[quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]
Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.
Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).
Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.[/quote]
I’m kind of persuaded. But kind of not. It has value but it’s also a form of consumption, being with children. While paying someone else costs money getting the opportunity to stay ho me has tremendous value to the SAH too. The work clearly has value but the deferred comp analogy fails in a way because the earning spouse is not some kind of machine or Corp. That necessarily keeps running and earning in the same way but is prone to breakdowns and the reductions in alimony often won’t reflect that because it would demotivate him to work work work work.
Would it seem absurd for the working parent to be compensated for the time lost she were able to spend with children because of work commitments? Since we are monetizing contributions, why not monetize sacrifices?
That said, I’m almost in agreement with you CaR.
It would all seem fairer if a worker could intentionally reduce their income. I mean sometimes people just wanna slow down and a deferred comp scheme you’ve envisioned puts the worker on the rat race treadmill forever! Any reduction is viewed as an effort to spite the ex. But maybe the worker is losing will. Or just can’t take it…
why must he keep going simply because of a past pattern?
Ach. The whole system sucks.[/quote]
Easy solution: stay married (or don’t get married/have children at all).
As for the wage earning spouse getting more time with the kids, I’d say that most modern custody arrangements give the wage earning spouse about equal time with the kids. It only seems fair that the financial interests be split equally, as well.
