The Relationship Chronicles: The ROI of Love

Back when I was still too young to date I saw an episode of the Cosby Show that still plays vividly in my mind. Bill Cosby has a discussion about money with his son, Theo. Cosby is trying to make the point that life costs money, and you have to earn at least what you spend.

Using a handful of bills Cosby takes away the ones in his son's hand while he ticks off the common expenses of adults.

"A nice car," Cosby says, taking away a bill.

"I'll take the bus," Theo says, taking it back.

The game continues in this back and forth manner until Cosby says, "You plan to have a girlfriend?"

"You bet," says Theo. At this, Cosby takes all of the bills out of Theo's hand.

I guess the joke was, women cost money. More generally, partnership costs money. There are certain unquestioned costs that you incur once you are in a relationship that you likely didn't when you were not in one. Currently I spend twice as much on food than I ever did when I was single, but that's what keeps the peace in my house. The companionship and good will--not to mention the home-cooked dinners--that result, ideally outweigh the expenditures.

I got the lesson early on and, being a girl who wanted to be on par professionally with men when I grew up, I figured that I should spend money on men. My first few expenditures were more like capital investments--good dresses for the prom--or T&E in the form of cover charges required to get into the right parties. Later, when dating had evolved from hanging out in a co-ed crowd to organized, one-on-one get-togethers I saw that my job was done. I didn't have to spend a red cent on my date--he payed for dinner and the movie. I just needed to make sure I looked good. It seemed totally inequitable.

Later, when beer came into the picture I noticed the boys with fake IDs bought all the beer; all the girls had to do was consume it. It seemed like a good deal at first, until I got clear, sometime in my 20s, of the personal price I had paid to piss away my inhibitions, and at times, good taste. Whatever I remember about the schmoes who tried to take advantage of the situtation I would pay to forget.

Still, the point is, I had been trained to let the guy pay. The rare few occasions I was asked out for a full-fledged date in college--vs. meeting the guy at the bar with his friends--I brought money with me, though I hardly expected to spend it. I wouldn't want to be caught dead not having it if, God Forbid, he ask me to pony up my share, but I wouldn't have gone out with him again. I didn't think it was my right to be paid for, I just figured that this was the way it was--the guy pays--and if he didn't get that then he was a social misfit, unappreciative of my femaleness, and he'd be a chintzy future partner.

I believed that having the guy pay was fair practice on the first few dates, but once a relationship was established I expected to take on my share. I was shocked to hear from a girlfriend of mine who, after five months of nice dinners in New York City and weekend jaunts to the country with her boyfriend, would still avert her eyes when the bill arrived. Another of my girlfriends would hold her hand out whenever she left her boyfriend's apartment, her way of asking for cab money. I figured, Once a relationship got into that nebulous area of ongoing-but-not-necessarily-permanent commitment most guys wanted to be with a woman who could at least pay the bills now and then. If she couldn't pay, what would she expect of a marriage? Would she be willing to work? Unless I dated a Murdoch, I couldn't assume he would pay every time.

There were some first-date exceptions when I paid, like when I dated a guy that I knew had been unemployed for eight months and was taking on temp jobs filing to make ends meet. He insisted on paying the bill, and I told him I'd be much more comfortable going Dutch. Another time I went out with a man I met at a party and found out he was considerably younger than me and that--he had no problems sharing this with me over drinks--he made $25,000 a year. I quickly did the math in my head, applying my knowledge of expenses in Manhattan, and quickly deducted that we'd probably just drunk a bottle of wine that exceeded his disposable income for the month. I insisted he let me get the bill; then I dropped him off at the subway.

I felt badly going home that night. I used to brag that I didn't care how much money a man made, but then why was I turned off to the point of repulsion by someone who was so open about his entry-level salary? Why was I uncomfortable with making much more than him? I realized that in the past I didn't care because I wasn't at a point of considering my future. Now I was. And though I could take care of myself, I wanted to know I could be taken care of. There was a level of establishment where a potential partner needed to be in his life for me to feel comfortable committing to him. I felt cheap and guilty about this, like I was now like all of the mindless golddiggers I called out on reality TV. I got over it.

Dating men who made as much or more than me became unrealistic later in my career, when I started making more money and opted from time to time to date younger guys. But even then, they had to have earning potential. I dated an artist who to this day may have been the kindest man I've ever known. When he paid for dinner I knew that he'd just blown the last dollar in his pocket. I knew he wanted to make me happy, but I also knew that we had different living standards. I wanted to own my apartment; he just wanted to make rent. Though we were happy at that moment, fear of not realizing my vision of our future tainted the relationship.

Another man I dated seemingly had it all--a similar living standard, a great job, and plenty of money. But he sure as hell didn't want to spend it on me. If he had been the kid on the Cosby Show and was asked, "do you expect to have a girlfriend?" he would have clamped down on his money and said, "that depends." My company was in a death spiral at the time and my salary had been reduced by a third--to a fraction of what he made. Still, he insisted that we split the costs of our dates evenly. I felt that was fair--my job situation wasn't his fault. But some of his quirks around money made me wonder.

He got angry once for asking him to meet me somewhere and arriving late. It wasn't that I was late that annoyed him, but that by asking him to come earlier than he needed to I had forced him to spend more money on gas than he would have to had he driven slower. He had me pay for dinner once because he'd left half a sandwich at my house, and thus argued I owed him money. I suspected this guy didn't see me as his partner but as an investment that was quickly losing value. Our relationship became about paying him back. He wondered why I didn't cook him dinner or give him back rubs with exacting reciprocity. I found myself spending my diminished paycheck on making sure he felt I was paying my share. Finally a friend set me straight.

"What the hell are you doing?" she said. "You need to be focusing on you! If you can't spend on each other proportionally to what you two earn you shouldn't be together." My friend had been married to a wealthy man for years and then divorced. Though her husband earned more money, she contributed her proportional share to the bills; anything extra in their personal accounts was theirs to spend as they chose. When they divorced she lost many of the luxuries her husband had been able to afford, but she hadn't lost her ability to take care of herself, and she hadn't blown the nest egg she needed to start over. My relationship with Mr. Mileage soured but the lesson stuck: It's about proportion. 

I find myself in the healthiest relationship I've ever been in. We are constantly assessing our preferences, competencies, and finances and shouldering what's fair, throwing out the spreadsheet when it comes to intangibles like making each other smile. But, when I move out of the warmth of good intentions and am sitting with my accountant, or with my divorced friends, the question remains: How do you define proportions?

My boyfriend is in grad school--it's fair to say I'm the primary breadwinner. And yet, he uses savings to pay bills, much more than his share if you consider the income/proportion rule. And yet, since we're not married I don't feel responsible for covering his expenses. We've made some arrangements--I pay more rent, for example, and he manages more chores; that works for now. Once he gets a full-time job we'll re-align our contributions.

Still it's a tough subject to bring up--how much do we each put into this thing--this WE--and how much do we save for ourselves? B-friend admits it feels weird to look at this entity of shared possessions you hope to be bigger than the sum of its parts and say, "that section over there's mine." In a society where 50 percent of marriages end in divorce he understands the value of keeping separate accounts, in theory. But by planning an exit strategy it comes across as if you're still keeping a foot outside the relationship. He argues, by putting all of your skin in the game you fully commit your resources to a relationship and will work harder to make it succeed.

A recent Psychology Today article by Nancy Wartik corroborates that theory. A study showed that more couples who got married before living together stayed married than couples who lived together first--for many possible reasons. Some couples who had co-habitated may have experienced lesser degrees of commitment and expected that same level when they married. Some co-habitating couples may have been less concerned with "playing by the rules" and ascribing to the marriage-kids-death model. They saw marriage as less sacred, not something that must be saved at all costs if they weren't happy.

With those hypotheses in mind, couples that keep all or some of their assets separate have less to lose when they part ways. Their relationship is perforated and will cleanly tear off with little resistance. But couples who are married are more inclined to share everything; their bond is stronger and more damaging when it rips apart. Establishing their "cut" in the relationship before committing feels inappropriate to them, and unnatural--like slicing water.

B-friend's parents have been married for 30 years and though his father was the breadwinner everything was shared. My parents ran things the same way--whoever was working just dropped their checks into the pot. But I also remember my mother had to check in with my dad for expensive things--car repairs, furniture upgrades--and had to get these expenditures approved first. My father has simple, and, self-admittedly, cheap, taste. His rule is, if something isn't deteriorating it doesn't need to be replaced. We had cars that consistently broke down, items around the house that my mother wanted updated. My Dad often relented and bought these items eventually, but my mother would have bought them herself if she'd had control of her own money. I realize my issues with sharing money don't have anything to do with my partner, but with pushing a lemon down the street with my mother, cursing my Dad for not getting the frickin car fixed, and cursing my mother for not having any financial independence. I subconsciously vowed that that would never happen to me.

When my sister got married, her school loans became her husband's, and--good soul--he helped her pay them off. B-friend takes the occasional gander at my credit card bill and hints that, before increasing his commitment to a legal level I might want to consider the benefits of doubling my monthly payments. He ogles expensive cars that he intends to buy once he has a well-paying job and I joke rather seriously, "Hope YOU can afford it," meaning, "your toy, your money." While marriage may erase the line between mine and yours, I'd prefer to consider it the point where the line stops. The debt you took on before it is still yours to pay off, and the high-expense items you want that your partner doesn't are yours to finance as well. If you opt to shell out for something nice for your partner you do so not out of obligation but out of generous choice.

We're looking at buying a house--one I will likely buy if we buy in the near future. It will be OUR house, but, having put years of my life savings into it for a down payment, I wouldn't want to lose my portion if we broke up. That's not a nice thing to say--that's just the truth. Perhaps that makes me incapable of surrendering fully into partnership. Perhaps its not giving the relationship the fair shake it deserves. Perhaps it makes me selfish, or cheap. Perhaps it makes me a realistic woman who's worked her ass off for the little pile she's got. Perhaps I've seen women have to push their broken-down cars down the street. Perhpas I've seen overly trusting women lose it all.

Recently I had dinner with a group of women friends. The question of who pays for what in your relationship came up. One woman got married right after college and has been married for years. Her assets are her husband's. Everything they've earned they've combined and share. Another is in her 40s and has lived with her domestic partner for several years; their accounts are still separate--they split their shared expenses and spend their own money as they wish. Another one is in the midst of divorce after having been married for 20 years. She's just experiencing having her own place, her own expenses, and likes the freedom (caveat: she also owns a business and can afford independence). She's my reminder that, despite good intentions, some plans fail. And Plan Bs may not be romantic, but they sure come in handy.

In theory I love the notion of joining forces, of erasing the ownership lines. In a society where the man is expected to pay for his woman, she should be willing to return the favor and equally provide. The first date should be the cheapest, and the expenditures should grow emotionally with each successive date, as the relationship proves itself to be worth more than good first impressions. That's solid partnering.

But there's another pull here toward wholeness, self-sufficiency, and the desire to be in a partnership, not because leaving it would mean financial ruin but because we want to be there. This imposed obligation to share everything feels forced to me and unfair, as unfair as it is to expect the guy to pay for every date. If we opt to surrender all to the partnership, I propose it come with the acknowledgement that we could lose it all, too, not the pressure to pretend otherwise.

relationships dating marriage marriage and finance

Comments

[Joy Des Jardins]

Yep, that pretty much says it about your Dad. It's nice to see something good come out of our crazy car episodes. Times-are-a-changing, and I like that. I don't have to worry about you...you're on top of everything; no surprise there. By the way....this is a great post.

[Deb]

Hi Jory,

Came across your blog quite by accident while doing a Google search. I find so many blogs have people prattling on about complete crap... but I like what you have to say so will most likely stick around for a while.

Your financial situation with your bf is very much like mine, and it is so great that there are other people out there who have this kind of arrangement. Personally I wouldn't have it any other way, although there has been hard times (when I was in grad-school and he was a big earner) and on occassion I do have delusional fantasys involving being a lady of leisure, keeping myself and the house pretty while he brings home the bacon. But in reality I would never want to give up my financial independence.

[Steve]

Jory -
Been catching up on reading your posts. As always you have timely content to share as Michele and I prep to be married in a month. In terms of finances we've found a Suze Orman's co-habitation formula pretty helpful it's in one of her books, I can send it if you're interested.

I feel knowing one has some degree of financial independence is important - so a personal savings/slush fund works well I think.

In regard to relationship, it's useful to consider whether the partnership one is engaged in provides the opportunity for both persons to drive toward shared goals or whether you're just fulfilling societal expectations as to what you "should" be doing at any particular stage/age in your life.

Personally, I don't have time to regret that I am 37 and can now see possibility for so many dreams coming true - the best part is that together, Michele and I are making our combined goals and dreams a reality. The money thing falls in behind that to help support those goals.

What do you and the B-friend hold true as joint goals and aspirations?

Oh yeah, another book that helped out was Smart Couples Finish Rich - some great nuggets in there...

best,
steven

[tp]

Hey Jory (Sr.)-

Great post. I find your Joryisms more and more insightful (and just damn funny) as I read on.

I can relate to this in that my cool wife and I entered our relationship with the same exact view--what's mine is yours. We both brought smaller-ish incomes and larger-ish student loans into the marriage. In fact, $ we received at our wedding went to: A) a great honeymoon, B) paying off my credit card debt (living expenses during 2 years of grad school). I know. She's amazing and I'm lucky.

Point is, from our second date (this topic came up that early), we've always been on the same page on the Sharing of the Stuff. And to me, that's what's most important. Being on the same page. Which page is irrelevant. I know this because my last girlfriend and I were on opposite sides, and this definitely, definitely, became one of the things that made us both realize, "You know what, we're just not very good together. If we can't agree on this..." Just like that, the Pandora'x Box of SOD (Significant Other Doubts) was open. The rest was practically scripted from there.

Of course, in the end that revelation with the ex was great, because my wife and I pretty much know we were meant to be together, contrary to everything I had come to believe. And we even have our own Jory to remind us...

Wow. I just realized I have two Jorys who help me stay grounded. Am I a lucky guy or what?

[genevieve]

There are a lot of useful arguments for women having some money of their own, and some earning capacity. In the end marriage really does boil down to trying to spend some time on the same page. But be warned, some men don't mind if you give everything up for them because it is a guarantee that you cannot leave (a bit like that beer!). Some take this as a guarantee that the relationship does not have to evolve in any way. While I certainly don't believe relationships built on love should involve any kind of blackmail, there is something to be said for being free to leave a relationship where you have no power whatsoever, or where undermining the powerful partner has made you less of a person than you should be.

Also having the money for yourself sometimes means you can redirect yourself towards your interests when you need to, and you don't need to ask permission. For very complaisant men and women, that freedom is often enough to keep them happy. They don't want to leave the other person, they just want some things they can decide on their own every now and then. Marriage for keeps is a long haul, a safety valve can be way useful.

[Laura]

Great post. I stumbled across your blog a few months ago and have been reading sporadically ever since, I really enjoy it. I've never commented yet, but this post has prompted me to do so. I'm fairly young (25) and am in my first 'real' job which pays moderately well for a young professional but is still tough to make ends meet and pay off my student loans. I am in a relationship with a great guy who I moved in with 10 months ago. We rent, and we have a roommate, so currently we each make equal rent payments and that is fine as the rent is very affordable for all of us.

However, neither of us can stand our roommate and we want to move out. We plan on buying a house within the next 1 to 2 years. We also do want to get married, and although we're not yet engaged, I know it's what we both want and that he will propose when the timing is right for him. This is where the 'shared expenses' thing comes up. I personally am of the school of thought of sharing expenses proportionately. My boyfriend is deadset that things should be split down the middle. Considering that his income is about double what mine is, I feel that we are severely limiting ourselves to a lower lifestyle because of my earning power, and he'll just have oodles of spending money while I'll be stretching my resources thin to make ends meet. He thinks that if he's paying more than half, he'll feel like I'm taking advantage of his finances. I'm having a really difficult time articulating the reasons why I think proportionately sharing bills is the way to go.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how they might handle this situation? I really hope to come to an agreement with my better half BEFORE we dive into any joint financial commitments, to avoid hard feelings down the road.

[Jory Earl]

Hi Jory!!

I just read your spot about sharing finances. I'm a man involved with a Russian woman (right now she still lives with her mother in Moscow) but I am working on that. :) :) :)

As to the finances part, I guess I'm the exception to the rule. I really don't care if "Olga" uses all of the money or not. I've already had a life filled with "things" and frankly, I've realized that "things" are really "nothings" (perhaps "No things"? :) ). To trade everything for her love, seems to me, the best of deals. My point is, regardless of how much she costs, I'd willingly pay any price to be with her. She's my soulmate. How can you put a value on that?

[geri]

There is the common misconception that there is a price for love. I disagree with this completely. Love is something you give free of charge to someone who loves you back. "Buying" your partner can have ill effects. You have to "buy" him some more so you could keep him.

[Joanna Davis]

I do believed that in a relationship, it should be give and take. It's a two way relationship. For me, it's not always the guy that needs to pay for the bills. If the girl has the money that time, she can shoulder the expenses. That is love. Giving and sharing.

[crystal]

Well said!

I had a lot of dates where i was the one who paid. Sometimes, my boyfriend and I are taking turns. i don't believe that the guy has to pay most of the time. I believe in equal sharing. Though this is not possible all the time. Because there are instances where the guy earns more. However, if the guy is a good provider, the woman has to be too, though not financially. :)

At present though, it is not a too big issue between me and my boyfriend anymore.

I am glad that you are in a healthy relationshi[!

[Relationships-Know-it-All, Maranda]

I want to comment on the issue of guys picking up the tab. I think it's pretty much a cultural issue. I live in Canada, where women are independent, mostly pay for themselves, and are expected to have a job. I came from a different culture, where women are cherished and taken care of in all ways. The result is that I just cannot date local "white guys" because they seem extremely cheap to me! I just don't respect them. I date "brown guys" with all their old-fashioned manners and attitudes towards a woman!

[steve]

I so remember that video clip with the Cosby Show!!!!

After scouring the internet, I finally tracked it down.
It was the pilot episode.
You can watch the clip here.

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2676769

Enjoy!
-Steve.