Relatives who just don't get it

[Imma]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

[RetiredAt63]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

What happens when an older person doesn't want the hassles of ownership and sells a house and becomes a renter?  Here it's not an issue, the primary residence is not taxed for capital gains or losses, and the net from the house can be used for anything.

[UncleX]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

What happens when an older person doesn't want the hassles of ownership and sells a house and becomes a renter?  Here it's not an issue, the primary residence is not taxed for capital gains or losses, and the net from the house can be used for anything.

You don't have to buy another house, you can become a renter if you want. But if you buy another house then it's (more or less) mandatory to use the proceeds of the sale if you want to get a mortgage for the other house. It's quite complex.

Edit:
I looked it up, this is what @Imma is referring to according to "De Hypotheker" (google translate):
"You have to invest the surplus value that is released when you sell your old home if you buy the next home within three years. If you do not do this and you take out a loan for the full purchase price of your new home, you are not entitled to a mortgage interest deduction on the loan amount equal to that surplus value."

But interest deduction doesn't last forever anyway, so this might not be an issue at a certain age. As said, it's complex.

[RetiredAt63]

^^^ Thanks, at first glance it looked like once a homeowner, always a homeowner. This makes more sense.

[SwordGuy]

I know my ~78 year old mom bought a house with a mortgage.   She didn't mention any difficulties making that happen -- and she wasn't one to pass up an option to complain about things not going her way.

[prudent_one]

Interesting that DH, their son who never got a penny of EOC from them, does talk to them and makes a point to remain in contact as they get older.

The delicious ending to this story would be if DH's parents pulled a "prodigal son's dad" and left everything to DH when they die, because SIL already got her share.

I have a friend who lived in a similar scenario (my friend would have been the never-got-any-EOC child) and was self-supporting. His other siblings figured out early that if you ask, you get. They worked lower-end jobs then hit up the Bank of Dad when the mood struck, so there was little motivation to work hard. A popular approach was to drop heavy hints about trips, then sigh about how they could never afford it and how sad that their kids would never be able to experience [some other country]. Dad would fork over the money believing it was to support the kids' education. Or their poor car that needed to be replaced. Or Dad should hire a grandchild in his business in a do-little job since Junior is having such a hard time finding a "suitable" job. That went on for years, but now the dad doesn't have extra to spare. His siblings will be living on meager SS income other than the one sibling who spends nothing ever.

The fair thing would be to adjust the estate shares to compensate for people who "got theirs early" but the siblings knew Dad would never do that, it divides everything equally.  So that only encouraged the siblings to hold their hand out early and often. My friend will not get what he should have but he's not bitter about it.

Quoting my own post for an update my friend told me this week. The other three siblings (who have very little other than paid-for modest homes... thanks to EOC from their Dad) may be starting to realize they are screwed. Small SS checks, no Bank of Dad to lean on, savings dwindling. My friend, who never hit up the Dad for anything, thinks the siblings want to make nice with him since he is the only one who might be able to provide EOC in a pinch. So when the Dad decided he needed to downsize some possessions, the other siblings apparently lobbied the Dad to give my friend the Dad's collection of old movie posters (apparently worth around $10K).  My friend didn't ask for them.   But he didn't want to look like he was snubbing Dad's offer and accepted, and the siblings made sure to tell him that they proposed the idea. Now, he regrets it since he's hearing comments in family get-togethers that hint at letting one sibling have the Dad's property in the next state, and another sibling have something else of the Dad's, since my friend got Dad's posters.

Years of the siblings getting handouts all the time now forgotten... what's "fair" is getting more stuff NOW because of those posters. My friend just laughs and tells everyone to do whatever their Dad wants, it doesn't matter to him. What he finds funny is the awkward, ham-handed manipulation the siblings use to extract more from the Dad before it becomes an estate issue when whatever is left gets split evenly.

[Hula Hoop]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

[Just Joe]

Could that be the glacially inefficient Italian government system slow to act on foreclosures?

Dealing with the Italian gov't was an adventure when I lived there years ago.

[zolotiyeruki]

Even in the US, foreclosure is generally a very long process.  It's in the lender's best interest to work with the borrower, to (try to) get the delinquent mortgage back on track.  It's expensive to go through all the legal proceedings, deal with the potential damage, and market and sell the house.

[Dragonswan]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

Hmm.  But can they legally discriminate on the basis of age or do they couch it as insufficient current income or...?

[Imma]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

Hmm.  But can they legally discriminate on the basis of age or do they couch it as insufficient current income or...?

In my country it's indeed framed as 'insufficient income after retirement'. I don't know how that works in other countries. They look at the income you'll get from pensions and state pension, but they can't factor in income from investment accounts.

I think the generation of people about to retire now will be the first generation where many people still carry mortgage debt in retirement, so we'll see how that works out. In the older generation many people were either lifelong renters or bought a home, paid it off and lived there for a long time. The boomers are the first generation where homeownership was widespread, the first generation to move around, the first generation in which divorce was common.

In my country it certainly happens that people carry a mortgage long into retirement but those are usually very low mortgages. My parent bought a house at 55 and took out a 30-year mortgage for that home, but they had a big downpayment so by the time they are retired the mortgage will be very low. I can't imagine a bank would have loaned them that money if they didn't put a significant amount of their own money down.

[Cassie]

They cannot deny a mortgage in the states based on age. If you have sufficient income you can buy.  Even if they don’t count investments they could use some of their investment money to put a huge down payment so their income is sufficient to qualify.

[saguaro]

Interesting that DH, their son who never got a penny of EOC from them, does talk to them and makes a point to remain in contact as they get older.

The delicious ending to this story would be if DH's parents pulled a "prodigal son's dad" and left everything to DH when they die, because SIL already got her share.

I have a friend who lived in a similar scenario (my friend would have been the never-got-any-EOC child) and was self-supporting. His other siblings figured out early that if you ask, you get. They worked lower-end jobs then hit up the Bank of Dad when the mood struck, so there was little motivation to work hard. A popular approach was to drop heavy hints about trips, then sigh about how they could never afford it and how sad that their kids would never be able to experience [some other country]. Dad would fork over the money believing it was to support the kids' education. Or their poor car that needed to be replaced. Or Dad should hire a grandchild in his business in a do-little job since Junior is having such a hard time finding a "suitable" job. That went on for years, but now the dad doesn't have extra to spare. His siblings will be living on meager SS income other than the one sibling who spends nothing ever.

The fair thing would be to adjust the estate shares to compensate for people who "got theirs early" but the siblings knew Dad would never do that, it divides everything equally.  So that only encouraged the siblings to hold their hand out early and often. My friend will not get what he should have but he's not bitter about it.

Quoting my own post for an update my friend told me this week. The other three siblings (who have very little other than paid-for modest homes... thanks to EOC from their Dad) may be starting to realize they are screwed. Small SS checks, no Bank of Dad to lean on, savings dwindling.

The update from prudent_one, (snipped for brevity and including the relevant part) prompted me to post an update on the EOC enabled SIL.     She is starting to panic as it looks like her parents might be seriously running down their money.  Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.    Already, it seems that SIL didn't think that her parents would live this long, her husband is still working at 68 to make up in retirement funds because he was a contract employee for a number of years.  This clearly is not how SIL envisioned things.   Already FIL/MIL have turned off the money spigot with regards to niece, SIL's daughter, plus they sold their second home a few years ago, now the primary one may go, so the signs are there.  Not looking good for our EOC enabled family members.   The only good thing is that DH is still considered the "poor" relative with his one modest house and small cars, so they aren't going to bank, no pun intended, on him.   

[Kitsune]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

[saguaro]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

I agree if they want nice assisted living and have the money, which they have, then sure go for it.  I would too.  Some background info, they always had fancy tastes (FIL compensating for very deprived childhood IMHO) which were beyond their means in their working years and caused some financial issues, but due to considerable inheritances from both sets of parents, they can actually indulge in them.  Which is fine, it's now their money and they can do whatever.  Their daughter, who they always spoiled (which caused some of their earlier financial stress btw), has had her hand out all her life in spite of having a husband who makes a good income.   Same with their granddaughter, who has expected the Bank of Grandma and Grandpa to cough up money for things, the last thing being her basement remodel.  Grandma and Grandpa have the family ATM for years, now having to shut it down in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

And agree that going out is assistance too, plus the added bonus of getting out of the house.  My mom was an avid cook who put plenty of meals on the table but by the time she and Dad hit their later 70s and 80s, respectively, they were going out a lot too.   Mom apologized to me one time because one holiday, they decided to go out instead, and I was like "Mom, you deserve the break after cooking all these years.  If anyone has earned a holiday out, it's you".

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

FWIW there's a middle ground between living on one's own and assisted living--independent living. My grandfather and his partner live in one of these places. The staff provide meals and I think clean linens, but things like bathing and tidying one's own apartment are up to the residents. Individually, I think Grandfather would need assisted living while his partner could probably live on her own, so this takes the pressure off her.

[AlanStache]

My grandparents moved into assisted living a bit early; before he really needed that level of care, it was very hard on them going from +2000sqft to one bedroom and a living room.  They had no real problem getting rid of stuff but not being able to get away from each other was hard.  They probably should have done various levels of in home care first. 

[Dicey]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

This is exactly why I don't talk about my housing situation often.  The reality of the situation is more nuanced than just "I'm being subsidized.". First off, if they *could* have rented this place out to non-family then they would have.  They tried to sell it and rent it and weren't successful at either.  To get a rental license from the city, the house needed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of work.  Rewiring the entire house more of less was the big one plus a whole list of little stuff like the rail on the front porch steps is 2" too short. They didn't have the money to bring it up to code.  I was asked to move in to keep the place from sitting empty (needed it to be occupied for the insurance or something).  Because I'm family, the city doesn't require a rental license for me to live here.  I guess it's okay for family members to live in a deathtrap or something (kidding...It's not that bad...anymore).  Living here was never my idea, and it's still not my forever plan, but  decisions have been made based on the assurances that I was given that it's mine as long as I want it.  Since that time, I've put nearly $20k into it.  I've had to replace the water heater, furnace (almost died from a gas leak that first winter), stove, dishwasher, fridge, six windows, and floors(though to be fair, the flooring and one of the windows was at least partially subsidized by insurance).  I am anticipating having to replace the HVAC compressor in the spring.  And the 1950s wiring is still an issue that's going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It turns out that FMV rent would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the short term.

As I said the bare facts you stated sounded like they were giving you a house for bare minimum $, but with the additional info, in fact you're helping them out more than they're helping you. SO definitely more gray than black and white. That's why I said I may be reading it wrong, and I do hope you get that based only on the initial post, it did cast you in a bad light considering. Definitely not being ungrateful (and apologies for jumping to that).

I am pretty sure they could sell the house even if they wouldn't get anything like market rate similar to updated homes in the same neighborhood. Pricing a house correctly ALWAYS fixes the problem. So saying that they couldn't get buyers really means they didn't want to price it low enough to sell. And you can get insurance on empty properties, but you have to track down insurers that will work with you... otherwise all the houses being sold/build/renovated would be in trouble! We got basic structure (no furnishings/property) coverage during the year + my dad's hoarder house was being worked on/sat vacant.

I'd consider telling your parents to sell the house you're living in and get out of there as soon as you can. Definitely stop pouring your money into fixing it up (get out before the HVAC goes!) Go find a nice, better maintained living space you actually like. Sounds like a terrible property and you shouldn't stay there if you don't like it anyway!

Just getting caught up here. I love @Frankies Girl's insights so much, and she's nailed it again here.

I'm also raising a skeptical eyebrow at Sugaree's protestation(s) that the cost of repairs have exceeded the FMV of the subsidized rent.

[bluebelle]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

[marion10]

Good advice that I have gotten and it works out well for those who can afford it is to get a two bedroom- particularly if you are a couple- for the extra space and if single, so that there is room for a caregiver- either a permanent live in or temporary.

[saguaro]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

[pachnik]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

[DadJokes]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Some women want to stay at home. I know plenty that do. Heck, I want to stay home with my child instead of work. It's why I'm pursuing FI.

[AlanStache]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

[SwordGuy]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

I have been (rarely) known to start conversations with, "This is the *last* time I will be polite about this subject.  You have had your say in the past.  I am done with this topic.  I will not be polite if you bring it up again.   Are we clear now?"   If you say it with the right intensity, it often ends the conversation too.

[saguaro]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

I have been (rarely) known to start conversations with, "This is the *last* time I will be polite about this subject.  You have had your say in the past.  I am done with this topic.  I will not be polite if you bring it up again.   Are we clear now?"   If you say it with the right intensity, it often ends the conversation too.

One thing they did?  They asked DH these sorts of questions, they never asked me directly which is quite telling, but of course I still heard about it.   It will be either via phone conversations with DH or, if in person, when I am out of the room.   So never the chance to blast them with @SwordGuy 's answer.   DH has told them that yes, I have a real job, that makes real money, with real benefits, it's not just for pin money or to bide time until I can stay home.    Recently MIL has been too preoccupied with her various aches and pains to focus on my job.  Thought I think MIL asked DH one time last year.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

[jinga nation]

relative visiting us over the weekend loved our post-renovation house. yes it cost quite a bit, but we had a lot of work done, it's almost a brand new interior. it was 50k of work over 4-5 months.
then we talked about my family's recent trip to east africa, flights were $6500, hotels were 3000.
relative said she wished she could get a new kitchen and also take her brood to africa to see wildlife.
i told her she could if she stopped constantly buying stuff for her kids (a lot of it goes unused) and also stopped driving a massive GMC SUV (the biggest most-fully loaded one they have). she already has an suv and a minivan.
it didn't help. they need the GMC for ski trips.
lulz.
she expanded her house but failed to renovate the existing kitchens and baths. she went with the wants while ignoring the needs.

[2Cent]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

[OtherJen]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.

[JestJes]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.

I always thought this was quite interesting. My family has a portion that is very conservative and the women don't work. A cousin of mine was very insistent that I should be able to stay home when I made a joke about being a stay at home dog mom. While it does seem like a pretty sweet deal, "retired" from mothering by 45 and free to do as you wish with your time but there is a risk that the men in the family will fail to take care of you. This is made unlikely in my family by cultural and religious obligations but in others its a real concern.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.

I always thought this was quite interesting. My family has a portion that is very conservative and the women don't work. A cousin of mine was very insistent that I should be able to stay home when I made a joke about being a stay at home dog mom. While it does seem like a pretty sweet deal, "retired" from mothering by 45 and free to do as you wish with your time but there is a risk that the men in the family will fail to take care of you. This is made unlikely in my family by cultural and religious obligations but in others its a real concern.

The thing with cultural and religious obligations is that in the modern age it's easy to dodge them and still build/have a reputation as a "good person".

[JestJes]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.

I always thought this was quite interesting. My family has a portion that is very conservative and the women don't work. A cousin of mine was very insistent that I should be able to stay home when I made a joke about being a stay at home dog mom. While it does seem like a pretty sweet deal, "retired" from mothering by 45 and free to do as you wish with your time but there is a risk that the men in the family will fail to take care of you. This is made unlikely in my family by cultural and religious obligations but in others its a real concern.

The thing with cultural and religious obligations is that in the modern age it's easy to dodge them and still build/have a reputation as a "good person".

Yeah there are bad people everywhere. But what kind of recommendations can you make to people who choose to be dependent? " Yeah so I know you haven't worked since you were 17 but I really think you should get back out there!" Just doesn't seem like that will be very successful.

[SwordGuy]

But what kind of recommendations can you make to people who choose to be dependent? " Yeah so I know you haven't worked since you were 17 but I really think you should get back out there!" Just doesn't seem like that will be very successful.

Recommendation #1:   The piss-poor starter job you get after being out of the job market for a long time is still more money than $0 for sitting on your ass.

Recommendation #2:   The sooner you get out there in the job market, the sooner you'll have a chance at good results.  It's better to be making little money when you don't need it so you are prepared to make good money when you do need it.

Recommendation #3:   Get good at your job, whatever it is.   Then, find out what problems your boss and their boss face and start finding ways to solve those problems.   That's how you get raises and/or better job opportunities.

[magnet18]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.

I always thought this was quite interesting. My family has a portion that is very conservative and the women don't work. A cousin of mine was very insistent that I should be able to stay home when I made a joke about being a stay at home dog mom. While it does seem like a pretty sweet deal, "retired" from mothering by 45 and free to do as you wish with your time but there is a risk that the men in the family will fail to take care of you. This is made unlikely in my family by cultural and religious obligations but in others its a real concern.

The thing with cultural and religious obligations is that in the modern age it's easy to dodge them and still build/have a reputation as a "good person".

Yeah there are bad people everywhere. But what kind of recommendations can you make to people who choose to be dependent? " Yeah so I know you haven't worked since you were 17 but I really think you should get back out there!" Just doesn't seem like that will be very successful.

Not sure why you would recommend independence to someone who chooses to be dependent, just like I'm not sure why someone dependent would recommend it to someone who chooses to be independent?

What are you trying to tell them, "your husband might turn into a bad person someday, therefore you shouldn't stay home to raise the kids, but should instead let someone else raise them while you work a job you hate"

?


Additionally, if they're doing it for cultural reasons, those cultures almost always have large close knit families as support structures

[ysette9]

I suspect it is encouraging people to cultivate options. The story of a stay-at-hope mother with no career or job skills who later finds herself screwed due to divorce/abuse/death/whatever is hardly uncommon. My father’s sister ended up working in fast food later on in life to support her three kids after her husband died of cancer because she had never had a career and therefore when the life insurance money started running out, she had nothing to fall back on.

[SwordGuy]

Not sure why you would recommend independence to someone who chooses to be dependent, just like I'm not sure why someone dependent would recommend it to someone who chooses to be independent?

What are you trying to tell them, "your husband might turn into a bad person someday, therefore you shouldn't stay home to raise the kids, but should instead let someone else raise them while you work a job you hate"

Because women with children and no spouse are very likely to be living in poverty, that's why.    Yeah, it really is that simple.

Could be because the husband was (or became) a bad person, could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead and left for that reason, could be because the husband was killed or died of some disease.   Doesn't much matter why, because being poor for any reason still sucks.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/18807-census-bureau-mothe

Additionally, if they're doing it for cultural reasons, those cultures almost always have large close knit families as support structures

And then the unprepared, now single spouses are still highly likely to be poor.   And, since their close knit families have ALSO foregone the option to increase their income by having the wife work, those same families may be less able to provide substantive assistance.   Nice thought though.   

Of course, we also have to factor in that such conservative cultural groups often blame the woman for everything and fully absolve the man, so the help might not be forthcoming to "the Jezebel" ex-wife.

[JestJes]

Not sure why you would recommend independence to someone who chooses to be dependent, just like I'm not sure why someone dependent would recommend it to someone who chooses to be independent?

What are you trying to tell them, "your husband might turn into a bad person someday, therefore you shouldn't stay home to raise the kids, but should instead let someone else raise them while you work a job you hate"

Because women with children and no spouse are very likely to be living in poverty, that's why.    Yeah, it really is that simple.

Could be because the husband was (or became) a bad person, could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead and left for that reason, could be because the husband was killed or died of some disease.   Doesn't much matter why, because being poor for any reason still sucks.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/18807-census-bureau-mothe

Additionally, if they're doing it for cultural reasons, those cultures almost always have large close knit families as support structures

And then the unprepared, now single spouses are still highly likely to be poor.   And, since their close knit families have ALSO foregone the option to increase their income by having the wife work, those same families may be less able to provide substantive assistance.   Nice thought though.   

Of course, we also have to factor in that such conservative cultural groups often blame the woman for everything and fully absolve the man, so the help might not be forthcoming to "the Jezebel" ex-wife.

It seems to me that staying home for children and staying home forever are two separate things.

Of course people should earn their own money but they should also spend less than they earn and vote in elections but many times they do not. I think its even less of a priority if this is how your family has functioned for generations.

I can say as someone who was informally adopted into the family it is a weird juxtaposition. I am often asked to donate my time but I am never asked for money. The line between what is expected from women and what is expected from men is so distinct.

I'm still learning so much about the culture and honestly it seem like a bit of a raw deal for the men. Most of the women in that part of the family, have the free time and ability to work outside but choose not to. Another interesting thing is that all the money that a women earns is wholly her own. She is not required to put it toward any family expenses as that is fully the responsibility of the man. I have a cousin that worked at a bank for short period because she wanted a number of purses that her husband would not purchase. I'm not saying this is wise, that money would have done much better in a Roth but if your mother, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, all stay at home that may not even be something you consider.

[saguaro]

I suspect it is encouraging people to cultivate options. The story of a stay-at-hope mother with no career or job skills who later finds herself screwed due to divorce/abuse/death/whatever is hardly uncommon. My father’s sister ended up working in fast food later on in life to support her three kids after her husband died of cancer because she had never had a career and therefore when the life insurance money started running out, she had nothing to fall back on.

During my mom's stay at home years, there was a period where my dad was hospitalized and out of work for several months.  She was scared s**tless about something happening to him and she was left with the 3 of us to raise alone with no money and limited work history.  It was one of the reasons she went back to school to get a nursing degree.   When my dad lost his longtime job after she started working, her income saved the family financially until dad could retrain and find another job.   When my mom died, her 401k money helped keep my dad going financially afterwards (he lost his pension due to pension plan theft - long story) this covered losing her social security when she died.   All kinds of things can happen and having options can help mitigate the impacts. 

ETA: I was around 6 years old when my dad got sick.  I don't remember very much of that time but years later when my mom told me about it, one thing she said is that she didn't ever want to be vulnerable like that again.  There was our house and she could have sold it but it likely meant going to live with family and she didn't want that either due to alcoholic relative. 

[magnet18]

Not sure why you would recommend independence to someone who chooses to be dependent, just like I'm not sure why someone dependent would recommend it to someone who chooses to be independent?

What are you trying to tell them, "your husband might turn into a bad person someday, therefore you shouldn't stay home to raise the kids, but should instead let someone else raise them while you work a job you hate"

Because women with children and no spouse are very likely to be living in poverty, that's why.    Yeah, it really is that simple.

Could be because the husband was (or became) a bad person, could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead and left for that reason, could be because the husband was killed or died of some disease.   Doesn't much matter why, because being poor for any reason still sucks.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/18807-census-bureau-mothe

Additionally, if they're doing it for cultural reasons, those cultures almost always have large close knit families as support structures

And then the unprepared, now single spouses are still highly likely to be poor.   And, since their close knit families have ALSO foregone the option to increase their income by having the wife work, those same families may be less able to provide substantive assistance.   Nice thought though.   

Of course, we also have to factor in that such conservative cultural groups often blame the woman for everything and fully absolve the man, so the help might not be forthcoming to "the Jezebel" ex-wife.

It seems to me that staying home for children and staying home forever are two separate things.

Of course people should earn their own money but they should also spend less than they earn and vote in elections but many times they do not. I think its even less of a priority if this is how your family has functioned for generations.

I can say as someone who was informally adopted into the family it is a weird juxtaposition. I am often asked to donate my time but I am never asked for money. The line between what is expected from women and what is expected from men is so distinct.

I'm still learning so much about the culture and honestly it seem like a bit of a raw deal for the men. Most of the women in that part of the family, have the free time and ability to work outside but choose not to. Another interesting thing is that all the money that a women earns is wholly her own. She is not required to put it toward any family expenses as that is fully the responsibility of the man. I have a cousin that worked at a bank for short period because she wanted a number of purses that her husband would not purchase. I'm not saying this is wise, that money would have done much better in a Roth but if your mother, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, all stay at home that may not even be something you consider.

What you say reflects my experience with Burmese immigrants

The women are often educated about their options, have learned passable English, know what the trades they are making are, and choose to not work.

They also tend to have a different definition of poverty, and they would rather be in "poverty" in a crowded multi-family household than live a "cold sterile and lonely" western lifestyle. 

Your census link looks at a $25,000 poverty line.  A lot of people aim to FIRE and live on less than that, on purpose.

Could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead

You seem to be implying one or more of the following things:
Their marriages don't involve "true love"
these are all arranged marriages, and arranged marriages don't involve "true love"

Either of which would be incredibly ignorant, ethnocentric, and straight up offensive

[shelivesthedream]

It seems a lot of assumptions are being made about these non-working wives.

- They sit around doing nothing all day.
- They refuse to work even though their husbands might want them to.
- They are totally unprepared for the idea that their husband might not always be there for them.
- If their husband leaves or dies, they will be totally alone and unsupported.
- Simultaneously that they are perfectly capable of getting jobs now, but if their husbands leave or die they will be incapable of working.

It's really not an unreasonable scenario to say that everyone is happy with the husband taking care of earning the money and the wife taking care of the household. That they live reasonably and have savings that the wife could fall back on if need be. That if the husband died, the family/community would step in until the wife would either remarry (if the culture is that strict) or go to work then. Maybe they own their house outright (which I understand is important to a lot of cultures that work like this) so she either doesn't have to pay rent or can sell the house for money. That they, uh, do actually love each other and decided to get married of their own free will!

This whole website is about choosing not to work for money. If you have a setup that lets you do that and everyone is OK with it, what's the problem? My husband has loved having me mostly at home while he earns most of the money. If he dies, I have a big cushion of money to catch me while I sort myself out for the long term. This is not a crazy scenario that is automatically oppressive and foolhardy.

[ysette9]

You have a good point that there is a subtle difference between being in a stable situation where one person stays home to take care of business there while the other works outside, and a situation where one is vulnerable and entirely dependent on the other to provide. It can be hard to tell the difference.

In the US it can be the difference merely of what state you live in, as some states are community property and therefore treat all income and assets brought into the marriage as equally belonging to both spouses, and others don’t. As with much of the US, how you are treated and your rights as a woman and human being are dependent on whether you live in a pro-woman state or an anti-woman state. The social safety net is much hole-ier on some areas, which I think needs to be taken into account when assessing vulnerability to life events like death, divorce, and disability.

[DadJokes]

It seems a lot of assumptions are being made about these non-working wives.

- They sit around doing nothing all day.
- They refuse to work even though their husbands might want them to.
- They are totally unprepared for the idea that their husband might not always be there for them.
- If their husband leaves or dies, they will be totally alone and unsupported.
- Simultaneously that they are perfectly capable of getting jobs now, but if their husbands leave or die they will be incapable of working.

It's really not an unreasonable scenario to say that everyone is happy with the husband taking care of earning the money and the wife taking care of the household. That they live reasonably and have savings that the wife could fall back on if need be. That if the husband died, the family/community would step in until the wife would either remarry (if the culture is that strict) or go to work then. Maybe they own their house outright (which I understand is important to a lot of cultures that work like this) so she either doesn't have to pay rent or can sell the house for money. That they, uh, do actually love each other and decided to get married of their own free will!

This whole website is about choosing not to work for money. If you have a setup that lets you do that and everyone is OK with it, what's the problem? My husband has loved having me mostly at home while he earns most of the money. If he dies, I have a big cushion of money to catch me while I sort myself out for the long term. This is not a crazy scenario that is automatically oppressive and foolhardy.

Funny story about the bolded part:

My wife is a teacher, and we just had a child last year. I've set up our finances and lifestyle in such a way that we could get by on just my income. Over the summer when she wasn't working, I told her that I wanted her to practice being a stay-at-home-mom so that we could see how things went.

She took care of our child and nothing else. She didn't clean, cook, do laundry, or anything helpful around the house. Instead, when she wasn't actively taking care of our child, she watched television.

I know better than to buy the story that it's exhausting enough to take care of a child, because I have a four day work week and stay home with him on Fridays. During that time, I take care of him and get a lot of household chores and projects done. He sleeps 16+ hours per day.

I'm a bit happy that she failed, because we wouldn't be investing anything if she didn't have an income. I also don't think she really wants to stay at home, even if she dislikes her job. Having no human contact outside of the family can get old real fast, and her only friends are coworkers.

[economista]

This discussion is really interesting. In my family the women always stay at home and the men work. My aunt actually set me down during the summer between undergrad and grad school to discuss whether it made sense for me to continue schooling since I would get married and stay at home sooner rather than later. I thought that the "old fashioned" idea that wives should stay at home would end with my generation but it actually hasn't. Both of my cousins that have gotten married so far only worked outside the home until they were married, and then they stayed at home. One has two kids and the other just has a cat, but they both stay at home while their husbands work and support them.

My case is different. I make more than twice what my husband makes so he is going to be a stay at home dad. Ideally we would both work but daycare costs are astronomical here and he is visually impaired with almost no vision left. He is really struggling in his current job and until he gets re-trained to do work in an entirely different field he is going to continue to struggle, so it works best for our family if he stays home with the baby. I think it is funny though that my family can't really wrap their heads around having the husband stay home. My grandfather kept saying "but I don't know how you can afford to have the husband stay home instead of you" - it never crossed his mind that I could possibly make more money than a man.

[SwordGuy]

Could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead

You seem to be implying one or more of the following things:
Their marriages don't involve "true love"
these are all arranged marriages, and arranged marriages don't involve "true love"

Either of which would be incredibly ignorant, ethnocentric, and straight up offensive

All that stuff is in your head, not mine.   

The bulk of forum members are from my country.  Would have been better if I wrote the default qualifier explicitly, but since I was supplying US Census data it should be rather obvious I was discussing the situation in the USA.

There are a number of reasons people in my country divorce. 

One of them is that they find that they do not love the person they are married to and find someone else they love instead.   Whether they ever did love the person they married doesn't really matter from a financial point of view -- which is the one that's appropriate to focus on in a personal finance forum.

[JestJes]

Not sure why you would recommend independence to someone who chooses to be dependent, just like I'm not sure why someone dependent would recommend it to someone who chooses to be independent?

What are you trying to tell them, "your husband might turn into a bad person someday, therefore you shouldn't stay home to raise the kids, but should instead let someone else raise them while you work a job you hate"

Because women with children and no spouse are very likely to be living in poverty, that's why.    Yeah, it really is that simple.

Could be because the husband was (or became) a bad person, could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead and left for that reason, could be because the husband was killed or died of some disease.   Doesn't much matter why, because being poor for any reason still sucks.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/18807-census-bureau-mothe

Additionally, if they're doing it for cultural reasons, those cultures almost always have large close knit families as support structures

And then the unprepared, now single spouses are still highly likely to be poor.   And, since their close knit families have ALSO foregone the option to increase their income by having the wife work, those same families may be less able to provide substantive assistance.   Nice thought though.   

Of course, we also have to factor in that such conservative cultural groups often blame the woman for everything and fully absolve the man, so the help might not be forthcoming to "the Jezebel" ex-wife.

It seems to me that staying home for children and staying home forever are two separate things.

Of course people should earn their own money but they should also spend less than they earn and vote in elections but many times they do not. I think its even less of a priority if this is how your family has functioned for generations.

I can say as someone who was informally adopted into the family it is a weird juxtaposition. I am often asked to donate my time but I am never asked for money. The line between what is expected from women and what is expected from men is so distinct.

I'm still learning so much about the culture and honestly it seem like a bit of a raw deal for the men. Most of the women in that part of the family, have the free time and ability to work outside but choose not to. Another interesting thing is that all the money that a women earns is wholly her own. She is not required to put it toward any family expenses as that is fully the responsibility of the man. I have a cousin that worked at a bank for short period because she wanted a number of purses that her husband would not purchase. I'm not saying this is wise, that money would have done much better in a Roth but if your mother, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, all stay at home that may not even be something you consider.

What you say reflects my experience with Burmese immigrants

The women are often educated about their options, have learned passable English, know what the trades they are making are, and choose to not work.

They also tend to have a different definition of poverty, and they would rather be in "poverty" in a crowded multi-family household than live a "cold sterile and lonely" western lifestyle. 

Your census link looks at a $25,000 poverty line.  A lot of people aim to FIRE and live on less than that, on purpose.

Could be because the other spouse found someone they truly loved instead

You seem to be implying one or more of the following things:
Their marriages don't involve "true love"
these are all arranged marriages, and arranged marriages don't involve "true love"

Either of which would be incredibly ignorant, ethnocentric, and straight up offensive

I think as long as both parties understand what they are getting into when they marry, there should be no problems. It seems to really help with the relationship as their is no negotiation over who will do what. It basically predetermined who will be responsible for each task.

Huge on the multi-generational and multi-family living as well .  You should have seen my boyfriends face when I said we never stay in hotels but just pile up on the floor with the whole family, elders get the beds. Or when we were first dating that I had to give up my bed to a distant relative that came to visit.

[sherr]

They also tend to have a different definition of poverty, and they would rather be in "poverty" in a crowded multi-family household than live a "cold sterile and lonely" western lifestyle. 

Your census link looks at a $25,000 poverty line.  A lot of people aim to FIRE and live on less than that, on purpose.

If people are happy with their living conditions then more power to them. However FIREing on $25k / year with a paid-off house, paid-off cars, all the leisure time in the world to solve problems and fix things, and having a million bucks worth of emergency money to fall back on is a VERY different situation than making $25k while working full time, renting, not having a car, and having credit card debt.

FIRE income is just not comparable to poverty income. They're completely different things.

[A Fella from Stella]

They also tend to have a different definition of poverty, and they would rather be in "poverty" in a crowded multi-family household than live a "cold sterile and lonely" western lifestyle. 

Your census link looks at a $25,000 poverty line.  A lot of people aim to FIRE and live on less than that, on purpose.

If people are happy with their living conditions then more power to them. However FIREing on $25k / year with a paid-off house, paid-off cars, all the leisure time in the world to solve problems and fix things, and having a million bucks worth of emergency money to fall back on is a VERY different situation than making $25k while working full time, renting, not having a car, and having credit card debt.

FIRE income is just not comparable to poverty income. They're completely different things.

Well said.

[A Fella from Stella]

I have siblings with professional backgrounds and good educations. All of my relatives look at them like they are the ones who are well off. I can understand why, but only if they were outsiders who didn't know so much more about all of us.

My siblings stayed home until over the age of 25. I left at 21. I host holidays at my home, and they don't have the space in their apartments. We all have kids, yada yada yada.

What they see is that I went to college later, and then they probably told their own kids "Fella From Stella" isn't going to have a very good life. He has kids and no college degree. Then, BAM, motherfuckers! I gots mine degree. And a house. And all that other stuff.

[fredbear]

...
The thing with cultural and religious obligations is that in the modern age it's easy to dodge them and still build/have a reputation as a "good person".

My brother was doing the night-shift QA at a semi-conductor plant in Utah when I visited him at work.  Never saw anything like it.  All women, all in their 20s - 30s, all eying me, who am on the "un" side of "prepossessing."  He was used to affably fending them off.  The basic story, as he understood it, was that they all married in the expectation they would stay at home with the kids, got dumped for someone perkier, and were there because there was all they could find to keep their lives and their kids' lives running.  But the hope of being an appreciated wife and mother was still strong.  Caught by a cultural chasm opening up in their married and church lives.