tradwife trend

[AngryGromit]

This isn't the first crazy idea floated by 20 somethings with new visions of the world. I recall  before the crash in 2008, there was those that cut costs. saved every penny into a a small nest egg with the idea they were going to retire by early 30's. The math worked great with aggressive stock market investments that yielded a 12%+ return to cover living costs. But they were looking at the stock market with rose colored glasses, once the market crashed in 2008, they were certainly not getting the kind of investment returns to continue to be retired, not to mention aggressive investments with high returns comes with the risk of big losses of your principal investment.  

A lot of these 30 something's were retiring with a investment next egg of around of around 300k, but realistically, need about 10 times that amount, around 3 million to earn a sustainable investment returns that cover income and inflation to retire at age 35.  Three million minimum, five million would be more ideal.             

Edited December 31, 2022 by AngryGromit

[pepperbird2]

On 12/27/2022 at 3:45 PM, AngryGromit said:

Has anything hear of the new trend among younger women,  becoming a "tradwife" or Traditional Wife. basically it's a throw back to the 1950's where the husband's worked and the wife stayed home. Took care of the kids, did all the cleaning, cooked all the meals, and was submissive to her husband allowing him to make all financial decisions.  Some woman say life is just grand, they do not have the stresses of work, finances, politics, etc, and can concentrate the family and socializing with friends. While this might work fine for some women,  there the husband is responsible and takes care of finances in a responsible matter. The down side of this is some men are simply incompetent with it comes to managing money. One study on young men found only 22% of them were financially stable and responsible with managing the house hold budget.  Another 36% were deemed at risk, which included men which lacked money management skills, and income stability, and the statics only got worse from there.  Another down side to this trend is when Bob dies and Lisa, now a senior citizen has no clue how to write a check, pay bills or doesn't realizes that Bob didn't put anything away for retirement, and they are six months behind on the mortgage. The the bank is going to foreclose on the house any day.    

I stayed home with our three kids, but that’s because my spouse was away a lot up until he retired from the army. We did’t do the guy takes care of the finances as again, he was away so much.

 

I wouldn’t say life was grand, but I am glad I got to be with my kids full time.

[pepperbird2]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:46 AM, ExpatInItaly said:

This sounds like a moniker young people on the internet made up to give themselves an identity and post on IG or TikTok, much like the infinite "-core" trends (cottagecore, fairy core, etc) It's basically cosplay for adults, only with further-reaching implications. 

This sort of marriage has always existed, but it seems that nowadays youngsters like to imagine it was a nostalgic and simple time and might be fun to try on. My guess is that they don't realize how challenging it would actually be to exist in this sort of lifetsyle when only one person makes a salary. They gave this arrangement a cutesy new name and added a hashtag, but it really is just a home-maker / housewife / stay-at-home-mom. That's all. It's not new whatsoever. 

I can certainly say that having only one income can really put a family at risk.

[spiritedaway2003]

I'm sure it works for some marriages, but I can assure you that not everyone wants that.  My Mom was a SAHM and it made sense financially given that my mom had to take care of a couple of us.  It wouldn't be something I'm interested for myself for the long term (short-term, yes, if I was raising kids).  I enjoy my work and I love the financial freedom - buying what I want, when I want (within budget and reason, of course).

Work isn't without its challenges, and while I won't be bored in a trad role (assuming I have time to pursue one of my many hobbies, and not just socializing and cleaning up all day), the latter is decidedly not for me.  And for all practical purposes, unless one is a very high income earner, it's hard to make a one income household work in this day and age.  I think the trend will go away eventually.  It's kind of like a wide-eye teenager thinking that they'll be millionaires and senior executives by the time they hit 30.  That said, if someone wants that lifestyle and it makes sense for the couple, then good for them too.  It's not for me to judge, though it's not the lifestyle I would actively choose for myself. 

Edited January 2, 2023 by spiritedaway2003

[LuckyM]

The traditional wife was a popular lifestyle through the Seventies, as I recall, until women felt that they need a career with or without rising costs.

 Plenty of American women are still housewives, by choice ,oftem uneducated or immigrant, lacking English skills. Or the husband has a large income for both of them. In retirement, one or the other have no job.

Nothing wrong with it, in itself. Some people cannot hold down decent jobs and some women really want to raise kids at home, make sure they are nurtured and brought up right.

This is commendable if you think about it, but lets not pass judgment on others.  The wife could have a part-time good job, so it is not all or nothing.

I was raised by a traditional mother...for better or worse!    Many men cannot handle finances and the wives do, or neither do very well.

 

[Ldelane]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:37 AM, Lotsgoingon said:

This kind of family can work. But it has a lot of risks, which is why people have turned against it. 

When the man has all the money power, it's not just that if he dies, the wife can't write a check. It's also that he can spend on all kinds of stuff and not be accountable to her. And he is tempted to use that money power to his advantage. I've heard of marriages like this when the guy has a fling, decides to leave, he then closes all bank accounts, moves to accounts under his name only, and the wife literally had not a dime to her name or a claim or any money. Meanwhile the guy hires a super expensive divorce attorney to ensure the woman can't get anything but pennies. 

Try to get a great divorce attorney when you don't have a bank account. And meanwhile the woman often ends up doing the super generous thing and tries to hide all this from the children so that the children "can have a relationship with their father." Dad leaves her broke, she's in poverty or semi-poverty and she has to lie by omission about the cause of this all because she wants to hide the husband's despicable behavior from the children. 

My sense is that for these marriages to work, they have to have a certain equality to them. The guy officially controls the money, but in practice, he runs all important decisions by the wife and truly accepts her input. The guy is really a consensus leader. Flip it, the wife is officially doing the home duties, but she speaks up on family finances, business decisions, on whether the husband should take a new job that requires relocation or longer hours. And she has confidence to challenge the husband, and she has access to all bank accounts!

We all benefit from accountability and need accountability. 

There is a famous sports figure who had a marriage like this, where he had control of the money without the wife's input. He invested recklessly and they lost nearly everything. The first thing they changed in the marriage--and the sports star endorsed this strongly--was that he had to get his wife's agreement on all business decisions. All! Implication: this kind of marriage ironically has lots of downsides for men. 

 

On 12/29/2022 at 9:37 AM, Lotsgoingon said:

This kind of family can work. But it has a lot of risks, which is why people have turned against it. 

When the man has all the money power, it's not just that if he dies, the wife can't write a check. It's also that he can spend on all kinds of stuff and not be accountable to her. And he is tempted to use that money power to his advantage. I've heard of marriages like this when the guy has a fling, decides to leave, he then closes all bank accounts, moves to accounts under his name only, and the wife literally had not a dime to her name or a claim or any money. Meanwhile the guy hires a super expensive divorce attorney to ensure the woman can't get anything but pennies. 

Try to get a great divorce attorney when you don't have a bank account. And meanwhile the woman often ends up doing the super generous thing and tries to hide all this from the children so that the children "can have a relationship with their father." Dad leaves her broke, she's in poverty or semi-poverty and she has to lie by omission about the cause of this all because she wants to hide the husband's despicable behavior from the children. 

My sense is that for these marriages to work, they have to have a certain equality to them. The guy officially controls the money, but in practice, he runs all important decisions by the wife and truly accepts her input. The guy is really a consensus leader. Flip it, the wife is officially doing the home duties, but she speaks up on family finances, business decisions, on whether the husband should take a new job that requires relocation or longer hours. And she has confidence to challenge the husband, and she has access to all bank accounts!

We all benefit from accountability and need accountability. 

There is a famous sports figure who had a marriage like this, where he had control of the money without the wife's input. He invested recklessly and they lost nearly everything. The first thing they changed in the marriage--and the sports star endorsed this strongly--was that he had to get his wife's agreement on all business decisions. All! Implication: this kind of marriage ironically has lots of downsides for men. 

My daughter was in the exact relationship as described above and it ended exactly as described above.  She was left penniless in the home they had lived in and this rotten so n so even dropped her and his 2 teenage daughters from his health insurance.  What kind of man does that?