My Fair Cleaning Lady
I've been with my boyfriend for two and a half years. I'm 24, he's 29, and he has this plan for making his first million by 37. I respect his ambition, but wonder how much I have to sacrifice for this plan to succeed. It's not even my plan! Not only is all the romance gone, he works nights and I work days, and we barely see each other. Plus, his 9-year-old son lives with us, so we're never alone. We try to stay awake to spend time together, but it's exhausting. We're constantly arguing, and sometimes downright mean. I don't mind cooking, cleaning, and raising his son, or giving up "us time" so we can have a comfortable retirement, but all this overdrive is wearing on me. Still, when I contemplate leaving, I remember we love each other. I can't give up at the first sign of hardship, plus he'd be so screwed if I did leave.
--Not Happy
Somebody's got the order all wrong. First you're supposed to live, and then you're supposed to retire. What are you two going to do, sit in your rocking chairs reminiscing about the life you were too tired and angry to have? Maybe while thumbing through cute couple shots? "Oh, look! There we are on our second anniversary, passing each other in the hallway as you were going to bed and I was going to work!"
You two might love each other, but you have a major scheduling conflict: happily ever after versus happily ever now. If you ever talk to somebody who's had a near-death experience, they'll probably go on about living in the now, not how they finally learned to live in the later. You can scrimp, save, and plan all you want, but there's really no guarantee you'll get to the later. (He could make his first million at 37 and trade you in for his second 24-year-old.) In other words, "Are we having fun yet?" is actually a very valid question. Sure, it's important to save for the future, but it's also important to realize that life isn't supposed to be the thing that passes you by while you're on the way to work.
What did he say to charm you into being with him, "Misery loves company"? Maybe he's not miserable. Maybe he's excited to be socking away all this cash, and feels he's accomplishing something; probably on behalf of both of you. You can't expect things to be any different if you don't assert yourself: Tell him that, for you, a relationship is not a 401k, where you say, "Hang in there...in 20 years, we'll be having a ball! Meanwhile, there's the mop."
Be clear about what you need: sex, romance, time together when you both aren't snoring; you know, the stuff the man of the house isn't supposed to do with the cook, the nanny, and the maid. If he can't make you more than a slave to his dream, you should leave -- and without lugging some anvil of guilt around for giving up "at the first sign of hardship." (The guy has a financial goal; he doesn't have cancer and need somebody to drive him to chemo.) As for how screwed he'd be if you did leave; if nothing changes, think about how screwed you'll be if you stay: 24 and taking early retirement from fun. Sure, relationships take work, but when your thoughts turn to the bedroom, your first impulse shouldn't be knocking on the door and calling, "Housekeeping!"
ha...his "first" million? do not imagine for one minute this man will stop when he gets there...
run...run screaming...
keely at November 5, 2008 6:50 AM
Why is she putting his needs/wants first and completely ignoring her needs and wants? There's nothing wrong with being hard working and wanting financial security for yourself and your family. But to put happiness and fun on hold is going to break this relationship quicker than anything else. Well, good grief, if he's not going to address her needs then it IS over. She needs to move on and remember how to have fun, how to laugh, and how to enjoy life, either alone or with another person.
Serafina at November 5, 2008 7:23 AM
What a lucky guy - built in maid service, babysitter and paramour all in one! Ooops, except the paramour part. He's a shit, and she's too young to be so miserable at his expense. Onward, I say! There's no love there. A whole lot of convenience, maybe, but not love. o.O
Flynne at November 5, 2008 7:50 AM
It is depressing to see people so young and so obsessed with money. Just grinding away, not really living or having fun, chasing dollars. Who the hell needs a million dollars anyway?
Pirate Jo at November 5, 2008 10:25 AM
Who needs a million dollars? People with an insatiable competitive streak who see money as the way to keep score.
The saying "time is money" comes to mind. Two ways to see it: 1) time is good because you can spend it to make money; 2) money is good because you can spend it to enjoy your time.
A relationships is in for a lot of trouble if one person takes view 1 and the other one view 2. I doubt this one can work at all.
Axman at November 5, 2008 1:11 PM
If he's that money obsessed, he just thinks of her as an employee, and will definitely upgrade to the bimbo when he does get rich. I think she's putting up with this because she thinks she's going to get the big payoff, but she'll really get dumped. AND she's not even married to him, so she won't have any legal recourse to get the money which they both are working towards, so maybe she should get a contract set up that he can sign guaranteeing her 50% of the 'first million' (snort-as if he would do that). That will show her how much he 'loves' her.
Chrissy at November 5, 2008 1:22 PM
LW,
Get a grip, girl! Right now, you're living/paying to be treated like a house servant - not a girlfriend - and you think this is love? Yikes! This isn't love. Whatever "love" there was is gone. And this isn't hardship either - it's manufactured misery.
BTW, what's plan B if he doesn't make his goal? Another 10 years of scrimping and saving? Bet his kid's having a lot of fun, too, huh? What a total drag this guy is.
You're young and should be out there dating lots of people, having fun and growing. Love doesn't mean taking on someone else's baggage and/or manifesting their "plans". Dump this guy and do it now, so you can enjoy your life like you're meant to.
Elise at November 5, 2008 1:59 PM
Similar to what I went through with my husband. He insisted that he was "working for our future" and I insisted that if he didn't put effort into and focus on our relationship, there would be no "our" anything. We've been divorced for 10 years.
Geeky at November 5, 2008 4:25 PM
I was one of those guys working 60+ hours a week so we'd have a future and security. Fortunately there wasn't a child involved. She divorced me and we were both better off-she married a good 9 to 5 guy and I got the success in life I wanted. Looking back I'm glad I went for it and have something to show for it and i imagine she must feel the same.
jon at November 5, 2008 8:00 PM
There was a time when ambition was a virtue, and women were team players. My, how time passes.
Jeff at November 5, 2008 9:21 PM
Team players have a common goal. You got to wonder if a retirement is a valid common goal in a marriage from day one.
There is also a difference between a 'team' and a 'work group'. Teams have the common goal and support each other, use the strengths and weaknesses of all...folks in work groups just do what they do and check in if anyone needs to know where they are and the latest update. Looks like the LW is in a work group to me, with no team idea in there.
I get the team thing. I've been in a wonderful marriage 25 years and the team thing is challenging. We have shared goals, ideals, sense of humor and more than I can share...but building careers, saving money, taking care of home and children together...that takes cooperation and a shared value that goes beyond what the balance sheet says any particular year.
We have always gone where my husband's job was, but a few years ago we followed mine...and I was not as good a team leader. It really kind of ticked me off to see that I didn't help my family as well as my husband did. I learned a lot by listening to my family...to come home and be concerned about them instead of spouting about work. It's not that my husband doesn't have a job..he has a great one, but mine took us to our location that no one really wanted to go. So, I kept trying to convince them how great it was so they would want to be here by totally bombarding them with how good it is. And it is, but all they wanted was me...not my job.
I've always loved what I do, but my job (even tho time consuming) always took 2nd place in my head behind my family. After we moved for it, my job got first in my head, and I am very fortunate to have a husband and a kid that called me on it.
It didn't take leaving the job, and it didn't even take spending less time on it. All it took was the realization that my family is the focus and when I am there...I need to be REALLY there. And they do the same. I see the results, we have fun like we used to do, we joke around for no apparent reason and find time to share those things that would never come up if you have to schedule it in. I'm not the only busy person in this family by any means, and when we get together on a daily basis...now we all know it's time to get in the stuff we want to do with each other because we all want to do it.
I see none of that with the LW and her boyfriend. She is being tasked. And tasked is no way to have any relationship unless you are hired help.
Ang at November 5, 2008 11:41 PM
"There was a time when ambition was a virtue, and women were team players." Ambition is still and will always be a virtue. The question is when did being an asshole become one. I get his ambition but I'm not sure what the value of being an ass adds to the mix. He wants to make the million by 37. She's helping him do it, why is he being such an ass about it.
If being sucessful makes you mean then your unlikely be sucessful. Buffet(sp) did what he enjoyed, so did Gates. This guy sounds like he's doing soemthing he hates.
You really want to make real money then scrimping and saving (and being an ass hole) won't work. Develop patents, start companies, diversify your portfolio. Also by 2016 that million won't be worth as much as it sounds.
vlad at November 6, 2008 6:28 AM
"There was a time when ambition was a virtue, and women were team players." Jeff, when exactly do you mean? If a couple is truly a team, they both have equal say in the decision making process. I think the time you were thinking of was when men could use women as a tool in their ambition and cast them aside when they achieved it. If these guys really thought of their woman as an equal partner, they wouldn't fight tooth and nail in the divorce courts about the equal sharing of assets when they split up. The LW is naive, and is ruining her life.
Chrissy at November 6, 2008 6:41 AM
In my experince team player usually means taking one for the team, when someone says I'm not team player is has meant not willing to screw myself for their benifits.
As far as asset divsion I can assure you that the one who made the money (male or female) rightfully gets resentful when the stay at home wants equal share especially if there are no kids involved.
vlad at November 6, 2008 7:49 AM
The LW shouldn't expect an equal share of the 'first million' then, and since it's not fair to expect it, according to vlad, why is she making all these sacrifices?
Chrissy at November 6, 2008 11:37 AM
In this particular case I am totally supportive of the woman.
But in the more general situation where one partner is an entrepreneur (could be male or female) it's most often the case, I think, that the partner simply doesn't understand the challenges the other is going through.
Anyone who has not given it all up to pursue their entrepreneurial dream can NEVER possibly understand. They think they do, but they actually don't.
Robert W. at November 6, 2008 12:32 PM
"There was a time when ambition was a virtue, and women were team players."
Those people were usually married, too. You had some legal protection for the sacrifices you made.
Pirate Jo at November 6, 2008 5:31 PM
In this case I think she would be entitled to a share of the money. I have the issue with the partner who stays home and enjoys the fruits of the other's labor then demands their fair share.
"The LW shouldn't expect an equal share of the 'first million' then, and since it's not fair to expect it, according to vlad" No. She's working as part of the plan. Since she's contributing then yes she should get a piece of it. I was referring to people like Kfed and Heather Mills.
vlad at November 7, 2008 6:02 AM
When Heather Mills came along, Paul McCartney already had his millions, so she obviously had nothing to do with his financial success. I have no idea why she felt entitled to his money.
The example that sticks in my mind is Donald Trump and Ivana's divorce. She was with him from the beginning, and the way he hid all his money and basically told her 'I have nothing' when it came time to the financial settlement in the divorce was disgusting. I don't know what she got in the end, but it was just his behaviour that proved he didn't think of their marriage as any kind of a partnership.
Chrissy at November 7, 2008 6:14 AM
"The example that sticks in my mind is Donald Trump and Ivana's divorce." Actually Rupert Murdoch was an even bigger asshole in that respect. Again I'm not saying that the stay at home should be automatically denied their share I just don't think that they should get a share automatically. If they jointly made the money they should jointly split it, Trump especially cause she provided some of his major contacts. If one partner stayed at home with the kids (as opposed to work and take care of the kids as above) and had support staff (Mills comes to mind) then they should get jack shit as the support staff payed for by the working spouse did most of the work.
vlad at November 7, 2008 7:16 AM
Vlad wrote In my experience team player usually means taking one for the team, when someone says I'm not team player is has meant not willing to screw myself for their benefit.
Well said, and very much true in my workplace, unfortunately.
Monica at November 7, 2008 11:50 AM
I hope that the lw finds the strength to get out since she's not happy and she doesn't share the same dreams and values as him...those are all very valid reasons to leave.
Lily at November 9, 2008 1:21 PM
When a man has a million dollars he doesn't find that creaking rattling Kia that helped him get around on his way to the millions very attractive. So he trades it (or has a junk service haul it away).
Almost nothing tells a man he is worthy of a beautiful new sports car like having a million.
Sorry dear, you WILL be traded in. You don't intent to sound like a creaking rattling car that is just one problem after another but, well before his first million, he will be checking out the newer shiner models on the various showroom floors.
Go find someone that revs YOUR engine.
seenitb4 at November 9, 2008 10:37 PM
A quick btw on the MILLION dollars that everyone seems to think of as hot shit. The standard stable return on investment is about 8%. The huge returns that some were seeing lead to the crap avalanche we have now. So that cool million will net you an income of 80K per year. Not a bad salary but if you think that's enough to drive a viper, Z06 etc. your wrong. That million dollars will buy you a comfortable life but not much more. The second you start dipping into your principle it all goes away really fast. Also factor in inflation and those returns sound even worse. If your not reinvesting at least enough to compensate for inflation your asset depreciates.
Not only does he sound like a miserable prick his plan won't net them that easy life even if he wasn't an ass and it did actually work.
vlad at November 10, 2008 9:12 AM
Good point, Vlad, but in order to make 80K a year our boy would have to INVEST a million, which would have to be net, after taxes, so he'd have to make a good deal more than that.
I agree with all of you that she will never reap the rewards of all this drudgery even if the guy does make it. She should bail now and find a guy who appreciates her as a person, not a slave.
Pussnboots at November 10, 2008 9:48 PM
Leave a comment