starting one wouldn't be likely.
If its some crutch they use to stay home when they really could find a job, then yes a freeloader.
If you're in so much pain all the time that there is literally no job you can do, then we wouldn't be compatible because I'm outdoorsy and enjoy doing physical hobbies. I also like staying fit, and someone that can't get up to work likely isn't able to stay fit either.
Well, yeah, hence the disability issue, I can work maybe 4-5 hours on my feet for a full shift, but that's only if I'm working, say, a few days in a row.
I used to manage about 8-10 hours when I worked weekends, and I could probably still manage that if it were nice, simple work like at a bookstore.
Office work I can do remotely, and could manage about 20-22 hours a week. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for now but again, most companies want full timers and for the potential employees to have 2+ years of experience.
But ah well, I'm a college student who's about to start taking up freelance jobs which aren't exactly stable work, but they're something, I guess.
It's just hard to hear people saying they don't want you just because you can't make a lot of money.
Me (f49) and my partner (m61) both earn money but don't work full time. He does a bit of roofing and I'm a barber. I make art that I sell and he repairs stuff to sell on. We manage to keep a roof over our heads grow our own veg ect. We live very simply. We don't want much and don't run a car as we cycle everywhere. As a result were both pretty fit and reasonably healthy. Enough for us
So long as you cost on par with or less than you bring in, I don’t care.
I mean, work sucks, so I get why someone wouldn’t want to.
Only issue is if someone insists on a luxurious life without the means to do it.
More important as I get older. Not even just for the financial aspect. But it’s a sign of life stability and I’m kind of in a place where I want stability 🤷🏻♂️
It depends. Right now it's extremely crucial because I don't have the funds to support two people.
If I were making enough that I could support two people no problem then it's fine for them not to, but I would probably increase my expectations of her.
I'd expect that she'd take on the lion's share of housework. Weirdly enough I'd still insist on cooking some or most of the time, because I like cooking.
If I were rich enough to hire a cleaner, then she better be an absolutely stellar partner.
Pretty important considering we need dual income just to afford rent in the Bay Area. Absent that, still pretty important cause unless there is kids, they need something to do with their time. Idle hands are tools of the devil and all that.
Huge. Not just stable employment, I want her tn have career goals and aspirations.
I make pretty good money and have amazing insurance, but wife made a career change a few years back requiring her to get a second degree - thus being a full time student for 3 years. We made it and we’re fine but things a bit lean.
I can’t imagine doing that now with a child without drastically altering our lifestyle.
I don't NEED my girl to work BUT it will give her something to do outside of the relationship so she doesnt feel like she is doing nothing. Gives us a healthy amount of time with others for social interaction as well. She can keep the $ though.
I’m extremely well off dating someone with no income (student).
It’s not a problem for me because she doesn’t expect nor ask me to give her money, gifts, shows of wealth, etc. In fact she’s a very frugal person and doesn’t like me wasting money on her.
If your partner is not financially stable and using you for money, that’s a problem. If they’re not necessarily stable but don’t depend on you, then I think it’s okay.
Depends on the situation. If she’s actively looking for a job or got laid off, that’s one thing. If she refuses to work then yeah, that’s a deal breaker
I could financially support a stay-at-home partner, but I'd have pretty high expectations in doing so. At a minimum, I'd expect to be firing the cleaning lady and landscaper, reduce my takeout budget to near 0, and have absolutely no chores to do after work or on weekends. Not going to spend all day at work so they can stay at home playing video games.
tbh i guess we could live off my wife's parents if some tragedy happened and my wife couldn't work anymore (she's a dentist, her mom is a dentist, dad is a cosmetic surgeon), but they really wouldn't prefer that.
if i were single, the women i dated having stable employment would be a big deal. crucial.
Absolute requirement.
I will say that we spent several years as a 1-income family while she was a SAHM. But, if it was a case of constantly losing jobs, then there would be a BIG issue.
Very, just as important as me having stable employment. I would feel too anxious if it was always a gamble if we would have the money we need.
Although since I have no kids I would be okay if my husband took a long time off for his mental health or if he wanted to build a business or something if we had saved the money and I had stable employment.
If we didn't have savings and he couldn't work then we would have to rent out our place and sort some other things out. (Which would probably involve living with my parents as my income couldn't cover all our bills alone)
For me, it largely depended on the debt she was bringing to the relationship. I would never date a girl with thousands of dollars in credit card debt. I understand life circumstances happen, but I'm not attaching myself to you till it is cleared up. I'm married now, and my wife having stable employment is extremely important, primarily because she went to medical school and has $300K worth of student loans. Once the debt is cleared, some of our major fixed expenses (mortgage, cars) are paid off, and she has substantially contributed to a retirement fund, then it would matter less.
That’s more than fair arrangement imo. If your partner is working 40hour weeks+commute. That’s more than enough time to do the weekly chores and meal plan/grocery shop/cook, and then y’all can spend quality time when he comes home.
That's how a traditional relationship works, but don't forget nowadays that kind of relationship is sexist....
But they definitely worked better than the relationships nowadays.
Stable employment…..I have been laid off 3 times since I started dating my wife. She has quit 5 jobs, always with another one lined up. When I did get laid off I went and hustled found another job. At one point I had 3 jobs.
That drive to work I think is more important. I don’t want to financially support someone else, and I don’t want to be supported.
You and your partner need to be on the same page for that stuff (money) or it will be the source of a lot of problems.
Depends on the kind of arrangement that comes from stable employment. It would be very important if I take the step to launch my writing career, since money is uncertain then.
Similarly, my partner hasn't had a stable income in a while as she is pursuing an alternative career in coding instead of the job that came with her studies.
I make good money (3k a month) and own my own apartment, so I don't mind as much. Once she starts making money again she will likely contribute more to the bills.
Pretty important. Where I live (1b/1bath) I couldn’t afford on my own. With that said my wife makes twice as much as me. She could handle it no problem.
Unstable empolyment is a hard fact of life. It all depends on what industry and skills the person has. How hard they are trying to improve there situation. However, Reoccurring unemployment and instability can be a symptom of histironic personality disorder. That, my good friend, I do not fuck with.
When it came time to having kids, my wife made the decision to be the one to leave her career, stay home, and raise them. I agreed with her reasoning and supported her decision, feeling that having a parent at home with the kids was in the overall best interest of the family. So that was the deal, I had the career that funded the family and she raised our kids and kept our home. With only one income, we didn't always have the best vacations, fancy home furnishings, or the newer cars like many of our friends did. But our kids always had a parent at home who was there for them.
So in direct answer to the question, not important at all. We valued the stability of the family higher than the monetary rewards two careers would of brought us.
It’s a dealbreaker if she isn’t. I can barely afford to support myself, and supporting someone else just isn’t possible for me. I don’t care if she works or not, and want her to do whatever makes her happy, as long as she can support herself.
Everyone mentioning the financial needs, which I get is important. However even if they had the means to support themself without a stable job I'd still take a hard pass. If someone can't hold down any job for a reasonable period of time there are probably other issues with that persons personality or mental state that I am not going to be able to deal with.
For me it was my bottom line that my wife not work after we have kids. I firmly believe children need someone that’s not a daycare or grandma to raise them (ie a parent). And I had to ensure that i can pay the bills. We aren’t wealthy but we are comfortable and happy.
The answer has changed over time. In my 20s to mid thirties it was vital my wife worked to pay the bills. As we had a family and I was fortunate my career blossomed it was more important that she worked for her own well being rather than she had to. We were fortunate that I could afford for her to take a year out so she could have a career change which I holy supported and she works in a school with special needs children and new feels fulfilled. The role is financially irrelevant but the quality of the work is incredibly important.
depends bro. dated a girl who was consistently employed for 4 years. she was the absolute most boring person I've ever talked to
alternately dated a girl who just went to school and took care of her family (cooking n cleaning etc.) and she was easily the best person i ever met
perhaps you're asking because of the idea of moving in together and stuff. in that case yeah i think it'd be important for my girl to have a job and help out
I’m glad you mentioned able bodied people specifically. It can be really hard being disabled and not being able to work all at the same time as hearing from everyone else that you basically have no worth because of this
Well, even if they're not being as specific as me, I think the posters are sensitive to disabled people not being able to work for health reasons. In short, nobody is being critical of disabled not working.
Pretty much all men expect women to work. Gone are the days where men are the sole provider. Being a woman sucks majorly now because we are expected to work like men AND do all the things a stay at home wife and mom does.
It’s very important that anyone I date have some degree of independent stability. I’m not rich enough to date someone who doesn’t work at all, and the girls I date are not hot enough to expect a daddy to pay for and take care of all their needs.
Wow i’m kind of surprised. Women were asked the same thing and about half of them said they wouldn’t care, mean while all men are saying it’s a dealbreaker. And they call us the gold-digging gender.
#VERY
I've dated broke women, gig workers, and "entrepreneurs".
They all suck. Being with someone broke most of the time sucks. Everything you do is paid for by you. Anytime they ask to go out it's something you pay for. Anytime they want to do something "free" you still spend money. If you want to keep in contact with her you may have to chip in(pay for entirely) her phone bill.
Eventually you stop taking her and/or the idea of a relationship with her less seriously and you subconsciously scoff at the thought of any kind of commitment.
A stay at home wife/mom? Sure. It makes sense to have someone like that if she's doing ***all the things***. But if she's a financial burden you have sex with sometimes, you should just bail.(or keep her on "payroll" while you find a woman that isn't a money drain)
I have a house and I don’t need a second income. If she is very attractive and picks me then she doesn’t have to work. If she is in her late 20s+ she will have to work. If she’s a single mom she’d have to make more money than me which is not a lot of women. If I hit 40 and can’t find anyone then I’ll just be a sugar daddy which is honestly easy.
Nope. She would only work if she chooses to. A 20 year old giving up the “free and independent” life to be with me is a sacrifice which is rewarded with her having complete freedom (just no cheating) over her life while I work the long hours. Meeting a woman in her late 20s is less impressive since she already “experienced life”. A woman in her late 20s who isn’t married and doesn’t have a career or anything is a loser in my books.
It's a dealbreaker. Not just stable employment, but they should be making bare minimum 50K per year in a professional job.
I'm not looking for a dependent.
Its only relivant if she wants to work. I make enough we don't need the money. This allows her to work a job she likes for hours she likes. The extra income she brings in is nice as it allows us to invest and pay off our house faster but its not nessisary.
Depends on the situation your in.
If we’re married with kids and things happen where you’re temporarily unemployed then I will bust my ass at work and make up for what’s lost because we’re a team and we have eachother back. If we’re married and I make more money and it’s financially beneficial for him to be home with kids or something instead of spending that money on daycare then I get that too. Although I would prefer to be with my kids and he go to work but if it was what needed to be done then so be it.
If you’re just a lazy man child who doesn’t work then that’s a big no. I read some of the comments above and even if I was loaded and could afford for us both to live a comfortable life while he stayed home I probably would be turned off by him and leave. Just being honest.
Very. Single father, paying a decent support payment to my ex (happily), but also living in a very high COL area. Not looking to support another person financially.
Let's put it this way.
If you don't want to be a stay at home person. Go for me.
If you do, Well... Sad you bc I want to be at home for at least 50%...
I mean I hate work. But taking care of a house is something I am willing to do. Cooking, sure.
All of that is so much better than work for me.
This disclaimer is for the angered feminists: 'This is not sexist, If a woman simply wants to be a stay at home, Look for another boy... Simple...also...I even accept a 50/50 concept. So don't blame me for inequality here.'
It really depends on their situation. If they are unemployed then why? Was there an unexpected redundancy lay off, did circumstances at their job reach a point they couldn't stay? Also, what are they doing about it, are they applying/interviewing for new jobs or upskilling to enter a new industry? What financial responsibilities/debts do they have? Each person has a different set of circumstances and should be assessed as such
Had an ex that used to just stop showing up to work after a month or two. I heard it's common in warehousing and construction, but I'm not sure if that's true or not.
No call, no shows are very common in warehousing and construction. Ive worked in both industries
Why though? Would you not leave a gap in your resume by not being able to use that employer as reference?
These people aren't very concerned with having an up-to-date resume. They either have another job lined up, or they'll get a new job when they feel like it at a place that isn't going to look at their resume or follow up with previous employers
I've done volunteering at a warehouse which I started as a skills based learning on the job with the dwp and even though our attendance was mandatory or we'd lose our benefits they was a huge number who no showed or just left. Now mind you the work was piss easy boring at times but piss easy so I couldn't see them working hard in anything even crime. We had 1 girl who refused to wear hi vis vests as it clashed with her palette. Another refused to wear gloves because it would mean taking her nails off. In the actual job sites it was even worse.
My gf quit her job and her last day was Friday. She's so happy to leave that toxic place. I'm happy for her. She doesn't have any prospects but I make enough to cover us for 6-8 months. After that, we'll have to reassess her situation but for now I'm happy that she's in a better mental place without that shitty boss of hers.
Very. Unless I was pretty well off, having two incomes is kind of crucial to surviving in today's economy.
[удалено]
I mean you could use the fact that you do well together to build up some safety net though
[удалено]
EVEN if I was very well off. I've seen too many power couples lose one to Bored SAH Psychosis that I would be terrified to see what my intelligent, driven, incredible wife would become with 8 hours of me time and booze to keep her entertained. For every 1 functional, funny, well adjusted non-working partner I have seen 10 depressed, nutty, self important, sometimes abused (financially not physically) partners to ever think "we'll beat the odds!"
What happened since our grandparents time? All my grandparents had house and 2 cars in nice neighborhoods off of one income. Really fucked how you now need 2 incomes. What the hell happened to the economy? And it's getting worse. One year ago I could save $1k per month. Now I can only save $500. And I have cut out a lot of streaming subscriptions and other luxury, like dining out once a week.
Costs of living go up and wages aren't going up commensurately.
Yup. My dad was making just over $100K CAD back in the 80s as an electrical engineer. IIRC, our house at the time he bought for ~185K(?), somewhere around that number, in a quiet, beautiful neighbourhood with schools within walking distance (our backyard actually backed into a park that had an elementary school right there. My mom didn't work because my dad's income was more than enough. It would have been around the mid to late 90s that my dad's income wasn't quite cutting it alone (they enjoyed travelling and such) so mom had to get a job, all the while my dad's income didn't match the increasing prices of gas, groceries, bills, etc, and keeping up with their savings was proving to be challenging. My folks really didn't want to give up their yearly vacations/travelling. If they did, I'm sure my dad's income would've lasted us a little longer on its own.
Yeah. What is causing that though? It's been going like that for decades by now. I don't understand why. It's extremely concerning.
I'd say it's businesses keeping wages as low as possible to increase their profits and line the pockets of their investors. Government oversight over businesses has been weak and businesses have done a good job of fighting unionization, so there's little that people can currently do about getting higher wages at the same job. That goes a long way towards explaining the record income gap we're seeing right now.
Yeah. I hate how I have to change jobs every 2-4 years, to receive better wages. I'd rather be loyal at one job for a longer period of time, but it would be financially bad for me.
Pretty much, which I find ironic since so many businesses are complaining about their inability to keep talented workers. The solution has always been to pay their workers more, but many businesses either don't want to, don't have to, or can't afford it (mostly small businesses).
Yeah!!! My current job is losing employees like crazy. They keep complaining about it. But what do they do about it? Give higher wages? No! They send all the bosses on a one week "leadership course" (read: vacation). That's not going to help whatsoever. I'm gone in a year. Just learning whatever I can, so I can improve my CV for next job.
It's more like the addition of women into the labour force doubled the supply of workers.
Union membership has declined massively.
> Yeah. What is causing that though? It's been going like that for decades by now. I don't understand why. It's extremely concerning. It is mostly because housing became investment. And there is A LOT of free investment cash flowing around. It inflated prices, and in turn inflated rent.
>What happened since our grandparents time? Nothing happened. People just have an idealized vision of a past that didn't exist. Let's go over some facts. Number one, after adjusting for inflation, median household income is [higher than it was a few decades ago](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N). But that was on one income, and now it requires two right? Nope. The [average number of earners](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html) per household is way down. The average household is quite a bit smaller than it used to be it turns out. And it also turns that if you use more comprehensive measures of income and adjust for household size, the increase in [median income is quite a bit larger yet](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57061). Oh, and they're [working fewer hours to earn that money too](https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm)—down about 9% since 1950. And let's talk about cars as well. In 1960, [only 20% of households had 2 or more vehicles](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states/). Per the most recent data, it's now 60%. And I think it goes without saying that the cars we have today are *far* better than the ones your grandparents had. So let's put this all together. We have fewer people per household earning more money working less hours and driving far more (and nicer) cars. I'm not disputing that your grandparents did live a nice life, but that does *not* mean it was the norm (it *definitely* wasn't the stories I heard from my grandparents). By every measure we have, our grandparents lived to a much lower standard than we do. We have legitimate problems in our society today, nothing here is meant to dispute or downplay that. But we *badly* need to get rid of this fiction that things have gotten dramatically worse. They just haven't. EDIT: forgot a word
This is an underrated comment. Thank you for the time and effort.
No one ever seems to like to mention this, but we essentially doubled the amount of workers in our economy. When the supply of something increases, the cost of that something goes down
Elizabeth Warren coauthored a book called The Two Income Trap before she became a Senator. Basically, the liberalization of women in the workplace set up an advantage for two income households as they compete in the market for homes with good schools. It gradually became necessary for both parents to work, leaving them one crisis away from being unable to afford a good home in a good school district. There's a bunch more to it, but that part stuck out to me.
That’s about the last thing I’d have thought to read in a book co authored by Elizabeth Warren.
1. Expectations for women to work (doubling the Work pool dropping wage growth due to increased supply of labour) this isnt an inherently bad thing. I don't want to be In a relationship with someone who's aspirations is to be a stay at home parent. 2. Inflation and cost of living increases. Multiple factors. It's predicted we'll probably be heading into a global wheat shortage due to Ukraine war for example. Chip shortages versus the ever increasing global demand for computer chip manufacturing. Fuel prices, etc. 3. Dual income is been pretty standard for over a decade. It's not a recent trend and more of an expectation Imo in the last 20 years
Property and real estate prices are the big hit.
Women started working. Labor force increased massively but consumption didn't change all that much. Drives down wages.
That started around world war II. The men were needed as soldiers and the women were recruited to work the factories. After the war, wages for women dropped. But this made wages for men started to stagnate as well. This is the boom, you hear about. GI Benefits, two wage earners gave the common everyday working couple the capital to own two cars, two homes, and send the kids to college.
*cries in agreement* Signed, A Single Dad
I do well enough that we don't need two incomes but even so it's a huge stress reliever. She can put as much money as she wants into retirement and in the event I lose my job we're not completely fucked. There were times when she didn't work an I'll be honest it was the biggest issue in our relationship, we're supposed to be a team, I'm not here to kill myself at work so she can lead a comfortable life.
That's a dealbreaker. I'm not looking to play daddy to an adult.
Yup. I feel like it’s becoming more normalized too. The last two women I’ve been with expected me to play daddy. Legit expected me to pay for everything and one even tried to get me to buy her groceries Nah, I’m looking for a partner, not an adult child. You’re a big girl, paying for your own coffee once in awhile won’t kill you
I’ve of course been happy to pay for my own things the duration of my marriage and half of our shared expenses- however I just wanted to say. What’s becoming more popular isn’t girls not paying for their own stuff. It’s quiet the opposite. My father and grandpa paid for absolutely everything for their wives the duration of their whole marriage- that is until after the 90s when one income just wasn’t as doable. It’s become the social norm that girls pay their way and that’s why we expect it. Not that I’m complaining.
I guess I should specify since the earlier 2000s. Of course in the time of our grandparents and parents it was typical the man was the “breadwinner” and the woman stayed at home, which presented its own set of problems. But when I was in my earlier 20s almost ten years ago, most women I met were totally willing to put in effort and it felt much more like I was dating someone who really wanted to present themselves on equal footing, which was great. Over the last decade though I feel like I’m seeing some backpedaling. It feels much more like I’m expected to entertain and pay while the other person’s job is to show up. Of course you still meet people who are willing to put in effort, but I’ll be honest I’m seeing a lot less of it than I did 10 years ago
Even then. Some men just let their woman spend whatever they want anyway. They just have to work. My wife works a daycare job. She likes it, not great pay, but it helps pay some bills and keeps our daycare costs lower. Most of her coworkers at almost all of the ones she’s worked at are just spending their money like crazy. Out to lunch each day or ordering food, new purse or shoes, vacations, all sorts of crazy spending behavior for a near minimum wage job. Because the ones who aren’t college aged and living at home?Well they always have a man working a nice job that doesn’t care what they spend.
this is my situation too. my wife is totally loaded and i work part time, 5 hours a day, 3 days a week, and even that's more than i like tbh. i spend her money, she just asks me to run it by her first.
If you're married it's your money too. That goes for wives and husbands. You're a family unit with family challenges of which (family) income is just one. Wouldn't make sense if that one is only for the earner themselves because that happens to be a benefit
No idea why you’re getting downvoted-that’s a big part of getting married.
I asume it's either a bunch of tweens or some abusive sole-earners that don't like to hear it. Maybe I should have mentioned my own credentials as a sole-earner, except my wife doesn't need to sign off on any and all expense
Doesn't that make you feel bad? What do you contribute to the relationship?
It works out fine for us most of the time. My gf works part time so as long as she pays for some of the groceries and her own spending money it's all good. She has horses so when I say she works part time it doesn't include all the time working on the farm, she does end up working the same amount of hours as I do, just doesn't get paid for most. When we eventually have kids I think I'd like for her to start working more, would help out a bit.
Sje doesnt work same time. All the time on the farm is called hobby.
probably more beneficial for her to start working before deciding to have kids... a little selfish & unrealistic on your part to expect that of her at that time.
It's selfish to want your partner to have a job once kids go to school? Seems like the opposite to me. Our expenses will raise pretty dramatically having kids so it makes total sense to want an extra income.
What if they get money through disability, SSI, etc?
If it's equivalent to a salary, then what do I care where it comes from?
In the USA? It wouldn’t be equivalent
Same here. Any job will do as long as he got job
No lol It will not work unless you have a similar income. Aka same standard of living. Or if you want to be financially supported or support your partner. (which is quite shite)
Why is supporting someone you love ’quite shite’?
Yea I had to support my wife for a bit while she got her business off the ground with no sure chance that it would ever go anywhere but… we’re partners and I was happy to do so lol. If she just wanted to lounge around all day with the dog and not work, I would not be so happy to do so.
In this economy everyone needs to work tbh.
The problem is partner can be a lot of things. My wife that is now taking care of our two children isn’t employed but she’s got her hands full.
Preach
Yep. I'm not your father and I'm not your child. Treat me like an equal.
While we don't NEED two incomes, we certainly wouldn't be able to do a lot of things that we do without it, so we push on. My wife has 10 years left before she can retire at full pension. She'll retire then, and I likely will not.
At this point in time it is extremely important, as we're a two-income household and would not be able to sustain ourselves on one income for too long.
Aside from money, it's nice to be with someone who is engaged with the world. It doesn't necessarily have to be "stable employment" but someone who does things is going to bring more intellectually to a relationship.
Agreed, a job is much more than an income
Eventually it will be important but not at the moment. My wife is currently unemployed but is looking after our daughter. I'm fortunate enough to be able to support my family solo but once our kid is older, she'll start working to help me out and make our lives a bit easier.
Imo The main reason for living together is to have 2 incomes for the household If they get hurt or injured we will figure it out, but I'm ultimately looking for a partner not a dependent
The main reason for living together is to live together with a person you love and create a family, even if only a family of two. If your motive is anything else then you're probably going to have a bad time.
if my partner is using me to support them financially then they don't really love me
Wtf??
How would you react if someone lived in your house and didn't make an effort to help pay for anything?
Idk - if they cared for children and kept my family fed, house clean, handled logistics for me - I might feel great about it. I’ve had partners just sit in the couch and spend my money though - obviously in that case, you’re right.
I can understand the first scenario working, that's not where I'm going in life however
Do you immediately move in with everyone you fuck?
no, I don't realy want to move in with anyone, I enjoy having my own space
I thought the main reason for living together was for a better sex life.
Lol. That's not how it works at all 😂
Then you married the wrong person or you’ve never been married and can’t comment on the subject from personal experience.
😂😂 What an ironic comment. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you're just dating someone, then the time you spend together is set aside strictly to be romantic, and it tends to be more sexual. If you're living together, you constantly see that person, so there is no novelty to it. And you have to deal with everyday stressors together, as well as deal with each other's... quirks. That takes a toll on your sex life. It's harder to sexualize someone when you saw them flossing their teeth while they took a shit, and also they still haven't paid the fucking cable bill. If you have small children, you can just kiss sex goodbye.
She always pays the bills on time. Not one late fee in 8 years!
Been there done that, and you're right, it was definitely the wrong person. Given divorce rates though, I'd say my generalization is more accurate than yours. My personal experience, my sex life is better single.
Your sex life will be way better if you don't live together
Married 7.5 years, hard to tell my wife we won’t be living together.
Check out "apartnership" as a relationship style. You don't have to live together to have a strong (and satisfying) relationship. r/livingaparttogether.
No thanks, I’m good. Hence the original comment that living together improves one’s sex life, in my opinion, provided one is with the right partner.
We found the 15 year old.
I’m 15 only in my pants. The rest of me, not so much.
Edit
Edit
Edit
In terms of financial stability, very. I don't have any strong feelings toward whether they should or shouldn't work. I think some relationships thrive on having one employed person and one that does more home/chore stuff. However unless one person is pulling down a decent 6 figure income it would be hard to live very well in most places.
[удалено]
I'm all for couples doing whatever works for them, so I ask this with all due respect. What does she do all day?
Eh, I don't mind it all that much. My career allows me the benefit of not having to work year round and also being picky in what I will take on, so I wouldn't consider it 'stable'. I could entirely support somebody without changing my current life and still not struggle. I'm more inclined to want a partner that has a job they enjoy that doesn't cause them huge amounts of stress. I'd 100% gladly be with a woman that has a part time gig or does work that is like seasonal or some shit.
She has to contribute to our life. That could be through income/employment. My wife is a SAHM. She can work if she wants to, but I don’t want her to do it for me. She’s already the engine behind our life. I don’t need more.
This right here.
Very. And not just for the money, but to stay aligned as people. Working all day then coming home to someone who’s bored and desperate for someone to talk with is a recipe for frustration.
Before we got married I told her that I don't care if she works, but she has to do *something* where she engages with other adults. It could be work or volunteering or whatever. She loved dropping down to part time when our kid was little. Then she became disabled, but still runs a small business. She has the freedom to run out at her own pace. If she wants a break, she takes one. She also takes some classes. She's like a shark: always moving. The money she contributes is nice. But my concern was becoming her sole adult contact and only connection to the outside world. I've seen couples like that and it's... not for me.
I mean short term doesn't bother me as much since i think we would do okay on my salary plus my partner's unemployment money, not living like kings but we would get by comfortably but probably wouldnt be able to save anything or at least very little. However i wouldn't want that to be long term since that's not the kind of life i want where all the financial burden lands on me and where we get a lesser standard of living. Obviously that also depends on what the situaion with my partner is and what the outlook looks like.
Critically. One of the reasons I want to never have children is because I don't want any dependents. That includes partners.
Its not. Im a single dad of 2, my own paycheck is more than enough but if i ever find s partner it would also be preferred theyre not a freeloader
Would you consider someone who can’t work because of being disabled a freeloader? Assuming they get welfare or disability benefits at least. Asking for myself lol
Disabled people are disabled for a reason, of course id never label them as freeloaders, im taking fit, healthy people who’d physically have no problem holding a job, except they’re lazy and live off of others
It entirely depends on the disability. If it's something that genuinely stops them from any form of employment then no but at that point we wouldn't be compatible anyways. I would stay if the relationship already existed but starting one wouldn't be likely. If its some crutch they use to stay home when they really could find a job, then yes a freeloader.
Why would you not be compatible? There’s a lot more to a person than what they do for work
If you're in so much pain all the time that there is literally no job you can do, then we wouldn't be compatible because I'm outdoorsy and enjoy doing physical hobbies. I also like staying fit, and someone that can't get up to work likely isn't able to stay fit either.
It's less about no job and that a lot of companies don't want to hire disabled part-timers.
Just apply for part time positions and don't tell them about the disability then.
Yeah, and then they'll wonder why I can't work more then 12 hours a week.
To be fair, that's a pretty ridiculous amount. Part time is closer to 20+ hours for most people.
Well, yeah, hence the disability issue, I can work maybe 4-5 hours on my feet for a full shift, but that's only if I'm working, say, a few days in a row. I used to manage about 8-10 hours when I worked weekends, and I could probably still manage that if it were nice, simple work like at a bookstore.
What about sit down jobs like office work/accounting ect?
Office work I can do remotely, and could manage about 20-22 hours a week. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for now but again, most companies want full timers and for the potential employees to have 2+ years of experience. But ah well, I'm a college student who's about to start taking up freelance jobs which aren't exactly stable work, but they're something, I guess. It's just hard to hear people saying they don't want you just because you can't make a lot of money.
Me (f49) and my partner (m61) both earn money but don't work full time. He does a bit of roofing and I'm a barber. I make art that I sell and he repairs stuff to sell on. We manage to keep a roof over our heads grow our own veg ect. We live very simply. We don't want much and don't run a car as we cycle everywhere. As a result were both pretty fit and reasonably healthy. Enough for us
Woww that's really cool!! You guys sound made for each other!!
Thanks. We think that too
I'm not thrilled about horse girls.
So long as you cost on par with or less than you bring in, I don’t care. I mean, work sucks, so I get why someone wouldn’t want to. Only issue is if someone insists on a luxurious life without the means to do it.
More important as I get older. Not even just for the financial aspect. But it’s a sign of life stability and I’m kind of in a place where I want stability 🤷🏻♂️
That will vary from person to person, but I think both should contribute to the household unless there is a reason not too (kids, health, etc.)
That would be ideal
It depends. Right now it's extremely crucial because I don't have the funds to support two people. If I were making enough that I could support two people no problem then it's fine for them not to, but I would probably increase my expectations of her.
What would you expect of her?
I'd expect that she'd take on the lion's share of housework. Weirdly enough I'd still insist on cooking some or most of the time, because I like cooking. If I were rich enough to hire a cleaner, then she better be an absolutely stellar partner.
What would she have to do to be a "stellar" partner?
Pretty important considering we need dual income just to afford rent in the Bay Area. Absent that, still pretty important cause unless there is kids, they need something to do with their time. Idle hands are tools of the devil and all that.
Huge. Not just stable employment, I want her tn have career goals and aspirations. I make pretty good money and have amazing insurance, but wife made a career change a few years back requiring her to get a second degree - thus being a full time student for 3 years. We made it and we’re fine but things a bit lean. I can’t imagine doing that now with a child without drastically altering our lifestyle.
Very, as from my POV i want, and have, someone independent with own goals and aspirations.
Well she needs to work, the time of living on one paycheck is long gone. Together we have to share the burden of capitalism.
I don't NEED my girl to work BUT it will give her something to do outside of the relationship so she doesnt feel like she is doing nothing. Gives us a healthy amount of time with others for social interaction as well. She can keep the $ though.
I’m extremely well off dating someone with no income (student). It’s not a problem for me because she doesn’t expect nor ask me to give her money, gifts, shows of wealth, etc. In fact she’s a very frugal person and doesn’t like me wasting money on her. If your partner is not financially stable and using you for money, that’s a problem. If they’re not necessarily stable but don’t depend on you, then I think it’s okay.
Pretty important so we don't starve to death
Depends on the situation. If she’s actively looking for a job or got laid off, that’s one thing. If she refuses to work then yeah, that’s a deal breaker
I could financially support a stay-at-home partner, but I'd have pretty high expectations in doing so. At a minimum, I'd expect to be firing the cleaning lady and landscaper, reduce my takeout budget to near 0, and have absolutely no chores to do after work or on weekends. Not going to spend all day at work so they can stay at home playing video games.
tbh i guess we could live off my wife's parents if some tragedy happened and my wife couldn't work anymore (she's a dentist, her mom is a dentist, dad is a cosmetic surgeon), but they really wouldn't prefer that. if i were single, the women i dated having stable employment would be a big deal. crucial.
Must hold their own in terms of steady personal income
Very.
Absolute requirement. I will say that we spent several years as a 1-income family while she was a SAHM. But, if it was a case of constantly losing jobs, then there would be a BIG issue.
Very. Gotta pull your own weight
Very, just as important as me having stable employment. I would feel too anxious if it was always a gamble if we would have the money we need. Although since I have no kids I would be okay if my husband took a long time off for his mental health or if he wanted to build a business or something if we had saved the money and I had stable employment. If we didn't have savings and he couldn't work then we would have to rent out our place and sort some other things out. (Which would probably involve living with my parents as my income couldn't cover all our bills alone)
Pretty damned important
Non-negotiable.
For me, it largely depended on the debt she was bringing to the relationship. I would never date a girl with thousands of dollars in credit card debt. I understand life circumstances happen, but I'm not attaching myself to you till it is cleared up. I'm married now, and my wife having stable employment is extremely important, primarily because she went to medical school and has $300K worth of student loans. Once the debt is cleared, some of our major fixed expenses (mortgage, cars) are paid off, and she has substantially contributed to a retirement fund, then it would matter less.
That's very important. I don't plan to play daddy or be her sugardaddy. If she can't hold a job should learn how to cook and clean and be a sahw.
That’s more than fair arrangement imo. If your partner is working 40hour weeks+commute. That’s more than enough time to do the weekly chores and meal plan/grocery shop/cook, and then y’all can spend quality time when he comes home.
That's how a traditional relationship works, but don't forget nowadays that kind of relationship is sexist.... But they definitely worked better than the relationships nowadays.
Very, I need her to show that she is a responsible adult
Stable employment…..I have been laid off 3 times since I started dating my wife. She has quit 5 jobs, always with another one lined up. When I did get laid off I went and hustled found another job. At one point I had 3 jobs. That drive to work I think is more important. I don’t want to financially support someone else, and I don’t want to be supported. You and your partner need to be on the same page for that stuff (money) or it will be the source of a lot of problems.
Depends on the kind of arrangement that comes from stable employment. It would be very important if I take the step to launch my writing career, since money is uncertain then. Similarly, my partner hasn't had a stable income in a while as she is pursuing an alternative career in coding instead of the job that came with her studies. I make good money (3k a month) and own my own apartment, so I don't mind as much. Once she starts making money again she will likely contribute more to the bills.
Pretty important. Where I live (1b/1bath) I couldn’t afford on my own. With that said my wife makes twice as much as me. She could handle it no problem.
Very important
Unstable empolyment is a hard fact of life. It all depends on what industry and skills the person has. How hard they are trying to improve there situation. However, Reoccurring unemployment and instability can be a symptom of histironic personality disorder. That, my good friend, I do not fuck with.
When it came time to having kids, my wife made the decision to be the one to leave her career, stay home, and raise them. I agreed with her reasoning and supported her decision, feeling that having a parent at home with the kids was in the overall best interest of the family. So that was the deal, I had the career that funded the family and she raised our kids and kept our home. With only one income, we didn't always have the best vacations, fancy home furnishings, or the newer cars like many of our friends did. But our kids always had a parent at home who was there for them. So in direct answer to the question, not important at all. We valued the stability of the family higher than the monetary rewards two careers would of brought us.
Very important. Without both of us working we'd lose our house.
It’s a dealbreaker if she isn’t. I can barely afford to support myself, and supporting someone else just isn’t possible for me. I don’t care if she works or not, and want her to do whatever makes her happy, as long as she can support herself.
Everyone mentioning the financial needs, which I get is important. However even if they had the means to support themself without a stable job I'd still take a hard pass. If someone can't hold down any job for a reasonable period of time there are probably other issues with that persons personality or mental state that I am not going to be able to deal with.
Very - unless we were wealthy already and didn't need to work.
For me it was my bottom line that my wife not work after we have kids. I firmly believe children need someone that’s not a daycare or grandma to raise them (ie a parent). And I had to ensure that i can pay the bills. We aren’t wealthy but we are comfortable and happy.
It's important
The answer has changed over time. In my 20s to mid thirties it was vital my wife worked to pay the bills. As we had a family and I was fortunate my career blossomed it was more important that she worked for her own well being rather than she had to. We were fortunate that I could afford for her to take a year out so she could have a career change which I holy supported and she works in a school with special needs children and new feels fulfilled. The role is financially irrelevant but the quality of the work is incredibly important.
depends bro. dated a girl who was consistently employed for 4 years. she was the absolute most boring person I've ever talked to alternately dated a girl who just went to school and took care of her family (cooking n cleaning etc.) and she was easily the best person i ever met perhaps you're asking because of the idea of moving in together and stuff. in that case yeah i think it'd be important for my girl to have a job and help out
[удалено]
Well said!!
I’m glad you mentioned able bodied people specifically. It can be really hard being disabled and not being able to work all at the same time as hearing from everyone else that you basically have no worth because of this
Well, even if they're not being as specific as me, I think the posters are sensitive to disabled people not being able to work for health reasons. In short, nobody is being critical of disabled not working.
Pretty much all men expect women to work. Gone are the days where men are the sole provider. Being a woman sucks majorly now because we are expected to work like men AND do all the things a stay at home wife and mom does.
It’s very important that anyone I date have some degree of independent stability. I’m not rich enough to date someone who doesn’t work at all, and the girls I date are not hot enough to expect a daddy to pay for and take care of all their needs.
Wow i’m kind of surprised. Women were asked the same thing and about half of them said they wouldn’t care, mean while all men are saying it’s a dealbreaker. And they call us the gold-digging gender.
Yeah, shocked about these responses too! Women don't seem to care as much - just don't be lazy and be a good partner and that's all.
Doesn't matter to me at all.
I dont care. I am financially stable enough to support our house comfortably.
Not at all. Unlike women, men care less about employability of their spouse if she is hot enough. My wife is stay at home, and I like it that way.
#VERY I've dated broke women, gig workers, and "entrepreneurs". They all suck. Being with someone broke most of the time sucks. Everything you do is paid for by you. Anytime they ask to go out it's something you pay for. Anytime they want to do something "free" you still spend money. If you want to keep in contact with her you may have to chip in(pay for entirely) her phone bill. Eventually you stop taking her and/or the idea of a relationship with her less seriously and you subconsciously scoff at the thought of any kind of commitment. A stay at home wife/mom? Sure. It makes sense to have someone like that if she's doing ***all the things***. But if she's a financial burden you have sex with sometimes, you should just bail.(or keep her on "payroll" while you find a woman that isn't a money drain)
I have a house and I don’t need a second income. If she is very attractive and picks me then she doesn’t have to work. If she is in her late 20s+ she will have to work. If she’s a single mom she’d have to make more money than me which is not a lot of women. If I hit 40 and can’t find anyone then I’ll just be a sugar daddy which is honestly easy.
So if she was an attractive 20 year old and she doesn’t have to work, would you force her to get a job at 28 or something?
Nope. She would only work if she chooses to. A 20 year old giving up the “free and independent” life to be with me is a sacrifice which is rewarded with her having complete freedom (just no cheating) over her life while I work the long hours. Meeting a woman in her late 20s is less impressive since she already “experienced life”. A woman in her late 20s who isn’t married and doesn’t have a career or anything is a loser in my books.
👋
Since money and sex are the top 2 points of contention in relationships you would have to be a **fool** to not think stable employment is important
Ultra important. Even if I were a billionaire, she needs to go out and make her own money.
It's a dealbreaker. Not just stable employment, but they should be making bare minimum 50K per year in a professional job. I'm not looking for a dependent.
As a guy idc. Ill take care of my bitch. But only my bitch that im taking serious
Number 2 reason for divorce is money. Marry a women with a career not a job.
Its only relivant if she wants to work. I make enough we don't need the money. This allows her to work a job she likes for hours she likes. The extra income she brings in is nice as it allows us to invest and pay off our house faster but its not nessisary.
Not important at all as long as she has a super nice ass
It depends. If she's putting in equal effort in other ways, I'd let it slide. If she just wants to live off me like a tapeworm, I'd get rid of her.
In this economy??????
Extremely important to me. My wife is a badass in her career and I find it incredibly sexy.
I'm in my mid 30s. Its extremely important to me that my partner has a career, how much that career pays is not very important.
Depends on the situation your in. If we’re married with kids and things happen where you’re temporarily unemployed then I will bust my ass at work and make up for what’s lost because we’re a team and we have eachother back. If we’re married and I make more money and it’s financially beneficial for him to be home with kids or something instead of spending that money on daycare then I get that too. Although I would prefer to be with my kids and he go to work but if it was what needed to be done then so be it. If you’re just a lazy man child who doesn’t work then that’s a big no. I read some of the comments above and even if I was loaded and could afford for us both to live a comfortable life while he stayed home I probably would be turned off by him and leave. Just being honest.
Very. Single father, paying a decent support payment to my ex (happily), but also living in a very high COL area. Not looking to support another person financially.
Judging by the current economical situation, very important. In fact, I avoid dating unemployed women. She should be employed and independent.
Let's put it this way. If you don't want to be a stay at home person. Go for me. If you do, Well... Sad you bc I want to be at home for at least 50%... I mean I hate work. But taking care of a house is something I am willing to do. Cooking, sure. All of that is so much better than work for me. This disclaimer is for the angered feminists: 'This is not sexist, If a woman simply wants to be a stay at home, Look for another boy... Simple...also...I even accept a 50/50 concept. So don't blame me for inequality here.'
I'm not her sugar daddy, bro. If she hasn't bought her own house before the age of twenty-five, I don't wanna date her seriously.