The topic of who’s the breadwinner in the house, husband or wife, is one that can be a non-issue for some couples, or one that’s set by pre-defined expectations. Even more, it can be a controversial topic which elicits strong emotional opinions. A recent conversation on this subject got me thinking about about a situation that a friend of mine had previously shared with me.
For starters, you should know that both my friend and his wife are working professionals in their 30’s. They have a young child, but both husband and wife work full time. The kid is cared for by a nanny.
In their careers, both husband and wife have achieved some success, and are both at equivalent levels with their respective employers. They both make comparable salaries to one another; he hasn’t given me specifics (not my business), but that much I know in general. One additional thing about them: they are prodigious savers that have done well for themselves through hard work and a disciplined approach to plowing away money into long-term savings.
Anyway, he had an opportunity to take a job overseas, which he said would have given him a 50% increase in compensation, considering salary and a housing stipend. He didn’t get into details, but did indicate that it would be a good career move. Additionally, it would be an opportunity for them to do something pretty cool, and expose their child to another culture. It was intriguing to both of them.
The big issue, however, was that moving for his job meant that there would be no job for her. For him, that was a problem.
The scenarios, from a financial perspective, were this:
- They stay in their current roles, and keep 100% of their current level of income; or
- They move abroad, and keep 75% of their current level of income
As I mentioned, this was an issue to him. Even with his wife not working and saving on daycare expenses, they would still make less money. Thus, less savings. The goal of financial freedom would get harder and take more time. He wanted to go with option #1.
I asked him what his wife thought. She was game for option #2, where he worked and she didn’t. To her, the opportunity to have less money, but have a chance to stay at home with the child and enjoy a new adventure, was more appealing.
I then asked him how she would feel if he stayed home with the child, and she took an international opportunity. In other words, if the roles were reversed, what would she think?
He instantly said that she would obviously see that differently.
He elaborated by saying that even though the concept is the same, it’s just different when it’s the woman being the provider vs. the man being the provider. In other words, his wife would be OK with them having less money if he worked and she stayed home, but not if she worked while he stayed home. He thinks that she would respect him less.
Again, he personally would rather have her work full-time to bring in more money to the household, versus staying home and cutting their savings. He feels that he’s not being selfish that way, as they are both equally responsible for taking care of each other, and it’s a joint decision on who – husband or wife – stays home. That is, if one of them even does. To that point, he wouldn’t want to stay home even if given the opportunity.
Ultimately, he didn’t take the job.
Having shared this, I ask you the following questions:
- Do you think he was being a selfish husband, not being happy about taking on the role as sole breadwinner while being totally fine with his wife staying at home?
- Do you think his wife was being selfish by having a double standard about it being OK for her to stay home, but not for him if she had a similar opportunity?
- Or, do they each have valid points?
This article was selected as an Editor’s Pick in the Carnival of Money Stories at Live Real, Now
I think this couple is the perfect example of focusing too much on a goal and ignoring the path taken along the way. What a fantastic opportunity they just passed up in the name of ‘saving’. I can’t imagine the benefit of traveling internationally, not to mention the chance to be home with the child and sharing new experiences. I can’t imagine they are losing too much money by giving up her salary given his increase and the elimination of child care costs.
Regarding her not wanting him to stay home while she works full time, it is a double standard. However, I can honestly say I would much rather I be the one at home than my husband. Mostly because I love being home with the kids and I am selfish and want the experience!
Agreed, they should have gone overseas. 75% of salary is still pretty good, and by lowering expenses they can save just as much if not more. Why couldn’t the wife have found something in teaching English or doing god knows what if she didn’t want to stay at home or if he didn’t want her to stay at home? I go somewhat with selfish husband here. I might personally have some of the same thoughts as him cross my mind, but come on, passing up that kind of opportunity?
Yup, overseas it should have been. Plus usually for ex-pat assignments, you get housing paid for, so maybe it would have been not as bad a pay cut. This actually sounds a lot like my situation…where we both choose to work but have both said no to other higher paying opportunities. We didn’t like the idea that the trailing spouse may have to settle and earn a lower salary as a result of the move by spouse #1 to the better job. Luckily none of the opportunities were this cool, so it was an easy decision. If one of us were laid off, then it would be a different story.
One question though, did you actually ask the wife if she’d be okay with her husband staying home or was it just the husband’s opinion of what his wife would think? Maybe he’s the one that has the issue staying home.
There is definitely a social stigma with guys staying home. It takes a tough couple to be able to do it.
Personally, I think he made a terrible decision. A friend of mine has exactly the same option presented to him and they went oversea. The wife stayed home for a while, but was able to get a job at the same company and it all worked out. Nanny cost a lot less oversea. They stayed oversea for 3 years and came back to the US. Nothing is permanent, we should take a chance once in a while.
I wouldn’t mind if my wife is the main bread winner, as a matter of fact, that’s my long term plan. 😉
I don’t know the couple and I don’t know if they took the right decision or not, but these are my opinions.
1) Did you know if the wife actually wouldn’t have agreed for that “particular” reason? Because I wouldn’t have agreed to go to work while my husband stayed home. That is not because I don’t like a “woman” as a bread winner, it is more to do with my husband’s mindset. I know he will go mad if he had to stay home, he simply loves what he does too much to be the one to stay at home. Me on the other hand, love my work, but my work is not my life, so I will find something else to do.
2) We would have taken a decision where we both have a chance to work. Again that is because both of us love our work and we feel just going with one person’s career advancement is not fair to the other. But as I said, he is more ambitious than me, so I would have convinced him to move if he got a good opportunity. We don’t have kids in the equation yet, so this is based on our situation right now.
Interesting comments by all thus far. It’s a topic that some people in general tend to have strong opinions about, and I was curious what everyone thought of this situation.
Personally, I think that in this day and age, both Husband and Wife are there to take care of each other and their family in whatever way works best for them.
In the case of moving, I think that this needs to balance all interests. It makes sense that it would be a tremendous life opportunity to live abroad. He could get a nice career move, and she could enjoy time with the kids. The kids could experience another culture, giving them a good life experience that they could draw upon. On the other hand, I do think his concerns are valid. They would net out at less income than before, and would save less. It would put more pressure on him, as losing a job while abroad with a family – in suspect economic times – is a high-risk proposition. Also, being out of the workforce for awhile might cause issues for her career when she goes back. My friend is also concerned that she’ll lose interest in working and they will live off his income alone, which he doesn’t want. Overall, I think this needs to be a decision they both agree to, and he wasn’t comfortable with it, so I can understand why they didn’t do it. Frankly, his thoughts make sense to me.
As for the double standard, I do think she has one. He doesn’t seem to care for it, but he’s also resigned to it. Personally, I think the decision to have one spouse stay home is a joint decision. If it makes sense, do it. If not, don’t. I think it really should be something each partner should be able to do, without stigma. That said…..I don’t think I would want to stay home, as a grown man, while my wife solely supports me. Yes, I know that’s contradictory, and intellectually I think it shouldn’t matter. I LOVE more than anything else being a Dad, and look forward to time at home more than anything. I also want to feel like I’m A provider. Not necessarily THE ONLY provider (fine if she makes more), but I have a need to be A provider.
Like I said, my intellectual view of it is different and more along the lines of equal responsibility and opportunity, with roles not fixated on gender but on what makes sense and feels best for the couple.
My husband would stay home with the kids in a heart beat. And as long has he did the laundry and the dishes in return, I would be game…though, I don’t know if I’d trust him with the laundry or the dishes, so I may need to rethink this one.
I cannot believe that such a great opportunity was missed. Different culture, new experiences and it’s only 75% of their income! But I am the one who quit a good job, lost 100% of the income and moved all the way to the US. I started from scratch because down the road I knew it will be better for me. So, if the couple knows that down the road it is the best decision for them, then, I guess it ultimately all that matters.
We would have passed up the opportunity simply since neither one of us wants to live in another country (I have been there and done that…it wasn’t as much fun as just visiting).
As far as sole providers go, I think my husband is 100% fair – he doesn’t care which one of us has to work as long as our household is functioning properly. I want both of us making money until we both can retire. I’m okay with being the sole MAIN provider as long as he has some sort of side job that brings in at least $20,000. I am also okay with him being the MAIN provider if I can bring in $20,000 or more a year with blogging and/or a part-time job. BUT, I don’t think either one of us should support the other in their dreams of video gaming the day away, lol.
Crystal – I can completely respect what you’re saying. That’s truly an equal, 100% fair approach you have!
In our household it isn’t just about money… it’s also about how much we like our jobs. Last year I was the sole breadwinner while DH worked on a start-up (in the end he earned about $5,500 for the year) and we were in a different state. Our son did daycare. It was a big opportunity for me to take that year and I’m grateful DH was able to take family leave and follow. DH was happy to get a year off a job that was making him miserable and the ability to try something new.
Now the reason I want a lot of money is so he can quit his job without us having to stress out about money or stop buying fancy cheese at the grocery store.
101 Centavos – great point about how location in particular can make a difference. This was Western Europe, which was a location that appealed to them in that it wasn’t an impoverished nation or one in which they would feel too unsafe. It seemed like a solid package from what he said, but the long-term financial implications outweighed the cultural/life experience to him.
Nether is correct. Every adult needs what I call “first level income”, meaning income directly from the source. (Examples of this income are earnings from a job, income to the EMPLOYEE in form of a pension, lottery winnings,) Physical power of men is greater than women so women should always have first level incomes as well as men. In fact, if only one job is available to a married couple that both qualify for, the wife should get the job because there are many more jobs available to men than to women, and as a last resort, a man should be supported by the woman until a job is available or he can even live off the land. A woman has a much harder time living off the land than a man. A woman should never be financially dependent on any person or people. If the woman has a child and cannot tolerate leaving the child in the car of another person while she works, only then should she be supported and only during the times the child needs supervision or care.
Another traditional mother! Truth was told.
The woman in this couple believes the man should be the main provider. Everything being equal, if only one can be the main provider for the nuclear family, usually the woman should be. If one has a controlling or bossy nature, the other person should be the main provider, if possible. One reason the controlling person must be the provider is when the other person is too disabled to work. This is the case with my husband and me.