4 ms·

Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. Are you saying she should be able to control the fate of his company just because she’s ma

Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. Are you saying she should be able to control the fate of his company just because she’s married to him? You think this remotely makes her qualified? Attitudes like this are what force people to marry within their class which is bad for society in the long run. By being able to marry outside your class without fear of being wiped out, a (usually) woman can move up (in addition to all the other ways available to her) and likely her family gets access to some of that. To see what happens when people must marry within their class, look no further than European nobility. Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Flip this around. Suppose I’m a lowly programmer. I marry a super rich supermodel. Am I entitled to her money just because?

alehul 7y ago
> Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Alternatively, say you are building a company worth 100m on paper, and as a result, when she ends up pregnant with kids, you insist that she should work less hours, or maybe stop working altogether, in order to take care of them. (After all, you are busy building a company worth 100m on paper). You don't think she is entitled to a large fraction of that? Why not? Marriage isn't meant for you to protect your winnings from the Silicon Valley startup lottery; it's meant to allow for partnership, which includes earning your way in the world together and making choices together, to benefit the family, with security for both partners in the worst-case event of a divorce.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  Again flip it around. Is he entitled to half of the super models pagentry winnings and endorsements just for helping raise kids? It's easy to estimate how much his life earnings decreased raising the kids. Estimate it and add 30% and that's the limit. There's no reason why the party should just absorb half of a person's wealth for marrying and divorcing them.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Wouldn't homo economicus hire a stay at home nanny in that situation? Seems like a situation incompatible with the wealth optimizer who would worry about these things.
  - celticninja 7y ago
    No, because the economic return on the child would be better with a committed parental unit, rather than a temporary paid associate, whose concern starts and ends with the pay checks.
nullc 7y ago
> Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. It shouldn't be in the long run. You might go in fairly imbalanced but that imbalance should shrink over time. Just like one co-founder might bring more capital into a business, but they both work at it and become more equal over time. If not, that's not really a partnership-- it's employment. > Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Building, not already have built. If you are the sort of person who could build a $100m business and your prospective partner isn't someone who amplifies your potential substantially then you are selling yourself short. I think many people underestimate how enabling a good spouse can be to their business success when the spouse isn't directly helping in the business. Even if they do nothing more than consistently provide emotional support and stability, provide you with intimacy without the drama potential of dating, and offer you an occasional outside perspective that you can trust to not turn on you-- then that alone is a tremendous value that would be difficult to buy at almost any price (or at least at any price you could afford _before_ you built the $100m business). And that alone is a pretty low bar. Often one spouse or the other takes a major career setback in order to manage the household and children, in many relationships your spouse is a trusted advisor that helps you navigate the politics of your industry or by giving you the confidence to make extremely risky moves by letting you know that even if everything goes wrong they'll still be there with you. A great partner enhances your success by adding additional meaning to your life and reasons to be successful in the first place, they coach you, and pick you up and dust you off when you're down. If you're actually capable of building a $100m business you deserve a spouse of a similar caliber-- with at least complementary skills. And if they're actually enabling you, then -- sure they do deserve a decent chunk, perhaps not half, and perhaps it would be reasonable that they shouldn't be able to force you to liquidate your position. And since you haven't built that $100m business yet there is a extremely high risk that you won't succeed in at all. The vast majority of businesses fail. Your spouse takes part of that risk too, so they should also get part of the payoff. Someone who loses the financial standing that you built as a couple isn't someone who had their class elevated by your relationship-- they're someone who just temporarily had the ability to make use of the benefits of your class by proxy. As you said, > gets access to some of that That sort of thing easily becomes toxic-- resulting in people staying with people they can't stand because they'll be financially screwed if they separate. Going back to the business analogy... you and a partner create a business together and you manage to get them to accept an agreement that gives them only a tiny portion of the equity you received because you provided some initial business contacts or capital or whatever excuse. But after that, you both worth hard at it. When down the road your position is worth $10m and theirs is worth $200k, whats that going to do their loyalty and dedication to the effort? When that business started perhaps on day 1 it was worth only the (say) $200k you put into it. Over time it grew to $10.2M in value, and both of you worked for that increase. So in the beginning your split should be 200/0 and towards the end closer to 5.2/5 or at least that's an outcome that won't produce loyalty and motivation problems. > Flip this around. Suppose I’m a lowly programmer. I marry a super rich supermodel. Am I entitled to her money just because? Her money from her 'super rich' status before your marriage? No-- and a no-prenup marriage wouldn't entitle you to it. Assets you owned coming into the marriage don't get split. A share of the assets she earned while you were married? sure! Presumably you were contributing substantially, even if not by bringing in piles of income yourself, or otherwise why the heck would she have married you?

alehul 7y ago

> Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Say she was an accountant when we met and continues to be one after. Sure, she can’t tell me what mansion to buy, etc, but those are things to work out. Am I a guy to totally ignore her desires? If so, she shouldn’t marry me. Alternatively, say you are building a company worth 100m on paper, and as a result, when she ends up pregnant with kids, you insist that she should work less hours, or maybe stop working altogether, in order to take care of them. (After all, you are busy building a company worth 100m on paper). You don't think she is entitled to a large fraction of that? Why not? Marriage isn't meant for you to protect your winnings from the Silicon Valley startup lottery; it's meant to allow for partnership, which includes earning your way in the world together and making choices together, to benefit the family, with security for both partners in the worst-case event of a divorce.

thatoneuser 7y ago
Again flip it around. Is he entitled to half of the super models pagentry winnings and endorsements just for helping raise kids? It's easy to estimate how much his life earnings decreased raising the kids. Estimate it and add 30% and that's the limit. There's no reason why the party should just absorb half of a person's wealth for marrying and divorcing them.
scarejunba 7y ago
Wouldn't homo economicus hire a stay at home nanny in that situation? Seems like a situation incompatible with the wealth optimizer who would worry about these things.
- celticninja 7y ago
  No, because the economic return on the child would be better with a committed parental unit, rather than a temporary paid associate, whose concern starts and ends with the pay checks.

nullc 7y ago

> Power imbalance is the consequence of marrying up/down economically. It shouldn't be in the long run. You might go in fairly imbalanced but that imbalance should shrink over time. Just like one co-founder might bring more capital into a business, but they both work at it and become more equal over time. If not, that's not really a partnership-- it's employment. > Seriously, say I am building a company worth 100m on paper. You think if I marry someone she should be entitled to a large fraction of that? Why? Let’s assume she doesn’t do anything with the business. Building, not already have built. If you are the sort of person who could build a $100m business and your prospective partner isn't someone who amplifies your potential substantially then you are selling yourself short. I think many people underestimate how enabling a good spouse can be to their business success when the spouse isn't directly helping in the business. Even if they do nothing more than consistently provide emotional support and stability, provide you with intimacy without the drama potential of dating, and offer you an occasional outside perspective that you can trust to not turn on you-- then that alone is a tremendous value that would be difficult to buy at almost any price (or at least at any price you could afford _before_ you built the $100m business). And that alone is a pretty low bar. Often one spouse or the other takes a major career setback in order to manage the household and children, in many relationships your spouse is a trusted advisor that helps you navigate the politics of your industry or by giving you the confidence to make extremely risky moves by letting you know that even if everything goes wrong they'll still be there with you. A great partner enhances your success by adding additional meaning to your life and reasons to be successful in the first place, they coach you, and pick you up and dust you off when you're down. If you're actually capable of building a $100m business you deserve a spouse of a similar caliber-- with at least complementary skills. And if they're actually enabling you, then -- sure they do deserve a decent chunk, perhaps not half, and perhaps it would be reasonable that they shouldn't be able to force you to liquidate your position. And since you haven't built that $100m business yet there is a extremely high risk that you won't succeed in at all. The vast majority of businesses fail. Your spouse takes part of that risk too, so they should also get part of the payoff. Someone who loses the financial standing that you built as a couple isn't someone who had their class elevated by your relationship-- they're someone who just temporarily had the ability to make use of the benefits of your class by proxy. As you said, > gets access to some of that That sort of thing easily becomes toxic-- resulting in people staying with people they can't stand because they'll be financially screwed if they separate. Going back to the business analogy... you and a partner create a business together and you manage to get them to accept an agreement that gives them only a tiny portion of the equity you received because you provided some initial business contacts or capital or whatever excuse. But after that, you both worth hard at it. When down the road your position is worth $10m and theirs is worth $200k, whats that going to do their loyalty and dedication to the effort? When that business started perhaps on day 1 it was worth only the (say) $200k you put into it. Over time it grew to $10.2M in value, and both of you worked for that increase. So in the beginning your split should be 200/0 and towards the end closer to 5.2/5 or at least that's an outcome that won't produce loyalty and motivation problems. > Flip this around. Suppose I’m a lowly programmer. I marry a super rich supermodel. Am I entitled to her money just because? Her money from her 'super rich' status before your marriage? No-- and a no-prenup marriage wouldn't entitle you to it. Assets you owned coming into the marriage don't get split. A share of the assets she earned while you were married? sure! Presumably you were contributing substantially, even if not by bringing in piles of income yourself, or otherwise why the heck would she have married you?