How low on the socio-economic ladder would you go?

Sangre

I'd definitely care if someone was ghetto poor. Especially if caused by a lack of drive or ambition. I'm not saying its a deal breaker but its definitely a factor one thinks about on the pros/cons list.

Zulu

farohar wrote: »

Know Your Nerds, it's a thread where folks post pics of themselves akin to the lads/ladies of the ladies lounge threads.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054892994

ahhh, right so ted.

metaoblivia

In my younger days, it didn't matter at all how much money a guy had. I dated poor students and broke musicians. But now that I'm in my late 20's, I'm looking for someone with ambition who earns a decent wage. As others have said, I've become accustom to a certain lifestyle that I provide for myself. I can't provide it for another person, so if I were to maintain it in a relationship, it would be up to them to pay their own way as I do mine.

litup

I think the problem here is how people are defining the 'socio-economic ladder'. People form a disadvantaged socio-economic backround are not necessarily unambitions or wasters, just as peole from privlidged backrounds do not always end up with high flying careers.

Personally, I find it objectionable that people think they are 'lowering' themselves on this 'ladder' if they go out with someone from a more impoverished backround themselves.

The OP stated she didn't think she would go out with an 'Anto-Deco' type. I'm not sure what this means but I took it to mean someone from a working class backround, as we have no way of knowing what Anto or Deco do for a living.

I made the point that if someone's financial situiation was due to the fact that they were, for example, lazy then obvioulsy a highly motivated person would not be compatable with them. This is the case regardless of where either party is from/where they went to school etc.

So, my (long winded) point is; define socio-economic so we are all on the same page and, whatever it's meaning, somebody burn the bloody 'ladder' as it infers all sorts of ideas about looking down on people, lowering oneself or climbing up through any means.

As an aside, some posters attitudes of 'you will understand when you are older' come across as pretty condescending.

Dudess

litup wrote: »

I think the problem here is how people are defining the 'socio-economic ladder'. People form a disadvantaged socio-economic backround are not necessarily unambitions or wasters, just as peole from privlidged backrounds do not always end up with high flying careers.

Yeah, I actually associate waster-ism with middle-class and upper middle-class people - that's been my experience of it.

The OP stated she didn't think she would go out with an 'Anto-Deco' type. I'm not sure what this means but I took it to mean someone from a working class backround, as we have no way of knowing what Anto or Deco do for a living.

I presume she means a skanger (rough, criminal, violent scumbag) - and who gives a **** what their background is! A skanger is a no-no in my book too.

As an aside, some posters attitudes of 'you will understand when you are older' come across as pretty condescending.

It might seem it, but it's very much a reality.

Malari

litup wrote: »

The OP stated she didn't think she would go out with an 'Anto-Deco' type. I'm not sure what this means but I took it to mean someone from a working class backround, as we have no way of knowing what Anto or Deco do for a living.

Hah, I just realised what that poster meant by Anto-Deco. I had this idea they were talking about the little fellas who host Britain's Got talent...:o

litup

Dudess wrote: »

I presume she means a skanger (rough, criminal, violent scumbag) - and who gives a **** what their background is! A skanger is a no-no in my book too.

This is exactly the problem. A person from a 'rough' area whose mates call them Anto/Deco is not necessarily a criminal violent scumbag. Just because they are proud of their roots, keep the friends they grew up with and don't change their accent does not mean they are not hard working, ambitious people.

It might seem it, but it's very much a reality.

Again, presumptuous and condescending. I'm 25. I may not be as old as the other posters here but I know my own mind. I would hate to think I would ever rule out any relationship because someone's name was Anto or because they grew up in a rough area/didn't go to college etc.

Dudess

litup wrote: »

This is exactly the problem. A person from a 'rough' area whose mates call them Anto/Deco is not necessarily a criminal violent scumbag. Just because they are proud of their roots, keep the friends they grew up with and don't change their accent does not mean they are not hard working, ambitious people.

All true... but I'm talking about skangers who ARE criminal violent scumbags.

Again, presumptuous and condescending. I'm 25. I may not be as old as the other posters here but I know my own mind. I would hate to think I would ever rule out any relationship because someone's name was Anto or because they grew up in a rough area/didn't go to college etc.

NONE of those would concern me, as I already made clear. However, a guy being a waster would concern me. And that does become more of a concern as you get older - of course it does. Nothing condescending about that.

Ginny

Its all about balance, I have a good job, I earn good money, I've bought my own house so I would hope to meet someone in a similar suitation to mine.
I wouldn't want to be the one carrying all the financial or indeed the emotional burden by myself.
In my mind a couple should split things as equally as they can and tbh I wouldn't be happy knowing I was with someone who couldn't help me pay our bills.

As an aside, the Anto/Dec thing the OP said, well I read it as Ant or Dec and was baffled.
:rolleyes:

tallaght01

so, would anyone here ride a homeless bloke if he showed ambition that one day he was gonna own a bike or somethin'?

Abi

tallaght01 wrote: »

so, would anyone here ride a homeless bloke if he showed ambition that one day he was gonna own a bike or somethin'?

Not unless it was a tandum. Once he 'rides' me, he has me for keeps and Im not runnin' up the road beside him.

*ponders*


Or I could take his bike... and he can do all the running.


Yes! Homeless bloke ftw!

Ginny

Only if he was tall....:D

tallaght01

Abigayle wrote: »

Not unless it was a tandum. Once he 'rides' me, he has me for keeps and Im not runnin' up the road beside him.

*ponders*


Or I could take his bike... and he can do all the running.


Yes! Homeless bloke ftw!

I can't believe you'd nick a homeless bloke's bike!!!!!!

GinnyJo wrote: »

Only if he was tall....:D

Bear in mind, though, that homeless people are shorter on average than the rest of the population. So, some guy in a dumpster that you think is a short-arse may actually be totally lanky in his community. Just a heads-up for ya

Abi

tallaght01 wrote: »

I can't believe you'd nick a homeless bloke's bike!!!!!!

lmao.. If anyone asked me, what was the funniest thing someone said to you all day - and I cited that quote.....



I might though. Based on the rule of 'whats mine is mine, and whats yours is mine'

cuckoo

Hmmmm, i'll put my cards on the table a little and be honest. It matters a bit to me, because i'm good at my finances and have all that sorted. My parents are a bit funny about things, and managed to drill the message into my brain that "men will only be after you for your money" (yeah, 'cos i'm soooo loaded :rolleyes:).

So, my parents left me with a massive insecurity (that i am working on trying to change, but that kind of parental programing runs deep).

I don't care a fig about what a man can buy me, couldn't care less what the Joness are up to and don't enjoy shopping much anyways. But - i like to be with a guy who has a job and is doing ok for himself so i can believe that he wants to be with me, rather than someone who'll pay the bills (which, as ppl have said upthread, i can do for one but it would be a bit of a stretch to do for two).

Thanks Mum and Dad for that one.

tallaght01

cuckoo wrote: »

Hmmmm, i'll put my cards on the table a little and be honest. It matters a bit to me, because i'm good at my finances and have all that sorted. My parents are a bit funny about things, and managed to drill the message into my brain that "men will only be after you for your money" (yeah, 'cos i'm soooo loaded :rolleyes:).

So, my parents left me with a massive insecurity (that i am working on trying to change, but that kind of parental programing runs deep).

I don't care a fig about what a man can buy me, couldn't care less what the Joness are up to and don't enjoy shopping much anyways. But - i like to be with a guy who has a job and is doing ok for himself so i can believe that he wants to be with me, rather than someone who'll pay the bills (which, as ppl have said upthread, i can do for one but it would be a bit of a stretch to do for two).

Thanks Mum and Dad for that one.

Bet you wouldn't rob a homeless guy's BMX, though.

Makes me sick.......:p

cuckoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Bet you wouldn't rob a homeless guy's BMX, though.

Makes me sick.......:p

BMX - no.

Mountain bike - yes.

But, only if i really, really needed it. However, there is no need great enough to warrant the BMX.

tallaght01

cuckoo wrote: »

BMX - no.

Mountain bike - yes.

But, only if i really, really needed it. However, there is no need great enough to warrant the BMX.

You wouldn't be sayin that if it had bunny-hop bars on the front wheel

Trinity

I'm from a poor background. Didnt go to college. Have always worked though and paid my taxes. Got a little help there for a while back when i hit a bad patch but i had earned imho.

I have dated people from both sides of the fence as it were. And to be quite honest i would class myself as in-between. I'm certainly not a skanger but when i did date people higher up the ladder, i had very little in common with them. They did their ski-ing holidays, ate at different restaurants, I didnt have a clue who the f*ck Gucci was, and i put myself under tremendous pressure to keep up with them. And I couldnt.

But I did realise that there was more to life than i was seeing and it did instill a little ambition into me, children stopped that in its tracks mind you.

I have been in the position were people liked me but didnt want to date me because of where i was from etc, or I was good for a laugh and few drinks but i wouldnt be getting an invitation to meet the parents. I was left feeling inferior and i guess i still do. But it took me years to see i was so fcuking unhappy cos i was spending all my time trying to be something i just wasnt. Think my fair lady, without the happy ending, and without the Audrey Hepburn looks :D

But feck it, I'm 33, look after my kids, have a job. I've never stolen, took drugs or hurt anyone. Once there is food on the table and the bills are paid I'm content. But it doesnt stop me dreaming of better things, its just gonna take me longer to get them ....:)

CathyMoran

I originally went out with very ambitious men, it was not about the money but their personality at the time that attracted me. Then as I got older I realised that these men were too caught up in their jobs to ever think about me. In the end of the day I wanted someone who would hold my head when I was getting sick, not be too busy in a meeting. I would like to have more money sure, but we are happy the way we are and he looks after me when I am ill and I do the same and he will be an excellent father some day who has time for his kids.

Crumble Froo

oh man, funny reading this thread. im working away at a job that doesnt pay well, but it's a job i love. my hours arent long which gives me more time to do what i love, so im pretty poor after that, but, for the most part, happy (it would be nice to not have to count every penny), but that's just life as it is for me.

my fella on the other hand, hasnt worked for over 20 years, and lives on sickness benefit. he has no ambition to get a job, and frankly, i wouldnt want to see him get a job. it's a pain in the ass at times, cos we can't really go anywhere nice, and eating out means a dominos pizza when they've got special offers on. maybe im too young, and am still in it for the "love and lust", but honestly, if i was going to miss out on his personality, and all the amazing times i've had since i met him, just cos he has no job... well, i'd have been a complete idiot. for the most part, he pays his way. we split bills 50/50, except the phone, which is split according to who made which calls, and if he needs to borrow money off me, he always pays it back, even though i amn't keeping count at all, and dont care at all if he pays it back or not.

in a hypothetical sense, maybe it's not ideal, but honestly, i dont think i'd change it for the wrold (though would maybe like some more pay per hour for me ).

Trinity

CathyMoran wrote: »

I originally went out with very ambitious men, it was not about the money but their personality at the time that attracted me. Then as I got older I realised that these men were too caught up in their jobs to ever think about me. In the end of the day I wanted someone who would hold my head when I was getting sick, not be too busy in a meeting. I would like to have more money sure, but we are happy the way we are and he looks after me when I am ill and I do the same and he will be an excellent father some day who has time for his kids.

Thats just it. The one with money from the well to do family was a workaholic, no time for anyone and ended up abandoning (more or less) his child.

The one with less money that gets up in the morning goes to work comes home and gives the baby a cuddle and his last bottle is the one that makes life better in a non-financial way

Dudess

Well if a guy is disabled, that's a different story. It's not as if it's a case of him not bothering to get a job.

BKtje

As a teenager i always dreamed of having loads of money but these days i couldn't care less as long as i can get done what i want with the odd holiday thrown in.

I don't really care about money, i mean i'll happilly pay for lunches even with friends and never think about it again. Guess i'm just fairly loose with money when i have any amount of it. That said i've had a very easy life finances wise and am very grateful for it so it's never been a huge worry for me yet.

yoga_girl

interesting thread...hmm i've got to agree with other posters on this one, if i'm being honest i do want a man who has a healthy level of ambition and desire for a comfortable enough life.

that said i frequently get (jokingly) called a gold digger by friends due to the huge disparity in wealth between myself and my boyfriend. a bit ridiculous as we've known each other for 7 years and have been together off and on for the past 4. i think its because i've chosen a career in the health service which means my earning power is limited, while he has a well paid corporate job, and comes from a very wealthy family. he thinks its funny when people say it but it does wreck my head sometimes! :mad:

Pythia

Myself and the boyf are from almost exactly the same socio-economic backgrounds, it's almost weird. I dunno if it just happened that way, or was that one of the reasons we clicked so well.

I find it helpful though, makes a lot of things level.

Abi

Crumble Froo wrote: »

oh man, funny reading this thread. im working away at a job that doesnt pay well, but it's a job i love. my hours arent long which gives me more time to do what i love, so im pretty poor

Au contraire, you are the richest person I know.


Most high-earning jobs carry high stress along with it. But the cost of living has most of us fighting for all we can get in order scrape by, and cuts badly into our own personal time. The choice has been removed for a lot of people


Any jobs goin'? :pac:

Wibbs

Women go for as high a social status guy as their attractiveness will allow. Men go for as high an attractiveness in their female partner as their status will allow. Men are more mobile in that equation. Successful couples have almost identical socially defined status. Pretty short Wibbism there.

tribulus

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty short Wibbism there.

I coined a boards phrase, I don't know if that makes me cool or sad. Pffft, of course I know :cool::cool::cool:

CathyMoran

Wibbs wrote: »

Women go for as high a social status guy as their attractiveness will allow. Men go for as high an attractiveness in their female partner as their status will allow. Men are more mobile in that equation. Successful couples have almost identical socially defined status. Pretty short Wibbism there.

I disagree with this - sometimes you just go for someone because their personality and life views click. My husband is actually from a higher socio-economic background than me but because of a disability can not work the hours it would require to move further up the ladder than his parents. My father worked hard but always had time for us kids, nowadays it is harder to get that work life balance and in the end of the day I realised how important it was to have someone there for you when you were sick (and vice versa). I want him, not his money (having said that we are comfortable, just not stinking rich). Intelligence is another thing entirely though...