Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
29-04-2015, 23:29   #196
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wompa1 View Post
But that person would have made the choice to do that.
And the other person would have also made the choice NOT to do that.
zeffabelli is offline  
Advertisement
29-04-2015, 23:35   #197
Wompa1
Registered User
 
Wompa1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeffabelli View Post
And the other person would have also made the choice NOT to do that.
I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?
Wompa1 is offline  
Thanks from:
29-04-2015, 23:44   #198
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wompa1 View Post
I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?
Well, look at it this way.

Before school age, you are looking at E900 a month childcare. That doesn't even include weekends, nights, or some of the holidays.

Once school starts, you are looking at E6 an hour minimum. So calculate that hour to hour. You are both working, have to be in by 9, school starts at 9, so you will have to pay someone to bring your child to school. School ends at 2:30. You will have to pay someone to pick them up, feed them, do homework etc. You might get home at 7, and then they go to bed at 8:30 or so.

That is when school is in session.

Then you have to pay extra for sitters at the weekend and fulltime during school breaks and summers.

That does not include evenings and weekends. Where you have to pay for more childcare.

If you accounted for all teh childcare, hour for hour,, nights, weekends, every single hour, and split if by two.... what would be cheaper?

That is per child, imagine if you have 2 or 3 of them.

In the first few years of their life kids get sick. You have to stay home. Schools call these random days off...you have to stay home...school calls to take your kid home...he had an accident...

Last edited by zeffabelli; 29-04-2015 at 23:51.
zeffabelli is offline  
Thanks from:
29-04-2015, 23:54   #199
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wompa1 View Post
I've been talking to my Fiance about having children. She loves her job, I loathe my job. I've said, I'd gladly quit to get the kids through their early years. It's not going to happen. I make much more than her. If we had to survive off her pay alone, we'd be on the breadline.

I have choice. Work or don't. But it's a kin to, support your family the best that you can or be selfish. It's not a choice, I'd make for my own betterment. I don't want to work, but I'll do it for my family. If my wife wants to work, that will be up to her. She claims she doesn't want to trust babysitters or child carers...so it's being setup for her staying with the kids for the first few years, or living by our parents...which may hurt us more financially anyways...

Point being, it's usually not down to the person who works, refusing to stop working. They either do what makes the most sense financially or the mother does it out of a feeling of maternal instinct (I guess). Either way, why is that on the other parent to pay up?
If both parents choose to stay at work then the childcare responsibility tends to be split more equally. So both parents would have to take time off if the kids were sick or leave early to pick them up, no overtime etc. All that can be detrimental to a career. Often, if one parent stays home then the other parent has the benefit of their career being able to advance without the setbacks that having kids can cause so their progression has been enabled by the other parents career taking a back seat. Not to mention all the money saved on childcare thanks to someone always being at home.
ceadaoin. is offline  
Thanks from:
30-04-2015, 00:36   #200
Potatoeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
If both parents choose to stay at work then the childcare responsibility tends to be split more equally. So both parents would have to take time off if the kids were sick or leave early to pick them up, no overtime etc. All that can be detrimental to a career. Often, if one parent stays home then the other parent has the benefit of their career being able to advance without the setbacks that having kids can cause so their progression has been enabled by the other parents career taking a back seat. Not to mention all the money saved on childcare thanks to someone always being at home.
The parent that works get to miss out on quality time with their family though and any overtime is more time away from the family not to mention having to cover all the bills.
Potatoeman is offline  
Advertisement
30-04-2015, 06:13   #201
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoeman View Post
I have a friend that's stay at home dad, which was fine until the kids started to get older. Being the primary carer means the kids look for him first and want to share more with him. When they start to talk and express their preferences it can be hard for the mother.

The other thing is that she frequently redoes household chores because they were not done right which causes friction as both parties are not happy.
Well there we're getting into the whole realm of chauvinist prejudice. Where someone presumes that it is a woman's role to do X and a man's to do Y. That she feels obliged to redo his housework because it's 'not right' is the same social programming that causes men to resent the women they're with if they earn more than them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NI24 View Post
But if a spouse has given up a career, no matter how much they wanted to, or how much it was worth, what makes you think they shouldn't be compensated, whether through a pre-nup or not?
Sure, they should, taking into account the opportunity cost of that sacrifice. But if he or she was significantly better off giving up their career and living off someone else, then there is no opportunity cost for their choice - after all, that's what compensation is - the value of something lost.
Quote:
That person has essentially stopped working for a number of years and that is a huge detriment to their working lives.
Arguable. A giving up a dead-end, 'paying the bills', job on 25k per year to be supported by someone on 80k is not exactly losing out; quite the opposite. Assuming you can even call it a career - some are unemployed, or remain students, almost to the point of marriage. What have they lost?

Not everyone has a real career. Lots are just working to pay the bills until the day they can get someone else to do so for them.
Quote:
Especially in the case of women and big families, when a woman has to spend a significant portion of her twenties and thirties (and maybe even late teens) birthing and raising children. Re-entering the work force with a huge time gap on your resume is like re-entering the work force as an ex-convict.
Indeed, and the lifestyle that the marriage afforded that their 'career' would never have paid for? Should they not be paying compensation to the spouse who paid for this?

Spouse A on 25k p.a. puts their 'career' in an entry level job on 'hold' so as to be supported by spouse B on 85k p.a. - excuse me while I shed a tear for their sacrifice.
Quote:
But are you really sure the reason courts just split things in half despite who contributed what is because of what marriage used to signify, or because it's what's easier?
The split is because of a tradition based upon the social order of fifty or 100 years ago, where a woman could not work at all and marriage was for life. It's got nothing to do with compensation as it stands.
The Corinthian is offline  
(2) thanks from:
30-04-2015, 08:58   #202
NI24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corinthian View Post
Sure, they should, taking into account the opportunity cost of that sacrifice. But if he or she was significantly better off giving up their career and living off someone else, then there is no opportunity cost for their choice - after all, that's what compensation is - the value of something lost.

Arguable. A giving up a dead-end, 'paying the bills', job on 25k per year to be supported by someone on 80k is not exactly losing out; quite the opposite. Assuming you can even call it a career - some are unemployed, or remain students, almost to the point of marriage. What have they lost?

Not everyone has a real career. Lots are just working to pay the bills until the day they can get someone else to do so for them.
To answer all these questions, what a person gives up when they become a stay-at-home "whatever" is career trajectory. Or even job trajectory. Even minimum wage workers can't just re-enter the workforce with a huge time gap. And don't judges take these things into account?

Let's say, for example, that a woman is a student working a part-time job, but she decides she wants to become a mother. She knows she has a limited time in which to do so, and that being pregnant while going to school and working is a huge physical burden. So she decides to devote full-time to carrying, birthing, and raising the child/children. You're telling me that because she didn't have a high-flying career beforehand, then supposedly she hasn't given up educational/career aspirations and is undeserving of financial compensation? I have to disagree wholeheartedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corinthian View Post
Indeed, and the lifestyle that the marriage afforded that their 'career' would never have paid for? Should they not be paying compensation to the spouse who paid for this?

Spouse A on 25k p.a. puts their 'career' in an entry level job on 'hold' so as to be supported by spouse B on 85k p.a. - excuse me while I shed a tear for their sacrifice.
Where did I say that people are deserving of sympathy in these cases? I am simply pointing out that a person who takes time out from a job/career deserves compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corinthian View Post
The split is because of a tradition based upon the social order of fifty or 100 years ago, where a woman could not work at all and marriage was for life. It's got nothing to do with compensation as it stands.
What makes you say that? It has nothing to do with compensation, according to you.

And whether or not it is a choice on the part of the woman is irrelevant-- after all, if the husband chooses to support his wife, is that not also a choice?
NI24 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-04-2015, 09:03   #203
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoeman View Post
The parent that works get to miss out on quality time with their family though and any overtime is more time away from the family not to mention having to cover all the bills.
With two people working, both miss out on their family and still have huge childcare costs.

I have a relative who makes a phemonenal amount of money, he is top of his league in his profession. It has meant the family have to relocate. The children are gown now though and left the nest.

His wife is the finest women you would ever meet, a professional in her own right also, but has on several occassions had to leave her jobs to relocate for the sake of his career.

If they divorce, without even a second thought I would think she would deserve a whole lot of that income and property earned during the course of the marriage.

Last edited by zeffabelli; 30-04-2015 at 09:07.
zeffabelli is offline  
Thanks from:
30-04-2015, 09:11   #204
NI24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 627
I still don't understand how pre-nups can account for all the changes that can go on during the course of a marriage. There's only so many clauses to include in one.

As it stands, I have a feeling that people (men) can demand pre-nups all they want, it doesn't mean women will submit to them. And they can go on as many "marriage strikes" (which seems to be an internet myth) as they want, but all that's going to happen is that women are going to go on "sex strikes".

At the end of the day, when marriages fail, men still have a huge upper hand-- they can start over with a new family, they can even rebuild wealth if they have to. When a woman re-enters both the working world and the dating world she has two strikes against her (assuming she quit working during the marriage). I have a sneaking suspicion this is why women are heavily compensated during divorce.
NI24 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
30-04-2015, 09:20   #205
kylith
Registered User
 
kylith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 17,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Corinthian View Post
Arguable. A giving up a dead-end, 'paying the bills', job on 25k per year to be supported by someone on 80k is not exactly losing out; quite the opposite. Assuming you can even call it a career - some are unemployed, or remain students, almost to the point of marriage. What have they lost?

Not everyone has a real career. Lots are just working to pay the bills until the day they can get someone else to do so for them.

Indeed, and the lifestyle that the marriage afforded that their 'career' would never have paid for? Should they not be paying compensation to the spouse who paid for this?

Spouse A on 25k p.a. puts their 'career' in an entry level job on 'hold' so as to be supported by spouse B on 85k p.a. - excuse me while I shed a tear for their sacrifice.
Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.
kylith is offline  
Thanks from:
30-04-2015, 09:26   #206
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylith View Post
Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.
Not only that but the higher earner, likely due to professional demands, relies upon the time of the lesser earner to cover the childcare at the weekends, nights, holidays etc. OR that call from school that says "Johnny has the sniffles come get him. Johnny misbehaved in class, can we meet at 2pm? OR school is closed next Thursday due to staff meetings. Johnny needs surgery."

So in effect, the higher earner is the parasite if we stick to this reductive paradigm of family.
zeffabelli is offline  
(2) thanks from:
30-04-2015, 13:52   #207
Potatoeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by NI24 View Post
I still don't understand how pre-nups can account for all the changes that can go on during the course of a marriage. There's only so many clauses to include in one.

As it stands, I have ea feeling that people (men) can demand pre-nups all they want, it doesn't mean women will submit to them. And they can go on as many "marriage strikes" (which seems to be an internet myth) as they want, but all that's going to happen is that women are going to go on "sex strikes".

At the end of the day, when marriages fail, men still have a huge upper hand-- they can start over with a new family, they can even rebuild wealth if they have to. When a woman re-enters both the working world and the dating world she has two strikes against her (assuming she quit working during the marriage). I have a sneaking suspicion this is why women are heavily compensated during divorce.
The marriage strike is a result of many factors and also links into the increase of men dropping out of society and not just marriage. Its more of a US thing though.

A sex strike only works if a sizable portion of women do it. I can't link it now but look at the econonics of sex by the Austin institute that looks at this (there is a short youtube video too).

As for the disadvantage after a breakup there are a number of factors that depend on many things. The first is custody and gettiing primary custody means you get more time with the child but any future partner will have to accept all that comes with this. The father can find himself in a very bad place especially if he is not well paid so its not all black and white.
Potatoeman is offline  
01-05-2015, 08:07   #208
NI24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoeman View Post
The marriage strike is a result of many factors and also links into the increase of men dropping out of society and not just marriage. Its more of a US thing though.
You're not understanding what I'm saying; someone mentioned how men are dropping out of marriage and that divorce and how men fare in divorce is one of the reasons--and I'm saying they can drop out of marriage all they want, but they don't have ultimate control. But that's only if a "marriage strike" is actually taking place, which I highly doubt. It's never been proven empirically, it only seems to be internet talk. So it's not a "US thing"-- it's an imaginary thing. The lower rates of marriage could be due to any number of things, not the least of which is that men have been able to access sex more easily, so commitment tends to be on the back burner. And before anyone gets offended, yes I know men are interested in commitment, too, but, as a general rule, they are not as much as women.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoeman View Post
As for the disadvantage after a breakup there are a number of factors that depend on many things. The first is custody and gettiing primary custody means you get more time with the child but any future partner will have to accept all that comes with this. The father can find himself in a very bad place especially if he is not well paid so its not all black and white.
And so can a woman. But unlike men, they don't have all the time in the world to start a new family, so, at the end of the day, women are not made whole from divorce.

So, like I said before, while pre-nups may or may not increase, I strongly suspect that "7 in 10 farmers" will not get their wishes granted, rightly or wrongly.
NI24 is offline  
08-05-2015, 13:42   #209
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylith View Post
Whereas if neither spouse gives up their career the lesser earner is working solely to pay for childcare meaning that they are still 'living off of' their higher-earning spouse while at the same time neither of them get to spend proper time with their children.
Who mentioned children to begin with? How does your response relate at all to what I posted? Bah, straw man.
The Corinthian is offline  
Thanks from:
08-05-2015, 15:09   #210
Potatoeman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by NI24 View Post
You're not understanding what I'm saying; someone mentioned how men are dropping out of marriage and that divorce and how men fare in divorce is one of the reasons--and I'm saying they can drop out of marriage all they want, but they don't have ultimate control. But that's only if a "marriage strike" is actually taking place, which I highly doubt. It's never been proven empirically, it only seems to be internet talk. So it's not a "US thing"-- it's an imaginary thing. The lower rates of marriage could be due to any number of things, not the least of which is that men have been able to access sex more easily, so commitment tends to be on the back burner. And before anyone gets offended, yes I know men are interested in commitment, too, but, as a general rule, they are not as much as women.



And so can a woman. But unlike men, they don't have all the time in the world to start a new family, so, at the end of the day, women are not made whole from divorce.

So, like I said before, while pre-nups may or may not increase, I strongly suspect that "7 in 10 farmers" will not get their wishes granted, rightly or wrongly.
I used the term marriage strike because you did. Honestly I don't know whats causing it but there is a drop in marriages over there. You seem to have made your mind up because you dont like it though.

As for the 'made whole' arguement there are too many factors to say that its better for men. I dont think a man in a low paid job struggling to pay child support and living in a bedsit is 'made whole'.
Potatoeman is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet