Even in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when I worked at DOL I interviewed a lot of woman stay at home and even working women who went through a late divorce. They were all royally screwed. And the worst was the stay at homes had a bleak future facing them as far as long term economic security. Even with alimony laws a lot of males went home free and paid nothing. And there was pretty ineffective enforcement.

Today we have maintenance laws but they are unevenly enforced. What makes it worse if the white makes as a class have seen a drop in income and can barely support themselves.

This latest trend if particularly troubling because the job market is so bad that there is little prospect of making a decent income in a now low wage economy. Plus so many jobs are only part time. Even experienced people are competing for what was once "throw away" jobs or "food stamps". I.E. Jobs you can actually work full time and still qualify for food stamps.

Those women from the 70s, 80s are now elderly. They were royally screwed in the divorces, and part of that was often the hiding of the husband's assets that was encouraged by their lawyers.

Too, those women most often had no "career" to fall back on. Their career, their training, their experience was as homemakers.

And now they are in the so-called safety net that is shrinking for them yearly.

for the traditional male theocons' war on women's equality and rights? For their attempts to turn back the clock to a time when women's wellbeing strongly depended on successful marriage?

Could it also have an element of the more liberal recognition that women have both equal rights and responsibilities? If the latter, somehow I would expect a higher value to be assigned to the female's contribution, and its costs, to this mutually agreed marriage partnership.

I know what I would expect a search to turn up. After all, the right has been packing the courts for decades, and this has their stamp all over it. This trend strongly shifts power to the husbands, and if it continues it will severely limit the freedom of many traditional wives, causing most to fear losing their husbands, just like the good old days, and forcing too many to choose between remaining in bad marriages or living in poverty.



Ironic that it is stay-at-home wives in traditional marriages who will be hurt by far the worst. I think I'll start spreading this little tidbit around.

“There is little sympathy for women who quit their jobs to stay home from the courts, particularly when the magistrate is a woman who has worked her way up as a lawyer — most likely having to put her own children in daycare to earn a seat on the bench.”

Maybe latent resentment or guilt?

protective toward, women than men do. Probably many are capable of assessing costs to the choices made without resentment. I do wonder how very conservative female judges are viewing this shift of power back to a traditional family value version but suspect many of them are ruthless in pursuit of core principles.

It's about Marilyn Waring the youngest and first female MP elected in NZ. She discovered quickly how demented economic policies were in pretty much every nation in the UN. It showed how a homemakers value to the economy is not taken into consideration at all.
Here's the link if you're interested. http://www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/ I just checked and it's still available. I know I was truly impressed. We could use about 535 more of her here in this country.
With regard to the OP, I couldn't and shouldn't make any broad statement on the subject. I've seen the three major problems with the situation being abused by one party or another. The rather well off man or just total asshole who hides assets or just walks away from responsibility, the average guy who can't subsist on what is left after alimony and child support (generally justified but sometimes impossible to fulfill), the angry or spiteful wife who will do anything to get as much as possible, or the ideological judge who can't evaluate fact because of ideological bias.
For myself and I expect everyone else, divorce is a painful process but when one party tries to "game the system" for their benefit at the expense of the other there needs to be a fair and considered arbiter to try and find the best compromise for all. Unfortunately, our legal system has proven to be anything but that.
Since we are approaching an election that brings up a trying point for me. Those elections for judges have consequences that could help or hurt the community in general but we pretty much have little if any information on which to base our judgement. When the election is non-partisan you don't even know which party principles they agree with. I worked with and around a number of attorneys that could inform me but that was decades ago. If you think it matters, as I do, find attorneys that have to deal with the candidates and buy them a drink, a cup of Joe, or a dinner, and find out if they have their had screwed on straight or are just ideologues or assholes.

Wow! Great information!

Alimony's original ideal is that the husband must support the wife, as she is unable to do so herself. It's based on a sexist ideal, that a woman has to have a husband if she is to live a 'good' life.

On paper you'd think that getting rid of this would be a step towards gender equality though in practice it's likely to do the opposite.

went out to work. We'd grown up with mothers who were forced to be SAHMs whether they wanted it or not.

We saw friends whose daddies walked away from marriages and whose mothers ended up on welfare because being a waitress or secretary didn't pay the bills. We saw a few particularly unlucky friends who had to move into public housing because Mom lost the house. Once the divorce was in and alimony assessed, few women actually got more than a few payments. There was little will to track men down and force them to pay.

The last thing we wanted to be was trapped into low income work because we'd been out of the work force for 15 years raising children. We knew marriage was a crapshoot and "happily ever after" was a convenient way to end fairy tales.

I don't know if younger women have been brave or foolish to go the SAHM route. I just know it's incredibly risky for them.

Even recent experience in low wage jobs isn't worth much if anything. It's another example of judges having NO exposure to the everyday life of the average citizen!

Once you've been laid off, no matter what the reason, it is O so difficult to get back into the workforce and anyone not recognizing that probably just hasn't been gifted with that lovely experience.

She was not a stay at home mom but the judge saw the income disparity between me and her and gave her $300 a month for 5 years which was not really a big deal since my child support was only $1200 for two kids.

go through some job training and maybe an internship before being cut lose. I do have a few passions that could make money if I had the right training.

Reagan era. And I wouldn't count on a judge who denied you alimony awarding thousands for belated education.

I think of our conservative-minded daughter, a stay-at-home wife and mom who abandoned an early career to become mommy to their children. Their mutual wish. I genuinely like and respect our son-in-law, a really good husband and father, but he's handsome and well to do - and famous in his family for his selfishness, while she's nearing 40 and he soon won't need a stay-at-home mother for his children. She works a little bit part time in "their" business and keeps her figure toned like a good country club wife should, but I don't think greeting him at the door with a martini and slippers would keep him in the marriage if he ever got tired of it.

and staying home with children scare me. My husband has a friend who was just divorced and he is paying temporary alimony. I have looked into the law in my state and I am entitled to temporary alimony. I am not afraid to fight for my rights and I know there are job training programs in my area. I have already looked into a program at one of my local community colleges that I am interested in. It's job training for being a lab technician. My children are getting older and I am interested in finding something that I am interested in to occupy my time. I plan on going back to community college part time to study both chemistry and finance. I have always loved science and over the years I have found I am better with the family money than my husband is. So, I wouldn't mind going to school to learn how to invest. I'm not sure which one I enjoy more so I will take some classes from both to help me figure it out.

"Not sure which I enjoy more" is a lovely place to be.

and can have long-term negative effects on your ability to support yourself (and your kids) if you end up divorced. Depending on one person for total support is very risky.

I worry a great deal about this potential problem for him. Additionally, he is treated in a way that most women would find offensive; TOTAL control of the money rests with the wife and he has no access to any of it. Even when she goes out of town and he is home with the kids. She does all the ghopping. Sometimes he gives me a ride somewhere so I can give him a few dollars "gas money."

Even my pathologically narcissistic and abusive husband wasn't that controlling.

Sounds like he needs to get out, pronto, while he can still re enter the job market, cause he's less likely to get alimony than a woman. Unfortunately.

....but they just got a puppy that is a baby and requires constant attention.

Go figure.

I have only spoken to him about this once, a few weeks ago. I said "I'm going to say something once, and I won't mention it again. You don't need to reply. When one person is the stay at home, they generally have some access to the household money. It would be considered abusive for a working man to keep total control of the money." That's all I said. I should have also brought up the facts of community property, but I didn't think to do that.

while my ex work 20 hours per week and hung out with friends 20 more hours per week.

She had almost total control of the money because I never went out or visited my own friends.

Terrible life, nobody should go through that.

Supporting me through a career setback soon became control and sabotage. She wanted me to be a full-time errand boy for misc. organizations, politicians and causes she supported. In my state of mind at that time in my life I might have gone along with that had she not also become completely obnoxious in other ways and begun dragging me all over the place just so I could be abandoned in a hotel room, sort of like a dog tied up outside Starbucks.

We got some great, and loyal, people that way.

I detect the slimy hand of ALEC behind this.

This has been the case in most states at least as far back as the 80s and definitely in the early 90s while I was in law school. Each state has its guidelines for when judges can/should/must award alimony, but even that long ago they were rapidly rewriting laws to restrict alimony at the same time the judges were becoming more and more reluctant to award it. This story could easily have been written 20 years ago. Our professors made it crystal clear that alimony was rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Couples should make decisions about this sort of thing together, at the point when they still love each other, and if they can't reach an agreement that's probably an indication that they shouldn't get married.

A marriage is almost certainly the most important contract you'll ever sign. Practically any other contract contains details of what happens if it's breached or wound up; omitting them from the most important ones is perverse.

Typical case- the woman is nearing fifty, and the couple agreed years ago the woman should stay home, quit work and raise the children. When the husband files for divorce, the women are getting short term maintenance and child support. Since the kids are usually in their teen years, child support is not long term, these women need to get training, education and produce an income within two years or they and the kids suffer a serious life style shift.

I think to myself frequently that I would tell a daughter who wishes to pause or quit a career for her family, when both husband and wife agree, to have a pre-nup or post-nup, setting out what happens if the husband decided to divorce.

No one ever thinks they're going to need it, but such an agreement done at the time of the wedding or as children are being born, can be very important. If not for the parent, then for the children.

Not a good idea to abandon independence entirely. Because, ultimately, you cannot and should not be totally dependent upon another person for you financial well-being. Too many people get screwed over. We hear this story time and time again.

The kids are the primary reason someone in the marriage has given up their career and staying at home.

My wife keeps toying with the idea of giving up her teaching position and becoming a full time blogger (she has never blogged before and doesn't even have a twitter account). She has 50K in student debt that I mainly pay for. If she quits teaching I will be paying for it all. And a divorce would just split the debt with me while I split my savings with her. All I can do is tell her we need 2 incomes to live and let her make her choices...

happen. I have been happily married for 20 years and have been a stay at home mom for 20 years. I love my life. If my marriage ended tomorrow I would do what needed to be done to start my life as a single person. I would file for temporary alimony. I would get my own place. I would try to get a job and I would go back to school.

The temporary alimony? That's kind of the point here.

state. In my state temporary alimony is awarded. My husband actually has a friend that just got divorced and is paying temporary alimony.

Temporary alimony to get set up is fine.

has other silly ideas, like giving a good father a chance at primary custody of a child in a divorce. Probably true... what a nut case

a good father DOES have a chance at primary custody.

is the law of the land judges should hold off on reducing anything that will help keep someone above the poverty line. And unless they can guarantee the person can obtain a job even with a large gap of time between jobs, they better rethink this. The last thing this country needs is more people in poverty.

I'm sorry but say you have a spouse who cheats on his\her wife who has stayed at home to care for the kids and keep the house.He/she shouldn't get to dance off with his\her new tryst scot free with all the money, and leave his/her spouse with nothing.

Most employers do ask about gaps in work history and willfully and knowingly discriminate against people no matter what the law says, mainly because a lot of times the laws are not properly enforced.

No I am not divorced, I have never been married, but I have faced discrimination in the past on jobs and in job hunting in the past due to the fact that I am a woman and because I suffer from chronic depression and anxiety.

on a consistent basis.
http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/08/28/chart-week-where-we-stand-equal-pay-equal-work

who decided to stay home with the kids and the wife worked to support the family.

Here's one example: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-08-03/news/fl-alimony-reform-women-20130731_1_first-wives-first-alimony-reform-alimony-law

but aside from kids, when two people are divorced they should both be independent. Money issues complicate things so much - my sister has been trying to get a divorce finalized for years now. Disagreement over child custody frustrated the first attempt to do it simply, without lawyers. Now it been a year of valuing and dividing assets, including pensions and so forth, and private investigators to track down hidden and undeclared assets - a big bitter mess.

I was lucky in my divorce, as there wasn't much to divide. Two properties worth less than the debts they carried, no real money in the bank and an assortment of other debt we divided according to who's name was on it. And two $1000 cars, I got one, she got one. Pretty easy as well in that neither of us had any intentions of taking the kids away from the other, and its worked out reasonably well. Without worry about being saddled with her debts, or having my income used against me, I've been able to improve my employment situation and better provide for the kids.

If one parent stayed home for a long time, they won't simply be able to become instantly independent. And both partners agreed to that arrangement. One should not be able to waltz off scot free after having agreed to an arrangement that leaves the other in the dust.

An agreement between a couple for one to work and the other to stay home is just that. One works, the other stays home. It isn't an agreement to be on the hook for their financial well-being after a divorce.

If they want that to be the arrangement, they should have to sign a contract stating exactly that.

Which is the reason divorce laws exist.

THey know they're agreeing to an arrangement where one spouse is staying out of the workforce to the detriment of their career. They should be able to walk away from that and leave the other one hanging? How is that right?

Like you said in your other post, the couple isn't planning on getting divorced when they make the arrangement. So how is post-divorce support implied?

When couples make the stay-at-home/working spouse arrangement, they both agree to make sacrifices. Just because one chooses to stay at home doesn't make them some kind of martyr. They do not deserve patronage because they made the decision to stay home instead of work.

When you divorce you are severing whatever ties you have to that person. They are not entitled to anything that wasn't agreed to beforehand, or what isn't communal property. If no one explicitly made the agreement that staying at home means post-divorce payments, how are they entitled to anything?

when both agreed to an arrangement that leaves one spouse at much more of an advantage in earning potential? You refuse to answer that.

You said it yourself: they both agreed to it.

If one spouse willingly makes the choice to not work, they are implicitly accepting everything that comes with it. No where in that agreement is it implied that their spouse is responsible for anything other than supporting them while they are married. They fulfilled their end of the agreement. Once the marriage ends, the agreement is over.

The SAHP can't have it both ways. They can't choose to not work, agree to be supported by their spouse instead of building a work history, and then expect to be paid after divorce because they haven't worked in 20 years.

No. You haven't answered why that is so. Tell me. Why does one spouse get to keep all the goodies when it comes to earning potential while the other flounders?

If you choose to not work and build a work history, it isn't the fault of your ex-spouse that you are unemployable. Your spouse fulfilled their end of the agreement while supporting you while you were married. Once the marriage is over so is the agreement.

Why isn't it the fault of the ex spouse? I thought you conceded that this was a choice that both agreed to? If choices have consequences, why is only one spouse facing the consequence? Both decided that a parent should stay home because they think that is best. So, why is only one paying the price?

I have gone over this repeatedly. When you choose not to work you are implicitly taking on the consequences of that choice. And, unless your spouse forced you into not working, you have made that choice under your own agency. It isn't the fault of your spouse that "stay at home parent" isn't a marketable job skill. If you can't accept that, then you should have an argument with all employers everywhere about their hiring policies.

"So, why is only one paying the price?"

Because their spouse already paid by supporting them throughout the length of the marriage. Why should they have to pay twice?

Your english is fine. Your skills at dodging questions not so much. It's obvious why you don't want to answer. You might as well come out with it.

I'm not dodging anything. I have literally answered every question you have presented. You might not like the reality that there are real world consequences to choices, but it won't change the fact that it's true.

Stay at home spouses accept the risk of not building a work history when they CHOOSE to not work. In return for taking care of the family, they are given support from their working spouse. This agreement is for the length of the marriage. Unless there is some explicit agreement between both spouses for alimony/spousal support in the case of a divorce, the working spouse doesn't own the stay-at-home spouse a damn thing. They have already fulfilled their end of the bargain. Why should they have to pay twice?

It sucks that stay-at-home parents have a hard time finding a job, but no one held a gun to their head and forced then to not work or not develop some skills. They made the choice.

"Are people forced to marry stay at home spouses?"

No. But, they also aren't responsible if their spouse chose to essentially make themselves unemployable by never working. This isn't some kind of modern slavery. People can choose to work anytime they desire. If you choose to base your entire financial well-being on one person, you're probably making a piss poor decision.

edit: " It's obvious why you don't want to answer. You might as well come out with it."

Since I have no clue as to what the fuck you are talking about, why don't you just tell me why I don't want to answer?

Even though both agreed that one of them would stay home. There doesn't have to be an agreement before the divorce. That's what the law is for. Alimony exists to address this. The movement to take it away would harm spouses who stayed home and add to an already growing population of poverty. This would be grossly unfair seeing as both parties agreed. So, I ask again. Why should we add to the growing problem of poverty by taking away alimony and let working spouses off scot free? Working spouses who benefited from having a spouse that stayed home in the first place?

Seriously. If the working spouse supported the family throughout the course to the marriage (fulfilling their end of the agreement), why do they own the SAHP anything? Should they have forced them to work? Should they have accepted that their spouse apparently will not make the correct choices for their own financial well being and made them get a job? Does the working spouse have so much control over a marriage that the SAHP is incapable of personal responsibility?

The working spouse "doesn't face any consequences" because it's not their fault "stay-at-home parent" isn't a marketable job skill. That is just cold hard reality. Divorce shouldn't be about trying to level some kind of cosmic scales. It should be about splitting shared property, deciding custody, assessing child support, and severing entanglements. Looking to create a "consequence" to the working spouse is simply punishing them for the SAHP's choices.

"Why should we add to the growing problem of poverty by taking away alimony and let working spouses off scot free?"

Scot free? What did they do wrong that they need punished? They fulfilled their part of the agreement. They worked while the SAHP stayed home. They don't own them a damn thing once the marriage is finished. It sucks that there's a "growing problem of poverty" but that means exactly jack fucking shit when it comes to divorce. Fixing social ills isn't the jurisdiction of a divorce court.

"The movement to take it away would harm spouses who stayed home and add to an already growing population of poverty."

So? Once again, divorce court isn't for fixing social ills. It is about justly ending a marriage and severing ties. Courts and society are moving away from alimony because it is antiquated bullshit from a time when women couldn't enter the workforce. Those barriers don't exist now, and two income families are the norm.

Wow. Teacher salaries now explained.

The assumption that stay-at-home has no value to the partnership (instead of being an investment) and is someone taking advantage of someone else is really the crux of this, isn't it?

I was just talking with a woman this evening who has been a stay at home for nine years: they had three children in three years. The "added value" she brought to the marriage by carrying the children was not discussed (because frankly, just because surrogates get paid $40k doesn't mean a spouse should get marital credit for such a thing), but we briefly discussed how her child are bill was going to exceed the income her career would provide.

Opportunity cost is a real thing.

It has value, but not everything of value is monetized.

"The assumption that stay-at-home has no value to the partnership (instead of being an investment) and is someone taking advantage of someone else is really the crux of this, isn't it? "

No, that isn't the crux of anything. The crux is the question of whether the SAHP is owed anything because they have withdrawn themselves from the workforce to raise their kids.


"Opportunity cost is a real thing."

Yes, but so is personal choice.

Ask your favorite babysitter.

The automatic assumption by you that staying home with children is "withdrawing from the work force" is (in my opinion) one of the most insane arguments any parent can actually make.

Pretend minimum wage is $10.10 -- child care @ 40 hours (while one member of the team is "at work&quot , plus drive time (usually minimum 5 hours -- one hour each for five days), plus lunch and breaks (another five hours) means "working spouses" are gone from their homes for 50 hours.

50 hours * $10.10 = $505 each week, or $26,260 annually (plus employer costs).

If you pay a nanny or day care provider, that cost can be "per child" or include benefits.

Low income wage earners may choose to "pay" a stay-at-home spouse with the "savings" going to the household.

Invisible money is hard to count: how much is it worth to make sure the quality of care children receive is at a standard that is agreeable to the family? Daycare providers will not take children to the doctor or the dentist, to enrichment activities like the library or the park, etc.

Plus personally, having carried the children / given birth to them, their is no way my husband could ever compensate me appropriately for that (even if one assumes the standard surrogate fee of $40K).

Women do it for "love" - business folks do it for profit.

... and see if employers think it counts as being withdrawn from the workforce.

"Plus personally, having carried the children / given birth to them, their is no way my husband could ever compensate me appropriately for that..."

Why should he ever have to? It's not like you had kids solely for his benefit.

So the partner that stayed home will suffer. It isn't solely for his benefit. But he certainly benefits. Why does all the negative consequences of a decision have to fall on one and not the other?

And the resume isn't the point. All that time child care expenses didn't have to be paid. That was a benefit both parents enjoyed because one parent stayed home, among other benefits from the arrangement.

If you don't like the real world consequence of a decision, don't make that decision.

The working partner missed out on a lot of time with their kids. They may have missed out on first words, first steps, ball games, etc. Why can't they sue for those things? Oh right, because it was the consequence of their decision and you can't wave a fucking magic wand to make them appear. Kind of like how you can't make a person with a 20 gap in their employment history suddenly employable, or put them on the same footing as their ex-spouse that has worked.

Point to the law that says someone has to stay married to someone who quits to become a stay at home parent?

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

... that we have to rehash the entire point of this thread?

This whole thread is about divorcing SAHPs. How has this escaped you?

You are the one who insists that that working parent had no choice in the matter so they shouldn't have to pay the SAHP in the divorce. Which is nonsense.

"You are the one who insists that that working parent had no choice in the matter..."

No. No, I am not, nor have I ever said anything even resembling that. I have stated over, and over, and over, and over, that the SAHP/working spouse model is an "agreement", "choice", "arrangement" between both spouses. A simple glance through all of my posts in this thread would verify that.

The working spouse has come to the agreement with the SAHP that one will work while the other stays at home. Implicit in this agreement is that both will miss out on something. One will miss out on time with their kids, the other will miss out on building a work history. That is a sacrifice both willingly make because it is the opportunity cost of making that decision.

No where in that agreement is it implicit that the working spouse will financially support the SAHP in case of divorce. Alimony/spousal support is a backdoor method of removing the opportunity cost from the SAHP and an undue punishment for the working spouse.

Yes, it sucks that the opportunity cost of being a SAHP is difficulty finding a job. But, that doesn't mean that they are owed anything. If you don't want to accept the costs of being a SAHP, don't be a SAHP.

No one counts on people like you getting their way in having alimony eliminated, for one thing. But generally speaking, people don't plan for divorce. That is what divorce laws are for.

... not implied by not having a work history?

"But generally speaking, people don't plan for divorce."

With about 50% of marriages ending in divorce, that probably isn't a very good idea.

"That is what divorce laws are for. "

Good thing they are changing then.

Is that what you are proposing? Because that will never happen. Or are you only focusing on the ones that affect mostly women, like alimony?

Matters like child custody, child support, and the division of shared assets need to be decided.

"Or are you only focusing on the ones that affect mostly women, like alimony?"

We are discussing alimony, because alimony was the focus of the OP. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't mentioned women once. That's because men and women are choosing to stay at home now. It is my consistent belief that neither men nor women deserve alimony.

"Everything should be mine 'cause I'm the one who worked for it all. All she ever did was sit at home eating bonbons and watching the Soaps.."

Except she washed your socks and took care of the kids and mopped the floors and did the shopping and cooked the meals...


Sounds like someone had a nasty divorce and is caught up in the need to "win".

"Except she washed your socks and took care of the kids and mopped the floors and did the shopping and cooked the meals..."

And? The working spouse worked everyday, provided for the material needs of the family, took on the added stress of being the only income, missed out on time with the kids, etc... So where does the part come in where the working spouse owes the SAHP anything?

They both agreed to the SAHP/worker bargain. Making the worker pay for the choice of the SAHP is as ridiculous and the worker handing the SAHP a bill after the divorce.

"Sounds like someone had a nasty divorce and is caught up in the need to "win". "

Nope. Happily married to my first wife. Been together for years.

without that implicit agreement, none of it would make sense to walk from the workforce for two decades.

hence the benefits to the worker, having a SAHP. everything works to the workers advantage, in job security, advancement, pay increases having a SAHP taking care of all the home issues.

it is called... a partnership.

i know. way out there and all.

... when splitting shared assets?

As you said, it's a partnership. The proceeds from that partnership are retirement savings, assets, investments, 401k's, pensions, etc. These are all subject to division after divorce. Those are all the things they were basing their retirement on when married. Why would the SAHP be entitled to anything more?

which may not be so good. i did not see this in the past. i do get it now.

it is part of the fluid progressive democratic thinker.

we can look at equality as a flat line. and if that line is not flat, then surely things are not equal. but when peeling the onion back, we see that the line we thought was level is not.

so i think you are honestly looking at an equal to the sahp. i appreciate you using parent, cause men are stepping up into this role, and i have nothing but positive to say about that and do not want them to be excluded.

lets look at me, as an example. i spent my 20's working my way up. not thru education, and degrees, but thru business and hard work. i was managing a company and was told, a minimal wage for 5 yrs and then i would get my own business, as i am hitting 30, unmarried, and i would have set my future up nicely.

i owned my own home.

i got married.

i had a baby immediately. oops.

i did not know i would be the type of woman that would want to be a stay at home, but after birth, my hubby and i could not see it any other way, and we could afford it. this is more, i think, an upper middle class issue, today. because without a certain pay, parents cannot do this, do not have the option to do this, and it is simply wrong that choice is not there for parents. but, as we are discussing, it does come with risk.

the minute i walked out of the work force, i left my potential earning for a lifetime.

i recognized this choice and had to have trust in my husband and the knowledge that for me, regardless of the risks to me, my child were worth it and it was something i could do it.

two decades later.

if we were to evenly split all assets and go on our way, my husband would end up living in fiscally upper middle class, and i would then be forced to fiscally lower class in a flash.

i am now back to minimum wage, having lost the opportunities when i was 30, and though i would have a stash of money, living that minimum wage with living cost, would quickly eat up my "retirement". where as my husbands large wage would only be increasing his retirement.

it is not a level playing field.

recognizing the risk i am taking, i insured that if i ever step out of this marriage, what i receive will cover three decades of unearnable living expense.



this illustration says it best. it is why we do not advocate and rally for a flat tax. it is an easy progressive concept to grasp.

... is obliged to carry the others on his shoulders.

This argument shouldn't be personalized, but now that the kids in the scenario you described are grown, why shouldn't the SAHP go back to work?

The breadwinner made sacrifices too, ones that he can never get back.

this is where you lose the progressive argument in this. where you cannot see, cause you are only looking linear.

thru all the things the stay at home did, that created a healthy and relaxed and peaceful environment for the worker. they came home and were done. could regroup. they were never disturbed while working cause someone else was around to take care of the issues. all they had to be concerned about, was work. two working family are going to the boss to tell them, that they have to step out to pick up a sick kid. or they have to rush to store after work to pick up dinner, ect...

the partner starts a business and they can spend the hours devoted to growing that business, cause they have someone else to take care of the rest of life

so no.

it is not only the big dude picking up the others to shoulder.

that is the whole point of it

if people decide going to work once the kids are out of the house, then fine. that is there decision. hardly any part of the conversation though, is it?

Of course it is.

The whole premise of this conversation is that moms should be entitled to dad's earnings after divorce because he made her stay home to take care of his kids.

Setting aside the questionable validity of the stereotype, without kids it completely falls apart. Absent kids, it's just a long summer vacation.

.

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 03:32 AM - Edit history (3)

... so I'll reply in kind. (Even though I'm pretty sure you implied I'm a sexist in #33)

I agree with you that the SAHP/worker model is pretty much an issue for upper middle class people. Unless one spouse is pulling down some decent money it isn't a luxury that most people can afford. When a couple agrees to that model though, it is accepted by both partners that there will be opportunity costs. For instance, you gave up your career and earning potential in return for the opportunity to raise your children and experience all their life events. You husband gave up time with his children, and in return gained a work history and a home that is taken care of.

From what I am reading, it seems that you are fairly satisfied with this arrangement. You hold up your end or the bargain, he holds up his, and no one feels cheated. The question is then: when does this agreement become unfair? If I were to ask you now, if you thought you were owed anything because of your lack of work history, you would probably reply "No". This is because you have freely made the choice to be a SAHP, and are happy with the results. You knew the opportunity costs and have accepted them. So, how would a divorce change this? How does divorce change a situation that most SAHPs are happy with to one where they are owed money?

The graphic you posted, while neat, is not a dynamic I would want to see in place divorce court. Divorce court should be like contract law. It should be cold, factual, and narrowly defined. It isn't a place where judicial advocacy, social justice, or sentiment should come into play. Not because these things aren't important, but because the court's findings need to be equitable. Using divorce court to level social scales draws its impartiality into question.