3 ms·
Makes you quite vulnerable to a layoff if an entire family is riding on one person's employer. No thanks to that.
by silverquiet 3y ago
Makes you quite vulnerable to a layoff if an entire family is riding on one person's employer. No thanks to that.
- Hamuko 3y agoAnd obviously vulnerable to your husband if he controls your entire financial future.
- Jensson 3y agoBasically every first world country already fixed that by forcing ex husbands to pay after the divorce in some way.
- AdrianB1 3y agoAnd the result is a huge drop in marriage rates. The problem did exist for millennia, but the modern laws destroyed marriage without bringing a net positive outcome.
- badpun 3y agoWomen equality destroyed marriage. Before women could work in attractive jobs, a marriage was often only way for a woman to a middle class lifestyle. The husband was a neccessity. Now, women can just get a job that provides such lifestyle, so they marry for love and not for money.
- AdrianB1 3y ago"marry for love" does not last. It makes the marriage a chronometer for infatuation. Not saying marrying for money is better, marrying for long term family partnership is neither of these.
- hagbard_c 3y agoThat's what unemployment insurance is there to take care of, the idea being that there is another job to be had. Of course I'm speaking from a European - Swedish and Dutch specifically - perspective so things may not be as 'easy' in countries where there is no such thing. Do mind though that unemployment insurance should be time-limited and there should be incentives to find alternative employment to avoid the system becoming a replacement for paid employment which leads both to dependency on the side of the unemployed as well as eventual insolvency of the insurance system.