4 ms·

IMO, the problem with divorce is that the payout is given at the time of betrayal/leaving not the time of loyalty. Hear me out. Imagine you work at a company.

IMO, the problem with divorce is that the payout is given at the time of betrayal/leaving not the time of loyalty. Hear me out. Imagine you work at a company. You do good work. You get a salary and some stock. The company is not publicly traded, but rather buys back the shares you own when you leave. The salary part makes sense - you are getting paid while being with the company. The second part does not. The company is rewarding you just as you’re walking out the door! Even worse if you’re fired for performance, theft, consulting on the side, etc. This is exactly what divorce often looks like. Suppose he makes a lot more than she. She could never afford the house herself. She is a loyal wife, makes him feel at home, etc. He is a loyal husband, works hard, provides enough for a decent home, etc. She earns what she gets above her salary through her domestic work. This is often quoted by feminist groups. Now at some point she wants to leave, turning his life upside down. It is at this point he must reward her! Or worse, he catches her cheating, and now must reward her when she wasn’t even doing the most basic thing to deserve living in the house to begin with! It would be far better if her compensation was complete as time went by. Like now, a company pays you ever two weeks grants you stock every month or so. There is no significant payout on your last day. This is how marriage should be. Ideally there would be some agreed upon value of her labor that she would collect every month or so. It could be cash, or payment to some insurance that would pay for housing and job training for her upon a divorce. The point is, for the most part, when they split, she had a predefined benefit, enough to start her life again and reflect the value of her work. Most importantly, there would be a stronger sense that it was earned on both sides because she accrued the money while in good standing. Obviously switch the sexes as the situation permits, etc. This should be the default, not part of a prenup that puts you on the defensive for “predicting a divorce”.

HPsquared 5y ago
People can be just as irrational in the "good times", this way can still end up with an unfair distribution.
dTal 5y ago
I suspect you're being downvoted because this is a highly capitalist and unromantic way of viewing a marriage. But of course it's only an extension of the capitalist and unromantic logic behind alimony in the first place. At worst you have written a piercing satire in the spirit of "A Modest Proposal", and at best you may have the beginnings of an actual idea.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
This is already how it works. Your suggestion is analogous to working at a bank, putting your salary and savings in the same bank that you work at for decades and when you leave for a better job the bank gets pissy about you taking "their" money out of the bank to take with you.
satyrnein 5y ago
The mistake is in your premise that the husband is "rewarding" the wife at the time of her departure, that he is giving her something that is "his". The reality is that the husband and wife both own 50% of the house the entire time, and either party can choose to divorce and cash out their half. Every day that you are married, you are saying that whatever assets or debts come into the marital unit that day are 50% owned by both parties. In that sense, nothing is actually "redistributed" at the time of dissolution.

HPsquared 5y ago

People can be just as irrational in the "good times", this way can still end up with an unfair distribution.

dTal 5y ago

I suspect you're being downvoted because this is a highly capitalist and unromantic way of viewing a marriage. But of course it's only an extension of the capitalist and unromantic logic behind alimony in the first place. At worst you have written a piercing satire in the spirit of "A Modest Proposal", and at best you may have the beginnings of an actual idea.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

This is already how it works. Your suggestion is analogous to working at a bank, putting your salary and savings in the same bank that you work at for decades and when you leave for a better job the bank gets pissy about you taking "their" money out of the bank to take with you.

satyrnein 5y ago

The mistake is in your premise that the husband is "rewarding" the wife at the time of her departure, that he is giving her something that is "his". The reality is that the husband and wife both own 50% of the house the entire time, and either party can choose to divorce and cash out their half. Every day that you are married, you are saying that whatever assets or debts come into the marital unit that day are 50% owned by both parties. In that sense, nothing is actually "redistributed" at the time of dissolution.