9 ms·

> Since divorce became acceptable, it became a huge liability for women to exit the workforce and permanently give up earning power to raise children. Where ar

> Since divorce became acceptable, it became a huge liability for women to exit the workforce and permanently give up earning power to raise children. Where are these anecdotes from? Of the divorced men I know in California - they're on the hook for a lot of money. Their wives chose to not work (first few years to do childcare - remaining years because they didn't want to). The women didn't want to be in the relationship anymore and got a divorce. The men end up owing their spouses alimony for decades plus child support (regardless of where the kids spend the most time). As a straight man, I've decided to not marry based on their horror stories alone. I see marrying someone who wants to be a SAHM as a huge financial liability not in just temporary loss of earning potential but in near permanent levels of loss due to potential divorce.

rayiner 6y ago
My mother in law gave up a job as an executive (where she was earning more than her surgeon husband) to be a stay at home mom. Coming back into the workforce 20 years later when the marriage deteriorated was nearly impossible. I don’t know what horror stories you’ve seen. But for most ordinary men, alimony and child support add up to very little. If you make $75,000, maintenance for a 15 year marriage in which the other spouse earned nothing adds up to $22,000 a year. And it ends in about 11 years. A significant hit, no doubt, but if the other spouse had similar earning potential (which is typical these days—people tend to match up with people of similar education) it won’t come close to covering the lifetime loss in post-divorce earnings. It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days.
- bradlys 6y ago
  > Coming back into the workforce 20 years later when the marriage deteriorated was nearly impossible. But - isn't giving up work for 20 years her choice? For the men I know - the payments turn into about 1/3 of their net income. For the ultra rich and even the higher up FAANG, it's not really the end of the world. For the startup software engineer, it's devastating because they can't even exercise their options anymore. The payments AFAIK aren't for 11 years - it's longer. Some of them weren't with their partner for 15 years. I think it falls all on what judge you get. $22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000. Especially when you don't actually get $75000/yr and you still have to pay $22,000 net. > It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days. Maybe more people would marry between incomes if the high earning partner wouldn't be out at least 1/3 of their income for over a decade. I'm currently in a relationship with someone who has no hopes of making any money close to what I do - marriage ain't happening and they know why.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    It's not fair to blame people for "choosing" to have children because, in the aggregate, the majority of people need to have children in order for society to survive. So it's not really a choice if a majority of people have to do it or everything goes to shit; it's more like volunteering to take on a necessary burden (that admittedly has its rewards too). A better outcome here would've been if she hadn't needed to give up her job to have kids, like if there had been universal childcare and her work was more accommodating of mothers. > $22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000. If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k!
    - bradlys 6y ago
      > It's not fair to blame people for "choosing" to have children because, in the aggregate, the majority of people need to have children in order for society to survive. So it's not really a choice if a majority of people have to do it or everything goes to shit. You don't need childcare for /20/ years. If you're a stay at home parent for 20 years, that is most definitely a choice. > If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k! I don't know why you think two people are surviving on $22k? It's one person and they can still get a job and keep the income. The $75k becomes $54,000 after tax. Which then becomes $32,000. So, bye bye 40% of your net income. In many cases - having a spouse living with you doesn't require spending 40% of your net income every month.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        You don't need childcare for /20/ years. That very much depends on circumstances. If you have two children born one right after another, probably not. If, however, your spacing is more spread, say, you have two children first, and then another child 8 years later, you'll easily need childcare for 15 consecutive years. My youngest sister is 11 years younger than me, and I'm not even the oldest of my siblings.
        6y ago
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  In Islamic societies and in some Indian societies, dowry is actually given to the bride when they get married. If there is a divorce or separation, the husband has no claim over any assets she brings in or is gifted before the wedding. Maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea.
satyrnein 6y ago
Surely you've heard of abused spouses staying with their abusers, because with no earning power they have no options?
snowwrestler 6y ago
Alimony and child support are undoubtedly significant burdens on the person paying them. But for the person receiving them, they are nowhere near what that person could be earning as a professional with a continuously developing career. And that's what rayiner is really talking about. Also, just because someone is required to pay alimony or child support, it does not mean they will. Some people just skip out on it and dare the system to catch them; others fall on hard times themselves and can't pay what they intended to. Either way, it's a fragile situation for the recipient, compared to having their own job and income.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  But for the person receiving them, they are nowhere near what that person could be earning as a professional with a continuously developing career. You are comparing here two different situations: one is actively working and building a career, and the other one is not having to do anything and have the money deposited to your account every month. Sure, the former usually will result in more money in your bank account, but the latter has pretty huge benefit of not actually having to do anything to earn it. I'd happily take 50% pay cut if I could, you know, quit my job and get the money anyway.
andrewprock 6y ago
They may be on the hook for a lot of money, but that is due in large part to the fact that the economic footprint of supporting two households is much larger than supporting one household.

rayiner 6y ago

My mother in law gave up a job as an executive (where she was earning more than her surgeon husband) to be a stay at home mom. Coming back into the workforce 20 years later when the marriage deteriorated was nearly impossible. I don’t know what horror stories you’ve seen. But for most ordinary men, alimony and child support add up to very little. If you make $75,000, maintenance for a 15 year marriage in which the other spouse earned nothing adds up to $22,000 a year. And it ends in about 11 years. A significant hit, no doubt, but if the other spouse had similar earning potential (which is typical these days—people tend to match up with people of similar education) it won’t come close to covering the lifetime loss in post-divorce earnings. It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days.

bradlys 6y ago
> Coming back into the workforce 20 years later when the marriage deteriorated was nearly impossible. But - isn't giving up work for 20 years her choice? For the men I know - the payments turn into about 1/3 of their net income. For the ultra rich and even the higher up FAANG, it's not really the end of the world. For the startup software engineer, it's devastating because they can't even exercise their options anymore. The payments AFAIK aren't for 11 years - it's longer. Some of them weren't with their partner for 15 years. I think it falls all on what judge you get. $22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000. Especially when you don't actually get $75000/yr and you still have to pay $22,000 net. > It can be different if a high earning person marries someone who has limited earning power, but that’s the exception these days. Maybe more people would marry between incomes if the high earning partner wouldn't be out at least 1/3 of their income for over a decade. I'm currently in a relationship with someone who has no hopes of making any money close to what I do - marriage ain't happening and they know why.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  It's not fair to blame people for "choosing" to have children because, in the aggregate, the majority of people need to have children in order for society to survive. So it's not really a choice if a majority of people have to do it or everything goes to shit; it's more like volunteering to take on a necessary burden (that admittedly has its rewards too). A better outcome here would've been if she hadn't needed to give up her job to have kids, like if there had been universal childcare and her work was more accommodating of mothers. > $22000/yr is a lot for someone only making $75000. If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k!
  - bradlys 6y ago
    > It's not fair to blame people for "choosing" to have children because, in the aggregate, the majority of people need to have children in order for society to survive. So it's not really a choice if a majority of people have to do it or everything goes to shit. You don't need childcare for /20/ years. If you're a stay at home parent for 20 years, that is most definitely a choice. > If you think $53k is rough for one person to survive on, wait till you see how hard it is for two people to survive on $22k! I don't know why you think two people are surviving on $22k? It's one person and they can still get a job and keep the income. The $75k becomes $54,000 after tax. Which then becomes $32,000. So, bye bye 40% of your net income. In many cases - having a spouse living with you doesn't require spending 40% of your net income every month.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      You don't need childcare for /20/ years. That very much depends on circumstances. If you have two children born one right after another, probably not. If, however, your spacing is more spread, say, you have two children first, and then another child 8 years later, you'll easily need childcare for 15 consecutive years. My youngest sister is 11 years younger than me, and I'm not even the oldest of my siblings.
      - 6y ago
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
In Islamic societies and in some Indian societies, dowry is actually given to the bride when they get married. If there is a divorce or separation, the husband has no claim over any assets she brings in or is gifted before the wedding. Maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea.

satyrnein 6y ago

Surely you've heard of abused spouses staying with their abusers, because with no earning power they have no options?

snowwrestler 6y ago

Alimony and child support are undoubtedly significant burdens on the person paying them. But for the person receiving them, they are nowhere near what that person could be earning as a professional with a continuously developing career. And that's what rayiner is really talking about. Also, just because someone is required to pay alimony or child support, it does not mean they will. Some people just skip out on it and dare the system to catch them; others fall on hard times themselves and can't pay what they intended to. Either way, it's a fragile situation for the recipient, compared to having their own job and income.

xyzzyz 6y ago
But for the person receiving them, they are nowhere near what that person could be earning as a professional with a continuously developing career. You are comparing here two different situations: one is actively working and building a career, and the other one is not having to do anything and have the money deposited to your account every month. Sure, the former usually will result in more money in your bank account, but the latter has pretty huge benefit of not actually having to do anything to earn it. I'd happily take 50% pay cut if I could, you know, quit my job and get the money anyway.

andrewprock 6y ago

They may be on the hook for a lot of money, but that is due in large part to the fact that the economic footprint of supporting two households is much larger than supporting one household.