Hacker News Reader

Comment by sokoloff | Hacker News Reader

Let’s imagine there are 6 hours of housework to do daily. Only one partner is working on an income-generating job. Do they then come home and do “their fair share” of 3 hours of housework as well?

The benefits of the income are shared with the entire household and represent their contribution. It seems reasonable for the other partner to shoulder most of the housework (the benefits of which are also shared with the entire household). The opposite is what would seem unreasonable to me.

For clarity, I’m not saying the employed partner never has to wash a dish or put their dirty socks in the basket.

View on HN

And this is why I would not marry someone with significantly higher income. Because that would mean, I do all housework and my job don't matter.

Unless explicitly arranged and agreed upon by both in advance, it is unfair to assume the partner should be doing it all and that you should be doing only stuff you enjoy.

> should be doing only stuff you enjoy

The vast majority of people don’t genuinely enjoy their 40 hours plus 6 hours of commuting to their income-generating job.

We do it because we like food with our meals.

Sure. And wast majority of people don't enjoy vacuum cleaning and other routine household chores. Most people, when they actually end up being at home whole day, doing those same routines every day end up depressed and demotivated.

People who loose their jobs, even if partner earns enough for them to not be in major stress, are unhappy after a week or too. They don't tend to be happy in the long term.

Many jobs and bosses sux. And people in them generally want better job rather then no job. They feel bad when being unemplyed long term.

Most employed people don't enjoy coming home to household work. No one, actually. That is why those are such frequent strain of relationship - cause people rarely like then.

That’s exactly the reason why I think that two adults facing around a total of 14 hours per day of mostly suckage have a more fair arrangement when that’s split around 8.5 hours for person 1 and 5.5 hours for person 2 rather than 11 hours for person 1 and 3 hours for person 2.

I really don't know what hypothetical are you building there. The original posts in thread did not assumend unemployed stay at home partner.

But I think that you really need new job. Cause mine is not 8.5 hours of suckage. People on this forums are not struggling miners in bad economy having no choice but to put up with abusive boss. (And I know miner who claimed he loved his job, but that is one guy).

Anyway, if it is about insisting one has to stay at home, I don't want to be the one stay at home. Because I would not like it. And I would also feel economically in trap - dependent and helpless in case of issues.

> and that you should be doing only stuff you enjoy

This seems like quite the assumption.

My baseline assumption for a functional relationship would be that the partner that has the least time to help with housework would try to pick up the parts of it that the other partner least enjoys.

How high?

There is a point where you hire help and this becomes moot.

Below that point, it comes to how you want to solve the finance problem as a couple IMO: if both your salaries are required, then obviously it means a full split.

Anecdotally - my wife chose to remain home and help raise our child / take care of the home and this turned out to be a force multiplier for me. I don’t think I would’ve made it to where I am, made whatever I made, built all my time sink hobbies without that decision.

It comes down to communication and being truthful to yourself Re: why do you want that job? If it is a passion, you should go for it irrespective of the earnings. If it is just an income, you’re just working for a random person instead of your own family. That’s a tough line to cross, but it worked for us with enough comms.

No matter how high, honestly. Because even with maids, the underlying sentiment there is that I count for less. In case of conflict of interest, partner earning more means I automatically loose. "I earn more therefore I contribute more therefore I get what I want" is situation I would find pleasant. However, "I earn less, therefore I contribute less, therefore I have to suck it up and accept being second" is situation I would resent and dislike.

Your wife and you situation sounds like falling into "mutually agreed upon in advance".

Again I think there is a curve :)

There is a point beyond which earning potential stops being a differentiator: you both have enough that it doesn’t matter. I agree there will be some hard conversations to get out of the preset habits though.

Till the point where the earning is necessary for your lifestyle - I can see how the first and second concept will play out: but that’s the trade off you’re taking for the benefits I mentioned.

I do agree all of this is based on the mutual agreement part. I was just pointing out it isn’t as dire as you say :)

Indeed, if you're "keeping score" with compensation with your peers, colleagues, and friends, it might not be the healthiest thing to do, but I get it.

If you're "keeping score" in compensation with your life partner, that seems deeply unhealthy. I'd love for my partner to make some multiple of what I make; we could retire that much earlier.

Why would it mean you do all the housework and your job doesn’t matter? That’s only the case if your partner thinks your job doesn’t matter. It’s not a function of income difference, it’s a function of how much your spouse supports you in your endeavors.

You can still be equal partners even with vastly disparate incomes simply by treating each other as equals. It’s entirely in your control, as a couple.

If my wife wanted to work a job that earns a fraction of what mine does, I’d still split all the housework equitably because she is my equal no matter what job she works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com