Relatives who just don't get it

[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. 

[Just Joe]

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.

I also went a non-traditional path after high school to the military before university. Outspoken relatives seemed to assume I wouldn't amount to much. Many years later we're doing just fine.

Our kids are likely going to repeat that non-traditional path. Tough on a kid who is being told there is more or less one path forward and said kid can't fit into that path all neat and tidy and happy.

Probably some element of wanting a little family prestige - university and career. Well dammit, I'm an engineer and I worked my tail off to get where I am at. ;) 

Our kids will find their ways too. What's is important is that they are happy where they land in the end.

[Zikoris]

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.

Eh, that's debatable - we spend about 27-28K living in a major city, both working full time, renting, with no car, and that includes close to 10K of international travel to Europe and Asia every year. We don't have credit card debt, though I think our travel spending more than makes up for that. We intend to FIRE with the same spending level, as for us that translates into an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

[bluebelle]

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.

Eh, that's debatable - we spend about 27-28K living in a major city, both working full time, renting, with no car, and that includes close to 10K of international travel to Europe and Asia every year. We don't have credit card debt, though I think our travel spending more than makes up for that. We intend to FIRE with the same spending level, as for us that translates into an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

You must have very cheap rent, I've always heard that Vancouver housing market is horrendous, and presumed rent was at least as expensive as Toronto, if not more.   If $27-28K includes 10K of travel, you're saying you live on $17-18K a year INCLUDING rent, if that's true, you're crushing it in way I didn't think possible.    I would have assumed your rent would be $10-18K a year (833-1500/mth)

[magnet18]

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.   

Aight, I'll cool my jets then

I'm in the US as well, but I used to have similar thoughts to a lot of the things you and others have said until DW spent a lot of time with immigrant students, both adults and children

One common misconception is that the marriages are for cultural reasons and lacking in emotion and the wives, at best, have the bland life of a live in housemaid while husband's run around, which couldn't be further from the truth

[Just Joe]

Anecdotally we have seen a 50/50 split. Some marriages work and then there is a colleague who didn't even have alot of say in who he married. His parents picked her for him. He married her and then sent her home to India so she could be with his or her family. He couldn't even warm up to her as a friend let alone a wife. 

[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.

I also went a non-traditional path after high school to the military before university. Outspoken relatives seemed to assume I wouldn't amount to much. Many years later we're doing just fine.

Our kids are likely going to repeat that non-traditional path. Tough on a kid who is being told there is more or less one path forward and said kid can't fit into that path all neat and tidy and happy.

Probably some element of wanting a little family prestige - university and career. Well dammit, I'm an engineer and I worked my tail off to get where I am at. ;) 

Our kids will find their ways too. What's is important is that they are happy where they land in the end.

So awesome about your career. Obviously, getting the journalism degree on student loans would have been better than an engineering one under the GI Bill, but hey, you live and learn, ama-right

I'm a fan of the non-traditional path. My kids are in a high school where they learn a trade half the day. I'm talking to the oldest about doing a year of community service/working before going to college. She's open to it.

But it's tough because some of her friends give off this vibe like they're better [off] than she is because they're going away to university. Where we live, it's like everyone has to go to college at 18. It's really not the right path for everyone, at least not at 18.

[Zikoris]

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.

Eh, that's debatable - we spend about 27-28K living in a major city, both working full time, renting, with no car, and that includes close to 10K of international travel to Europe and Asia every year. We don't have credit card debt, though I think our travel spending more than makes up for that. We intend to FIRE with the same spending level, as for us that translates into an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

You must have very cheap rent, I've always heard that Vancouver housing market is horrendous, and presumed rent was at least as expensive as Toronto, if not more.   If $27-28K includes 10K of travel, you're saying you live on $17-18K a year INCLUDING rent, if that's true, you're crushing it in way I didn't think possible.    I would have assumed your rent would be $10-18K a year (833-15/mth)

There are cheap housing options literally everywhere. Being like "Welp, guess this is just what X costs, so I'll pay that" is a guaranteed method to get ripped off on everything. Different cities have different options, but I guarantee you in any city there are frugal people killing it.

[OtherJen]

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.

Eh, that's debatable - we spend about 27-28K living in a major city, both working full time, renting, with no car, and that includes close to 10K of international travel to Europe and Asia every year. We don't have credit card debt, though I think our travel spending more than makes up for that. We intend to FIRE with the same spending level, as for us that translates into an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

Didn't you say elsewhere that your annual household income is much higher than that (i.e., not poverty income)? You may be spending near the poverty level but you have significant savings. Your situation is awesome and inspiring, but also different from that of someone who makes $25K per year and has no choice but to live on that, regardless of whatever shit hits the fan. Psychologically, having a cushion for emergencies makes a big difference.

[Zikoris]

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.

Eh, that's debatable - we spend about 27-28K living in a major city, both working full time, renting, with no car, and that includes close to 10K of international travel to Europe and Asia every year. We don't have credit card debt, though I think our travel spending more than makes up for that. We intend to FIRE with the same spending level, as for us that translates into an extremely comfortable lifestyle.

Didn't you say elsewhere that your annual household income is much higher than that (i.e., not poverty income)? You may be spending near the poverty level but you have significant savings. Your situation is awesome and inspiring, but also different from that of someone who makes $25K per year and has no choice but to live on that, regardless of whatever shit hits the fan. Psychologically, having a cushion for emergencies makes a big difference.

Yes, we make much more than that. But I'm saying that even at that level, a person can be pretty comfortable if they're frugal. Like, lets say we only made 25K - take out only our international vacations but leave all our other spending the same, and you've already got a surplus of 7K/year to cover emergencies + some savings, and that's not even touching anything else like our video game spending, movies, concerts, hobbies, etc. And I actually have lived on those types of incomes - my first year living independently in Vancouver I made about 14K income, and while it wasn't the lap of luxury, it was fine - I had housing, food, basics, and a bit leftover for hobbies and some savings.

[Goldielocks]

Yeah, my daughter's BF makes about $1400 a month, pays for a room and his food / utilities, and thinks it is great.  He works part time at McDonalds, lives in the greater vancouver area.

He has a cheap phone, did not even add cell service to it, just wifi for the longest time, and has a one zone transit pass.   He spends money on a couple of reasonable date nights a month, magic cards, and steam video games...  DD has to instruct him to replace clothes by going to the thrift store... big purchases are things like replacement headphones.

He seems very happy.

[Cassie]

Zig, I could be wrong but don’t you have cheaper rent than many?

[Zikoris]

Zig, I could be wrong but don’t you have cheaper rent than many?

Yes, but that's not an accident. I have cheaper everything than almost anyone. You don't save 65% on average income by paying normal prices for stuff.

[Just Joe]

Obviously, getting the journalism degree on student loans would have been better than an engineering one under the GI Bill, but hey, you live and learn, ama-right

I'm a fan of the non-traditional path. My kids are in a high school where they learn a trade half the day. I'm talking to the oldest about doing a year of community service/working before going to college. She's open to it.

But it's tough because some of her friends give off this vibe like they're better [off] than she is because they're going away to university. Where we live, it's like everyone has to go to college at 18. It's really not the right path for everyone, at least not at 18.

Yep - our eldest did a similar path as your daughter with HS vocational classes and friends here gave eldest the same vibe as your daughter got.

Fortunately eldest was wise enough to recognize that college money at that point in time would be waste as the eldest isn't ready for college. Is signed up for a state vocational school now. The school has a waiting list. We can afford to send eldest to a nearby state university later if that becomes a goal for eldest.

Live and learn: absolutely. Very happy with life's outcome but I definitely made some inefficient choices along the way aka mistakes. Should have far more money saved up and closer to retirement. We will still retire at ~60 with a comfortable situation.

[By the River]

Obviously, getting the journalism degree on student loans would have been better than an engineering one under the GI Bill, but hey, you live and learn, ama-right

I'm a fan of the non-traditional path. My kids are in a high school where they learn a trade half the day. I'm talking to the oldest about doing a year of community service/working before going to college. She's open to it.

But it's tough because some of her friends give off this vibe like they're better [off] than she is because they're going away to university. Where we live, it's like everyone has to go to college at 18. It's really not the right path for everyone, at least not at 18.

Yep - our eldest did a similar path as your daughter with HS vocational classes and friends here gave eldest the same vibe as your daughter got.

Fortunately eldest was wise enough to recognize that college money at that point in time would be waste as the eldest isn't ready for college. Is signed up for a state vocational school now. The school has a waiting list. We can afford to send eldest to a nearby state university later if that becomes a goal for eldest.

Live and learn: absolutely. Very happy with life's outcome but I definitely made some inefficient choices along the way aka mistakes. Should have far more money saved up and closer to retirement. We will still retire at ~60 with a comfortable situation.

My son graduated from a "prestigious" high school where everyone was expected to attend college.  The graduation program listed the kids' college choices.  One was listed as "gap year"  I asked my son about that and he replied "X isn't going to college, his grandparents own a large B&B.  He is going to work there for a couple of years and then the grandparents will retire and he will take over"   The school just couldn't write "no college"   

[Just Joe]

Maybe the school thought they were doing the graduate a favor. Not going to college - the horror of it!!!

[LadyMuMu]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

[By the River]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

Yes, the school did put the branch of the armed services for the kids going that route.  The one going to work filled his paperwork out with something to the effect of no college, working at xxx.   However, this school likes to advertise 100% of graduates attend college or armed services. 

[Raenia]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

Yes, the school did put the branch of the armed services for the kids going that route.  The one going to work filled his paperwork out with something to the effect of no college, working at xxx.   However, this school likes to advertise 100% of graduates attend college or armed services.

So, purposefully lying to keep their stats up.  Lovely.

[Davnasty]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

Yes, the school did put the branch of the armed services for the kids going that route.  The one going to work filled his paperwork out with something to the effect of no college, working at xxx.   However, this school likes to advertise 100% of graduates attend college or armed services.

So, purposefully lying to keep their stats up.  Lovely.

Stats that encourage tunnel vision toward a life that's not for everyone. Even better.

[AlanStache]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

Yes, the school did put the branch of the armed services for the kids going that route.  The one going to work filled his paperwork out with something to the effect of no college, working at xxx.   However, this school likes to advertise 100% of graduates attend college or armed services.

So, purposefully lying to keep their stats up.  Lovely.

Explaining outliers can be a pia and take up to time/audience bandwidth better spent on other things. 

"100% of our graduates go to college"
vs
"95% of our graduates go to college; those 5% tend to go into family business, the peace corp, had bad problems with family and need to find there own path, then sometimes young adults just dont want to go into higher ed..."

100% and 95% are in this context very nearly the same but the 95% needs explanation...

Not that lying is good or we should be perpetuating the system where all young adults NEED to go to college...

[LadyMuMu]

Next year, 100% of our graduates are going to college, public or military service, or directly into the workforce. First rule of PR is to focus attention on what you want them to see, not report what they want to hear.

[Nederstash]

I know I've posted about my brother before. I love him, I do, but I want to slap him sometimes... PSA: if you have borrowed big sums of money from your retired aging parents, PAY IT BACK. Don't spend it on flashy cars and expensive holidays while my parents keep having to be frugal after a lifetime of hard work. Ugh.
 
I know it's none of my business, it's squarely between them, but it does piss me off.

[bluebelle]

I know I've posted about my brother before. I love him, I do, but I want to slap him sometimes... PSA: if you have borrowed big sums of money from your retired aging parents, PAY IT BACK. Don't spend it on flashy cars and expensive holidays while my parents keep having to be frugal after a lifetime of hard work. Ugh.
 
I know it's none of my business, it's squarely between them, but it does piss me off.

It's sad how many grown-ass "children" think it's okay to spend their parents money.   Even if you're going to eventually inherit it, it's not yours yet.

[mm1970]

What's wrong with Employment with Atheneum B&B or whatever the company name is? I think having a job lined up in May (even in a family business) is quite an accomplishment for a graduating senior. They put Nave, Marines, etc. I'm unclear how this is so very different.

Yes, the school did put the branch of the armed services for the kids going that route.  The one going to work filled his paperwork out with something to the effect of no college, working at xxx.   However, this school likes to advertise 100% of graduates attend college or armed services.

Ah, memories.  When I graduated from college, our department sent out a braggy letter about the % of students going to graduate school, the average starting salary of those getting jobs, and "other", like military service. (aka me, and one other guy).  Yeah, I'm an "other".  I guess a starting salary of $19k wasn't anything to brag about, ha!  They didn't want me to bring their numbers down (avg salary at that point was $40k, early 1990s).

[saguaro]

I know I've posted about my brother before. I love him, I do, but I want to slap him sometimes... PSA: if you have borrowed big sums of money from your retired aging parents, PAY IT BACK. Don't spend it on flashy cars and expensive holidays while my parents keep having to be frugal after a lifetime of hard work. Ugh.
 
I know it's none of my business, it's squarely between them, but it does piss me off.

It's sad how many grown-ass "children" think it's okay to spend their parents money.   Even if you're going to eventually inherit it, it's not yours yet.

My SIL and niece, her daughter, have constantly gotten money off MIL and FIL for years.   These are not loans, it's full-on EOC.   It's been especially bad since MIL and FIL have gotten sizeable inheritances from both sets of parents and allowed themselves to become the family ATM, SIL has worked them like a pro.   Now if there were some issues like illness, disability, unemployment or some other misfortune going on, I would understand it as supporting through hard times but it is not and never has been the case.  They just want things and have no quibbles about taking from two retired people who are becoming increasingly frail.  At least MIL and FIL are finally saying no out of concern for having enough to fund any assisted living or care.   They still may be OK however DH and I have no idea what their financial picture is.   We have stayed out of that business but MIL has let slip enough about it over the years that it does piss DH off. 

[Tasse]

After much futile searching, I must ask: what does EOC stand for?

[SwordGuy]

After much futile searching, I must ask: what does EOC stand for?

Economic Outpatient Care.   It's a term from the book "The Millionaire Next Door."     It means someone (but not them) is funding part of their lifestyle.

[onehair]

Yay the thread is still here though I am not too cheery just yet: As I put in a previous message on the general thread I am now working 2 jobs due to my SO and his irresponsible habits.  So the 2nd job is at McDonalds I am planning to leave it once I get my savings back to where they were before this latest debacle.  Anyway a few weeks ago after I catch up the rent and bills (and before you ask I don't give him a dime) he comes to me with his latest scheme: He wants me to cosign with him on a $7000 loan he thinks he can get and he will pay it once he gets his Social Security.  Bear in mind he ran through his TSP and still has the carnote plus back taxes to resolve.  I asked who would pay it until your SS kicks in?  I got a blank stare so then I refused on the grounds that I am repaying a loan as it is and also carrying the household.  He still gets a pension but it is being garnished by the Feds for back state taxes.  I figured out the person in need of Economic Life Support is...me. 

[Sibley]

Yay the thread is still here though I am not too cheery just yet: As I put in a previous message on the general thread I am now working 2 jobs due to my SO and his irresponsible habits.  So the 2nd job is at McDonalds I am planning to leave it once I get my savings back to where they were before this latest debacle.  Anyway a few weeks ago after I catch up the rent and bills (and before you ask I don't give him a dime) he comes to me with his latest scheme: He wants me to cosign with him on a $7000 loan he thinks he can get and he will pay it once he gets his Social Security.  Bear in mind he ran through his TSP and still has the carnote plus back taxes to resolve.  I asked who would pay it until your SS kicks in?  I got a blank stare so then I refused on the grounds that I am repaying a loan as it is and also carrying the household.  He still gets a pension but it is being garnished by the Feds for back state taxes.  I figured out the person in need of Economic Life Support is...me.

I'm so sorry that your spouse is such an idiot with money. If you decide to kick him to the curb, you've got this internet stranger rooting for you. And with any luck, you can dump him with all the debt he's created and walk away.

[Cassie]

Wow you certainly don't deserve to have that kind of crap happen and it doesn't sound like you guys are young since he has a pension. The fact that you need a second job and it's at McDonald's would be great motivation for booting him out.