Dating outside of your economic status

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

pre nup the only way to go. to marry a woman and have kids is like giving her 2 ICBM's showing how to open the silo doors but making her promise not to use them.
75% of divorces filed by women.

pdclipart.com
free clipart

Huckleberry, I have to highly agree if there were two different economic status's... I defnately would strongly suggest a prenup because some people are not exactly Wells Fargo Inc, and knowing everyone else would immediately assume 'gold digger' or 'hes/shes only in it for the financial stability' (and it happens to many, whether its the case or not) the response I could give would be that it was ME who wanted the prenup to protect themseles from people who jump to those conclusions, so those assumptions could be bounced right back. But, again, since Im not marrying anytime soon......
Sad, though, what ever happened to marrying as is, for richer or poorer, and marriage lasting forever? Oh, the good ol days.

[vemureaux]

Originally Posted by iGlenn

I guess the point of telling him was to brace him for the culture shock of meeting her family. If your at the point in the relationship where you are discussing marriage then I can see why finances would be discussed, you can't exactly keep something like that a secret forever. As a matter of fact I'd say that having disagreements on finances is the biggest strain on a marriage and is the number 1 reason for divorce. She obviously isn't dazzled by money because you'd never know she was wealthy based on the way she lived (however her families lifestyle is at the other end of the spectrum). It appears that my friend was dazzled by the money which is why they split up.

I agree that it's very important to have similar or at least compatible attitudes towards money and finances in a marriage. Someone who never had to work for money will have different attitudes towards spending than a person who had to work hard all their life. Also, regardless of how they came upon the money, a lavish spender and a frugal budgeter sharing house could easily become frustrated or resentful of the other. It also spills into how to raise children and what kind of financial attitude/habits to cultivate in a child, not to mention general lifestyle issues.

So having money is one thing. What to do with it and how to spend it is another. Lastly, I think money tends to be an amplifier rather than something that changes people. It brings out to the surface qualities or tendencies that may have otherwise remained dormant or hidden. The healthiest state is to be glad you have the money, but not identify or define yourself by it.

[sierraAZ]

Originally Posted by Livewire

One being that the one who has the great credit rating, no matter how high the score, will be affected by the one with the lower rating. Their score goes down right along with the other.

Not in my experience. My scores were significantly higher than my ex-husband's and they didn't go down because of that. As a matter of fact, they helped us get the best terms on our mortgage at the time.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

Depends entirely on the income, the household, and the professional and personal obligations of the people in that household. Your blanket statement is laughably simplistic, suggestive of a stunted and/or naive understanding of the complexities and diversity of family life in America.

Partnerships, whether personal or business, should be entered into by people with COMPLEMENTARY skills, not identical ones.

For example, if both guys are good at sales, but not good with paperwork, then something's missing. But if one guy is good with people, and the other guy is good with administrative functions, they are more likely to succeed as a partnership. Same applies to personal relationships, both partners should have skills that the other does not.

One person can work hard, fix stuff, make an income, the other person can draw up a budget, sew, cook, clean, etc. I don't suppose it really matters who has what roles, but tradition dictates that the MAN make the income and the WOMAN spend it and handle the domestic side.

Of course, it all depends on whose more concerned with these things being done. I don't make the bed...unless I'm changing the sheets. I just don't see a point in it. She does--so she makes it. I don't like to drive--and I don't like to own things--so I bought my last girlfriend a car and SHE drove it anywhere we needed to go. She did the shopping...but I was around to carry the packages. She sorts the laundry, I carry the baskets.

She's too weak to do much of anything, she's disabled.

However, the Amish communities have the right division of labor.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

Depends entirely on the income, the household, and the professional and personal obligations of the people in that household. Your blanket statement is laughably simplistic, suggestive of a stunted and/or naive understanding of the complexities and diversity of family life in America.

Live within your means. Pretty straightforward, really.

[ronaldl79]

Women date 'outside' of their economic status everyday. And they think they're MORE than privileged to. Next.

[lola8822]

I did....and I loved every second of it

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

Depends entirely on the income, the household, and the professional and personal obligations of the people in that household. Your blanket statement is laughably simplistic, suggestive of a stunted and/or naive understanding of the complexities and diversity of family life in America.

If you live within your means...you can make it anywhere on one income.

You don't have to live "on the hill", you can live "in the hood".

[coldwine]

Socioeconomic strata is interesting.

I'm a white collar worker but I still think of myself as "working class": although I probably could retire right now, I still had to work to be where I am.

Here in the United States it's rare that we find anyone who isn't working class. Traditionally the separation was between "working class", ie EVERYONE who worked, and the leisure class, or those who didn't have to work at all. And would avoid it at all costs.

There's a bizarre sense of disconnect because there's nothing legally to make the upper echelons of the working class separate and distinct from the lower 95%. Certainly there's nothing to distinguish the nonworking class from the working class.

So all these tiny little differences add up and become important dividers: where you shop for clothing, who your friends are (maybe what your friends are), of course where you live and in what kind of home, your neighbors and your hobbies, et cetera.