Some Thoughts on Dr. Helen's Piece 'Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?'
December 20th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Dr. Helen has a new article out called "Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?" (Pajamas Media, 12/19/07). Dr. Helen writes:
"Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today’s society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair.
"However, in today’s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends."
The concept of "alimony as slavery" is common in the men's and fathers' movements, and it is valid, but only to a point. Dr. Helen makes some good points above, but she goes further than I would. I am not against the concept of alimony, I am against the abuse of it.
When alimony is part of a "don't get mad, get everything" type of post-divorce fleecing, I am opposed. When it is done out of vindictiveness, as in the divorce attorneys' anti-male ad pictured, I am opposed. When it is done because the law demands that a divorced man support his ex-wife at the standard of living to which she is accustomed, I am opposed, because I believe that this is an unfair and unrealistic burden.
That being said, however, I believe there are situations where alimony is called for. Let's say that Bob and Jane got married in 1995, and had three children. The couple realized that it is very difficult for the children and for the family in general if both parents have demanding, go-all-out careers. In light of this, they decide that one of them will stay home, or will work part-time, or will do a job that is not as demanding or gives flexible time, so that someone is there for the children.
In the majority of cases, this will be the woman instead of the man, but the gender is irrelevant. Over the subsequent period, Bob works 50 hour weeks and now has a career which earns him $120,000 a year. Jane works 30 hours a week and is the primary caregiver for the children, and earns $25,000 a year.
Now it is 2008 and Bob and Jane are divorcing. (I will leave aside for the moment why they are getting divorced, issues surrounding no-fault divorce, etc.). I believe that both Bob and Jane, absent a finding of parental unfitness, should have shared parenting and a relatively equal timeshare with their children.
I also think it is entirely appropriate for Bob to pay Jane both child support and alimony. Not an extortionate amount, not an amount designed to punish him, not an attempt to preserve her living standard while impoverishing him, but a reasonable amount to take into consideration Bob's vastly greater earning capacity. This vastly greater earning capacity did not come about because Jane is lazy, or because Jane lacks talent. It came about because her contributions to the household were different than Bob's.
Dr. Helen's full article can be seen here.
"));
19 queries. 0.428 seconds.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Well said - a stay-at-home parent or part-time-worker parent sacrifices their earning ability for the good of the family. In a divorce, that earning ability stays gone.
However, this has to be weighed against the fact that the loss of earning ability also gained them something - better access to the kids, and thus they will probably get the children after the divorce because it is in the "best interests of the child" for the primary caregiver to get more access.
So thinking it over, "alimony" seems partially (though not completely) redundant with child-support, at least in our current system.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I grew up with the Johnny Carson show and I never liked it when people made fun of him for having five wives and paying extortionate sums of alimony to them all. I personally think this was never appropriate and needs to die a very quick death. You are supposed to marry someone for who they are, and a lifetime commitment, not so you can rob them blind.
I agree with the Bob/Jane scenario to a point. This type of alimony should also be for a “very limited” time. Jane and Bob will have 50/50 custody so they’ll have to learn to support their selves at their own level. Marriage doesn’t entitle you to live at your ex-spouses level after a divorce. Everyone needs to stand on their own two feet.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I hate the license plate on that car.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:38 am
In the majority of cases, this will be the woman instead of the man, but the gender is irrelevant. Over the subsequent period, Bob works 50 hour weeks and now has a career which earns him $120,000 a year. Jane works 30 hours a week and is the primary caregiver for the children, and earns $25,000
= = = =
I beg you can you get me Bob's job and my wife Janes job?
b
December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Nevertheless, I forgot why I was here. We (my wife and I) agreed that whoever had the better job when we had kids would work and the other would stay home until they were age appropriate for the other to go back to work.
b
December 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I feel that in an arrangement like you have described for your hypothetical, there shouldn't be any child support payments. As each parent has custody 50% of the time, they should be responsible for 50% of the upkeep. However, if any of the children have needs above and beyond the usual (critical care and the like) then those costs should be covered based on ability to pay.
As far as alimony, this is one of those situations where I can agree with the granting of it. However, I think any and all alimony arrangements should be limited to no more than 5 years. If the other ex-spouse can't take care of themselves in that amount of time with the assistance that alimony gives them, then they are no longer the higher-earning ex-spouse's responsibility or problem.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
"This vastly greater earning capacity did not come about because Jane is lazy, or because Jane lacks talent. It came about because her contributions to the household were different than Bob's."
She is kidding right?
An unmarried young man labors through his engineering, medical or law school. Then he (if he is lucky enough) finds a woman that will pair up with him (painfully tolerating the "geek" coodies he possesses) and then when they divorce for whatever reason, she is considered to be contributing to the earning capacity? Yes, without her, he would not be able to pursue the work as diligently as with her, but that does not mean he has to support her even when she is not there. Its a self contradicting proposition. Her getting involved in his life has increased his earning potential (only changing factor is how many hours he can work, if she is doing his chores around the house), but when she divorces him, somehow she is entitled to a share which she no longer contributes?
On the other hand, I agree with her alimony in itself is not bad, abuse of alimony is, but how she defines abuse is very not strict enough. Shouldn't she get a cut if she has been through with him all the time to enable him to become what he is - (i.e. whenever he started developing his earning potential) and influencing it in a good way? Unless Helen is proposing alimony in child-marriages only, the whole principal is corrupted.
What alimony stands for is ownership by association(marriage).
December 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am
First I have to say that I second Bill C. opinion of that sign. If that is how the attorneies at that firm think of divorce I feel sorry the men in their crosshairs.
I do agree that alimony makes perfect sense in certain situations but in other places alimony is abused by spouses and those abusers are enabled by the attornies that make a financial killing on such cases. Does alimony continue if the ex-spouse that is receiving it remarries?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I'm sure that 'Bob' was accustomed to someone taking care of his house while he was working, and was 'accustomed' to having a physical relationship. When it's gone, it should be all gone, otherwise, why would anyone put up with a marriage in the first place?
If jane doesn't possess the means to care for the kids by herself, jane shouldn't be awarded the kids, bob should, and jane can devote her full time to getting a career going. Man up and get a job, jane! Being a stay at home parent is a luxury as a result of a good relationship, not an entitlement simply because you gave birth. The issue can be revisited when jane's career is going, but it would seem that instead of managing transfer payments from bob to jane, simply because bob's carreer is going well, misses the point.
In other words, if jane put her career off so that bob could have one, let bob manage the kids while jane gets her career going, then we're on an equal footing. Enabling jane to be bob's housewife until he dies is not a divorce, it's a separation. Otherwise, jane should be compelled to provide bob a few things that he's been missing, that, outside of Nevada, can't be measured in dollars.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Pankaj Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Her getting involved in his life has increased his earning potential (only changing factor is how many hours he can work, if she is doing his chores around the house), but when she divorces him, somehow she is entitled to a share which she no longer contributes?
= = = =
Worst of that is the fact that lawyers will typically attempt to use (for one example) the amount a maid would have made for some back pay she is owed. The problem is that they want to give her what the maid service charges NOT what the maid is paid. Similarly what I contribute to the house is worth much more (fore one example) a mechanic on a Sunday gets about $150 an hour.
Are you lawyers out there paying attention? This could be good ammo to combat this nonsense.
I should have become a lair I mean lawyer.
b
On the other hand, I agree with her alimony in itself is not bad, abuse of alimony is, but how she defines abuse is very not strict enough. Shouldn't she get a cut if she has been through with him all the time to enable him to become what he is - (i.e. whenever he started developing his earning potential) and influencing it in a good way? Unless Helen is proposing alimony in child-marriages only, the whole principal is corrupted.
"in a good way" sometimes your partner can affect your career in a bad way and that should be considered also for lower payments or none at all.
b
December 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Danny Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Does alimony continue if the ex-spouse that is receiving it remarries?
= = =
No. Not in NY anyway.
b
December 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Being a stay at home parent is a luxury as a result of a good relationship, not an entitlement simply because you gave birth.
Now if only more women would understand that!
I think part of the siren-song of feminism is that it grants a great deal of entitlements which are honestly only luxuries (err.. until the government makes them entitlements).
December 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
A comparison - when I work for my employer, I get paid, I have benefits, like healthcare, and some of the other office perks that come with the working environment, such as occaisional use of computers, fax machines, email, copiers, notaries, discounts on whatever gizmo or service we make. Sometimes the job comes with an office with a view, use of tools for work, company vehicles, parking space in the garage, whatever.
When I quit, or when they fire me, they're no longer compelled to provide access to those things. I have to fend for myself. Neither am I required to provide free work for them, nor budget for my subordinates. The relationship is over.
There's unemployment, but the conditions are that:
1. I was not fired for cause
2. I have to be looking for a job
3. No matter what my success is in finding a job, it ends after a while.
4. When I do get a new job, that's the end of it.
COBRA extends my access to health care, but it also means that I pay the full cost of it, not just what my subsidized cost as an employee was, and it's for a finite amount of time, too.
Men are expected to live and work in an environment where they can be fired from their job, or fired as a husband, and booted out of their house, cut off from their kids, etc., without cause or provocation, and get handed the attorney bill for doing so. We also deal with the villification necessary in our litigious world to secure the maximum settlement. Until attorneys stop billing by the hour, there's no incentive for any attorney to go for a quick, reasonable and final divorce, and every reason to make the richer of the two litigants as miserable as possible in hope of an unfair but quick settlement. Chances are, Bob got saddled with all of the credit card debt and other liabilities, too.
For Jane to expect that she's going to be supported in an Orange county housewife style for the rest of her life is rediculous. Jane made no investment in her own career, even with the opportunities provided to her. The most she should be entitled to is what daycare and housekeeping cost. Sorry, Bob makes a living at market rate for his skill set, so should Jane. If Jane can't provide housekeeping and daycare services cheaper than what Bob can get elsewhere, too bad.
There should also be a way for support obligations to be dynamic, without spending thousands on attorneys and months in court. Disasters happen, and moreso when people are living from check to check. This is grossly unfair to the majority of the population saddled with unreasonable support orders. Support orders shouldn't be subject to a judge's mood and without review, either. Why should Bob get shafted in court more than Jim, just because Jim showed up on a day that the judge was in a good mood, or looks nicer in a suit?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I agree with Glenn.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
The basic argument is that the man develops his human capital because his wife frees him up to do so and in the process neglects the development of her own human capital. This "human capital" gained by the husband is community property and thus the wife is entitled to a share of it upon divorce. This gives rise to alimony, which is a share of future earnings of the community's human capital (this is why a wife owes no services to the husband in exchange for alimony as some guys would expect).
There are a couple of problems with this theory.
1) What is the marginal contribution of my wife staying at home? Would I have achieved the same salary if she had worked full time or not been there at all? If not, how much less? In theory, the alimony should be calculated on the marginal contribution to human capital but in practice this is very difficult to determine. Naturally, the stay-at-home party would like to argue that ALL differences in income are attributable to their stay-at-home support. This completely ignores drive, prior education, and natural ability, therefore I have a hard time with alimony being set at 50% of the difference in net incomes.
2) Absence of consent. In my case, I earned the same as Bob but my wife refused to work despite having a Masters degree. She wanted to be a stay at home mother without my consent - in fact she even got pregnant without my consent. She refused to work despite constant demands on my part. What if the court, instead, placed the burden on the woman to prove that the couple agreed to the stay-at-home arrangement? At the moment there is no burden, just a presumption that the partnership agreed that one partner stayed at home.
3) Existing human capital. Why is a pre-nup required to protect human capital that is brought to the marriage? Shouldn't there be a presumption that a wife in no way contributed to a salary-level attained before the marriage? For instance, why did Johhny Carson have to pay enormous alimony to five wives when presumably his income level was achieved before most of the marriages? The problem is that many women see alimony as a 'right' or 'prize' for capturing a rich husband (the gold-digger syndrome).
4) The human capital theory also assumes that the wife's human capital would have developed at the same rate as the husband's human capital so that if the husband was earning $120,000 and the wife $25,000 that the wife would be earning $120,000 if she had not stayed at home. Obviously this depends on the starting human capital of both partners. If they both went to law school then this might be true, however if the husband graduated from law school before the marriage and the wife was a high school dropout then this is highly unlikely. So the wife wasn't giving up much foregone income or human capital by staying at home.
In my case, my ex had a master's in education. The difference in income between being a teacher on the master's scale for 20 years versus re-entering the system at the bottom was about $20,000 per year - $40K vs $60K. This difference is the cost of staying at home. Of course, this gap will close as she stays longer in the system. The judge, however, based alimony on my income of $120,000 because of a crazy notion of keeping her in her "accustomed" lifestyle.
In Australia, alimony is only paid to keep a wife from being a welfare charge not at some "accustomed" standard of living. Only 7% of cases attract alimony.
The US courts seem to support the insurance (or gold-digger) theory of alimony. If one argues that looks are a woman's key asset and this asset depreciates over time then she needs insurance against a man kicking her to the curb when she loses her looks (the younger woman scenario). I sympathize with the insurance dilemma but I believe it creates the wrong incentives for women (which is catch a man when young then stay at home because you don't need to develop human capital because you have insurance). At the end of the day, society needs to design a system with appropriate incentives for both parties to develop their human capital.
In my system, in the absence of an explicit written agreement to stay at home, the woman should take responsiblity for developing her own human capital - we are meant to be equal after all (according to the feminists). There would be no "alimony as insurance". This would make expectations clear and people would adjust their behavior to the signals (i.e. there would be fewer stay-at-home moms and perhaps dads would spend more time parenting).
December 20th, 2007 at 11:59 am
"When I quit, or when they fire me, they're no longer compelled to provide access to those things. I have to fend for myself. Neither am I required to provide free work for them, nor budget for my subordinates. The relationship is over.
This is the real problem with alimony. Women are being paid for work they no longer provide.
Men are often not given the option not to pay for the work that women may be still providing--watching the children-- by watching the children themselves.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
My basic problem with it. If the one recieves it because they gave up opportunities to furthur their career/earning potential, lost or forgot how to have a career, remember that the career spouse also gave up oportunities/ social and familial, to learn how to care for the home, cook, time with children. So to be fair until the career spouse relearns these lost/missed skills the uncareered spouse should be legally made to provide them.
The one that really burns me though is a 1 yr marriage can claim half of a lifetimes earnings, and future earnings including 401k's.
Now that being said, I can see there are rare cases where dividing assest can include future earnings. Two rules of thumb:
1. Alimony should never last longer than 1/2 the lenght of the marriage. if you were only married a year than you didn't miss many opportunities. If you were married 10 yrs you get plenty of time to get your act together, but not forever.
2.Whoever initiates the divorce should recieve less or no such support. You are breaking a contract and should not be rewarded for it. If you initiated the divordce, you have to go above and beyond the call to show it is needed, and then it lasts 1/4 the time of the marriage.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I agree with Glenn and the basic picture he presents. I think there are legitimate uses for alimony, such as the one he describes. I do not think that the alimony should continue forever, and I do think Jane should be responsible for putting herself back on track when she no longer has the kids the majority of the time.
I have seen examples of women on alimony who refuse to work even after the kids are grown. That would be an extremely clear example of abuse, in my book.
In contrast, I have also seen an example of an older man with grown children who initiated a divorce of his long-time wife, but who willingly equalized their incomes until he retired. I have known him quite well and I have never seen him complain. He clearly felt it was his responsibility. I imagine he felt this responsibility both because the woman had a reduced career to take care of the children AND because the woman legitimately expected to share the rest of her life with this man. (Remember the marriage vows?) Anyway, I applaud him for being honest and taking this responsibility seriously.
Having said that, I think it is a shame that our culture still supports the view that women do not really have to be responsible for themselves. I have an extensive education and a demanding job, but I personally have felt that I could have abandoned it to be taken care of if I had wanted to. (I did not want to, and I have never seriously been tempted to do this. I am merely saying that from a cultural standpoint, the option has seemed to be there.) I would like my daughter to grow up believing that SHE is fully responsible for herself, and that this responsibility is a joy and a privilege that she should not willingly give up.
I also can't help but think it would be better if Jane and Bob had a private "contract" set up in advance that covered the divorce situation and that the court would actually enforce. No one wants to consider what would happen in this event, but with a 50% divorce rate it makes sense. I also can't help but think that bringing "fault" back into the divorce situation might make more sense.
On a related note: I cannot quantify the effect, but in my experience employers seem more understanding of women who work reduced hours to spend time with children than they are of men who try to do this. Of course, my husband and I have extremely different types of jobs, so it is hard to tell. My job is not in industry and therefore has a different bottom line. It is generally more understanding of family obligations (even with men), but also requires many hours per week at certain times.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Betsy: "Having said that, I think it is a shame that our culture still supports the view that women do not really have to be responsible for themselves."
Amen! Unlike many on this site I do not necessarily ascribe this view to "feminism" as much as cultural history. Not to bleed over from the Big Melissa discussion, but it would be great to see so called feminist organizations such as NOW publicly come out against alimony abuse. It would buttress their contention that they are an egalitarian organization.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Offended_Dad Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
A comparison - when I work for my employer, I get paid, I have benefits, like healthcare, and some of the other office perks that come with the working environment, such as occaisional use of computers, fax machines, email, copiers, notaries, discounts on whatever gizmo or service we make. Sometimes the job comes with an office with a view, use of tools for work, company vehicles, parking space in the garage, whatever.
When I quit, or when they fire me, they're no longer compelled to provide access to those things. I have to fend for myself. Neither am I required to provide free work for them, nor budget for my subordinates. The relationship is over.
There's unemployment, but the conditions are that:
1. I was not fired for cause
2. I have to be looking for a job
3. No matter what my success is in finding a job, it ends after a while.
4. When I do get a new job, that's the end of it.
= = = =
5) Or if you quit (a divorce) you receive nothing.
b
December 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Good grief, is everyone on vacation, I cannot keep up anymore. LOL
b
December 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Sorry Glenn but I have to disagree with you on this one. In fact, I couldn’t disagree more. If one partner decides (even with agreement by the other) to stay home, this immediately offsets their earnings against the very privilege of staying home. I am sick to death of hearing how hard it is to be a stay at home parent – I see it as a privilege and a joy - why on earth should you be “compensated” for doing something that YOU actually want to do.
Compare that with having to put up with a demanding boss, demanding time lines, having to put up with irate customers or clients, having to worry about being sued by your patients or clients, having to deal with the ever increasing red tape and employee issues - while still having to actually get your job done let alone having to worry about losing your job or, when self-employed, losing your business. Give me a break. Life wasn’t meant to be easy.
The entire legal disaster we call family law in America today has its genesis in EQUITY (ie courts of equity) and the broad interpretations of just what a judge says might constitute “equity”. The problem arises out of judicial discretion when it could be solved by objective measure.
In the times when men owned their wives and children (and divorce was exceedingly rare, ie almost non-existent), alimony had a sound rationale. In the present time of much touted “equality” alimony has not justification what so ever.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Corrigendum – no justification what so ever.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Celia, that is an excellent rebuttal! It also shows how much "equality" is in the eyes of the beholder.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Celia Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Sorry Glenn but I have to disagree with you on this one. In fact, I couldn’t disagree more. If one partner decides (even with agreement by the other) to stay home, this immediately offsets their earnings against the very privilege of staying home. I am sick to death of hearing how hard it is to be a stay at home parent – I see it as a privilege and a joy - why on earth should you be “compensated” for doing something that YOU actually want to do.
= = =
Funny thing is that Glenn has admitted to his on another blog. I will try to find it.
b
December 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I'm very suspicious of alimony at a rule. Mostly due to personal experience where one side is rewarded handsomely for lying in court.
Glenn points out instances where he believes it is appropriate. I am closer to Dr. Helen's position and the simple reason is that Bob's income is likely to change inversely compared to Jane's. Presumably he is taking on more of the burden of raising the children with the 50/50 split. As Jane's income increases because she will now have to support herself and she won't have as much of the burden of raising the children, Bob's income will likely decrease since he will no longer be able to spend 50 hours a week working.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Celia, I think your take is very interesting! However, there are other possible takes on these issues. I personally view it as a privilege to work. I absolutely adore my daughter and truly worship the ground she toddles on, but I found it a bit difficult, mentally, to stay home for any length of time. I find an easier for me to balance distributing my time between working and mothering.
I do feel significant guilt about putting my daughter in daycare all day. I do not know whether this guilt is misplaced or not. I am very, very lucky to have access to an outstanding daycare that is arguably at least as stimulating to my daughter as I am. In any case, I do not think the decision to stay home is "easier" than the decision to work. I know stay-at-home moms who are jumping out of their skin, and who would personally love to go back to work but won't yet because they do not think it is best for their very young children.
I suppose I should clarify my previous statement that women should feel responsible for taking care of themselves. They definitely should feel that they are ultimately responsible, and they should not marry in order to have a man take care of them. However, I do not think that agreeing with your husband to stay home with the kids for a fixed period of time constitutes "not taking responsibility for yourself." If the two of you agree, then you are doing it as a "job" and should view it as such. However, you need an agreement with your spouse if you are going to do this. And I think there should be some mechanism for considering this in the divorce process. Automatic alimony is an extremely crude, "one size fits all" mechanism that is obviously easily and extensively abused. But I do think there should be some kind of mechanism.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Celia Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Sorry Glenn but I have to disagree with you on this one. In fact, I couldn’t disagree more. If one partner decides (even with agreement by the other) to stay home, this immediately offsets their earnings against the very privilege of staying home. I am sick to death of hearing how hard it is to be a stay at home parent – I see it as a privilege and a joy - why on earth should you be “compensated” for doing something that YOU actually want to do.
= = =
Funny thing is that Glenn has admitted to his on another blog. I will try to find it.
b
Here it is!
Father Care: The Other Child Care Option
By Glenn Sacks
This column first appeared in W. New York Family Magazine (6/01).
Three years ago, at the birth of my daughter, we were a traditional family--I worked long hours, and my wife had left her job to be at home. My wife was unhappy at home and missed her career, and I was unhappy being away from my kids. My wife suggested that we switch roles. The idea had never occurred to me, but I decided to try it.
Our new roles worked better than I ever would have dreamed. My daughter and I have bonded as closely as any mother and child and have spent countless happy days together. Both family and strangers always comment about my daughter's radiant confidence and self-esteem, as well as her attachment to daddy. She is happy, well-adjusted, and strong-willed--and a product of father care
December 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Celia, I agree.
Furthermore, in the event that alimony is used as a tool to help the individual get back on their feel, and the couple share custody of any children involved 50/50, I wouldn't have a problem with a period of 3-6 months. That should be enough to find a job. And even so the amount paid should only be enough for the most important necessities, shelter and food.
The spouse paying the alimony is no longer privy to benefits of the union, therefore neither should the receiving spouse. On this particular point, I'm with Offended_Dad.
In addition, I feel the time limit will discourage those who seek to abuse the situation as they'll know if they don't get a job within six months, they're on their own.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
'Alimony' sounds to me like some sort of islamic terrorist word. The government should investigate that and stay the hell out of the modern family life.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I don't have time to read all the comments at the moment but I will comment on the original post.
My previously formed opinion on this is that having all of us, or, in fact, the government controlled by non-profits, set the terms of marriage is wrong.
The contract is between the man and the woman, and to a lesser extent, the families being joined. It should be controlled exclusively by the man and woman, allowing the man and woman to be influenced as they will, by lawyers, parents, church, government recommendations, research data, etc. Any successful contract has agreed upon conditions for exit and breach of contract. And contracts that terminate either successfully or under breach conditions can be renegotiated based on new data.
Of all the proposed solutions to the marriage-divorce-alimony-child custody situation, the above presents the most fluid and responsible. It allows for deeply religious Persians to have their marriage and customs actually respected by the government instead of rendered invalid by the invasive government. It allows for same sex marriages to be controlled to the extent of the expectations of those individuals. It allows very liberal members to have very liberal marriages, and it gives sexually conservative members the opportunity to have a marriage that does not include a government telling the people that it is PERFECTLY FINE TO CHEAT WITH A DIFFERENT PERSON every day. Such a marriage contract would have penalties for proven cheating explicitly outlined. And perforce it would need to set standards of proof.
My belief is that lawyers operate in their best mode when they are constructing and designing wording to incorporate and inforce ideas that are well haggled out and agreed to in advance.
Lawyers are at their worst when taking a vague, unclear and toothless (marriage) contract and then using lying, intimidation, and false allegations to turn a simple matter into an agonizing life or death struggle.
The only negative that I can think of is that it allows drugged out Brittany Spears to get a Vegas wedding by Elvis in the middle of the night and not know what the heck she signed. Well, I am ok with that. By the same token, she can overdose and kill herself, and I am ok with that too if no one else gets hurt.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Two issues with your thoughts Glenn,
both parties gave up something when they had kids, even in your scenario.
she gave up "work life", he gave up much free time, and increased stress. Isn't his sacrifice also worth a payout?
If he works long hours in a stressful job (he could have quit and taken a less stressful job if not for the family obligations), shouldn't he be compensated for the shortened lifespan that comes with struggling to support his family?
Also, didn't they mutually agree to the scenario? both agreed at the time, that the joint decision, and join levels of responsibility were mutually beneficial for the kids.
Divorcing should be a SACRIFICE for BOTH PARTIES, not just for him. When we stop taking the attitude that we need to protect her from the emotional and financial damage of a divorce, we will se the divorce rate drop tremendously, and an end to the spiraling family values.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I generally agree with Glenn. If alimony is gender-blind and designed to be only temporary and/or needed to avoid poverty, it is fair. For example, the man or woman who sacrifices career to raise well-adjusted kids, or the elderly person who was asked not to work during the marriage, should not be tossed aside with nothing at the other's whim. Otherwise, once again, it will be kids (the few who manage to get conceived, anyway) paying the highest price.
One disagreement, though. Glenn's focus IMHO should not be on giving the woman a share of the increased earning power of the man. That is his, and his alone! He earned it. She should get to cash in on that investment only if she stays in the marriage. The focus should more fairly be on the degree of diminishment of the earning power of the woman, whatever that earning power might be. So, in this example, some alimony (but not increased child-support -- the two are separate issues) would be appropriate. Enough, say, to allow her to finish a degree, get a post-graduate degree, get some work experience, etc. Then it should stop. Otherwise, isn't she being enabled and incentivized to be lazy, and not become all that she can be on her own? Isn't that treating a grown-up like a child?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Davina, Celia, Betsy: Thanks for your input. Your even-handedness in approaching the issue is refreshing.
Stephen M.: Thanks for acknowledging that, like anyone else, lawyers can be part of the solution (when given a chance), or part of the problem (often after others' decisions give them little choice). Even after the day comes when men and women are all holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," lawyers will still be everyone's favorite scapegoat. Remember, everybody, lawyers don't get to pick the horses, they just have to ride 'em. So don't complain about lawyers (you may need one!), write to your legislators instead!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Thank you too, Jay R. :-)
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Ok i gotta ask... Davina is that your real name? I love it and I don't know that I have ever heard it before.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Why, thank you, Lance. Yes, it is my real name. Glad you like it. :-)
December 20th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I think the whole point of one spouse staying home is to create an optimal environment for the kids. The kids are the greater benefactors of that arrangement .
That said, I think alimony is somewhat archaic and should only be used to support a spouse
in certain situations -- as many of you have aptly outlined here.
A guy here was taken for about 20,000.00 lump-sum payment by a gal he'd only been married to for about 1 year -- she was a serial-marry-er !! *ka-ching * And was well paid
for her marriages !! 'Course goes to show ya stay away from the lusty barmaid !!
December 20th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I think that eliminating alimony would benifit families and help women (and certainly fathers). It would help families because the opportunity to claim alimony is often seen as a powerful weapon/threat against the primary wager earner (typically the husband) that corrodes daily maritial relations. Alimony softens the consequences of divorce for the at-home spouse (typically the wife) to the point that many modern women see very little reason to keep what's-his-name around once the youngest child is in school full time. In other words, if you can get alimony, why NOT get divorced? I'm talking primarily about stay-at-home moms here, not part/full-time wage earners.
If women understood on a basic level that alimony was not a possibility, I bet they'd: 1) try to get along better with their husband on a daily basis, 2) be less likely to file for divorce as a lifestyle decision, 3) keep up some degree of marketable job skills (which would likely give them greater satisfaction), and 4) make a greater contribution to the financial support of the family, easing the burden on the husband, and hopefully allowing a father to spend more time parenting and less time working outside of the home. Certainly, without alimony, fathers would probably be given more than token physical custody on a regular basis.
After 40 years of fem lib, I don't have any problems expecting a divorced woman to support herself. A portion of her tangible "reward" for staying home is an equal portion of the community property accrued during the marriage.
I find the timing of this article interesting in light of the increasing number of women being ordered to hand over a portion of their earnings to their ex-husbands, which I think will rapidly accelerate in the next decade. I have heard more than one family law attorney say something along the lines of "You haven't heard indignant screams of rage about having to pay alimony/child support until you've had a female client who was ordered to pay."
December 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
In other words, if you can get alimony, why NOT get divorced? I'm talking primarily about stay-at-home moms here, not part/full-time wage earners.
If women understood on a basic level that alimony was not a possibility, I bet they'd: 1) try to get along better with their husband on a daily basis, 2) be less likely to file for divorce as a lifestyle decision, 3) keep up some degree of marketable job skills (which would likely give them greater satisfaction), and 4) make a greater contribution to the financial support of the family, easing the burden on the husband, and hopefully allowing a father to spend more time parenting and less time working outside of the home.
=======================
Sorry hon. If women and men understood , "...on a basic level" , that each has a role to fill which creates the optimal situation for all , then we wouldn't have all of this role-confusion which is simply a means to eliminate MEN.
ACCORDING to some on the Webosphere and the Press:
Stay at home mom's are either scheming plotting lazy gold diggers ... OR they're ignorant, oppressed, brainwashed whore/maids...
DID anyone's Mother fit either of those descriptions ?? Did mine ?? No. Neither did my Grandmothers.
BUT let's look at a REAL today scenario NOT a theoretical one shall we ?
The reason my neighbor does not divorce and collect alimony is because, inspite of her husband's regular bouts of nastiness she loves him and her kids. She wants to be his wife and their MOm. She wants the unit intact for spiritual and emotional reasons not for financial reasons. Her and I discussed this very thing last night.
This neighbor of mine does all yardwork (on 2+ acres), cleans, feeds, wipes butts and noses, break up fights (between the 3 and 4 yo boys) shops (on a budget), cares for 4 horses two dogs and cleans up all her husband's hunting/fishing trip gear/mess when he gets home from a trip, fixes the boys bikes, cleans out the rain gutters, sets gopher traps... She does all the errands etc etc and the home is always immaculate -- and she gets up at 5am to go to the gym so she won't interfere with the family schedule etc.. NO I am not making this up. YET her husband , who is a pretty good guy for the most part (leave out the scotch on the rocks) asks her how she spends her time. Even accused her of having an affair !! Told her to get a job -- course he'd be really jealous if she got a job so she went to work for him... LOL
SO he now has her working at his business 3 days a week... I couldn't do alll of that. No way.
She is sadly obsessive about proving her worth. She treats him "a little nicer on a daily basis..." and not because of any threat, financial or otherwise.
But according to you (Serenity)and the femminists , it would be better if women like my neighbor could really PROVE themselves worthy by earing a paycheck. And according to you the men that are supporting their families need a break and they need their woman to "contribute to family finance..." to give them that break.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Some commentors seem to want to use house-cleaning service and day-care cost as a way of calculating allimony but I notice that the didn't factor in the fact that she cleans the floor she walks on herself and is responsible half the cost of the kids but that was paid for. The rent or morgage and utilities were paid for. She was fed and clothed........
How much more would you want for enjoying time with the children. Allimony is ridiculous.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Betsy said.
“I personally view it as a privilege to work.”
Betsy, my answer to that is that, from my perspective, you are indeed in a very privileged position! I wish I could see work in such glowing terms, I work out of necessity, it is not a privilege for me (nor for the majority of people) – I don’t have an option – no “husband” to take care of anyone here. I have to support myself and my children – and I am extremely happy to do it. (The truth is that I wouldn’t have it any other way). I worked when I was married and still do now that I’m not. I didn’t complain or see anything odd about it when I was married and certainly don’t now. But, it would unquestionably be a privilege to not have to do so.
I guess the real problem with being self-sufficient is that I cannot imagine ever asking for alimony for staying home and doing things from which I would derive GREAT pleasure - things such as seeing my kids grow up, reading some non-work-related books (perhaps even a novel – now that would be novel) maybe having time for a hobby, watching the news from start to finish – things which, after all, many of my friends do everyday and take for granted! Interestingly, some of them would be the first to ask for, and feel most entitled to receive alimony. Well, I suppose that once you feel you’re entitled – you come to believe you really are entitled – despite the fact that it is a legal and social fiction whose genesis lies in the times of male ownership of wives and children. I say let’s get rid of ALL the garbage and start from a position of earned equity based on individual expenditure of effort, with a rational and reasonable basis for its measure. Making a few sandwiches and having fun with the kids does not accrue the same equity as brain surgery, no matter how you might look at it.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:38 am
Once upon a time, women were looked upon as the inferior sex. As such, it was men's duty to take a woman, in many cases a woman's family, into his home as a wife because they were deemed not as strong or as intelligent as a man. Many of these marriages were arranged prior to or at birth, and were seen as business arrangements. Women at one time were goods to exchange, like cattle or a new plow or a plot of land.
Time has caught up with us, and has also proven that women are indeed intelligent and strong, and also willing and able to assert it, which is not a bad thing. The problem comes when these same women are more than willing to take advantage of the old chivalries. In one breath they can cry, "I am a strong and independant woman! I don't need a man!" but in the next, "but I need laws and regulations geared to protect me because I am not as smart or equipped to be in the work force as a man."
Most would say you can't have it both ways, but the way today's societal norms work, many women can indeed have their cake and eat it too. Alimony does need to go the way of the Dodo bird, as it does seem redundant next to exhorbitant child support amounts, and those actually wishing true equality would, in theory, agree.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:59 am
Constant asked,
“DID anyone's Mother fit either of those descriptions ?? Did mine ?? No. Neither did my Grandmothers.”
Constant, that’s not really a fair nor objective comparison. In my mother’s day the divorce rate was only ten percent of what it is today. So, even if occasional abuse of the system did occur, it was on a much reduced scale in comparison with today's epidemic. Divorce in the modern era is an industry – for good reason – there is money to be made – especially by those who don’t work to earn it.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:58 am
Steve made some excellent points. I have just a few things to add.
1.)
The reason so many women decide to: divorce, balloon up to the size of whales, stop taking care of a man's needs, or decide to sit at home all day and eat bon-bons while watching soaps is a problem of moral hazard.
This is a problem insurance company’s deal with all of the time. Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would if it were fully exposed to the risk. For example, an insured party's behavior might be more risky than it would have been without the insurance. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are borne by the insurance company.
Or in our example a woman who gets married is more likely to: Become significantly obese, quit her job, refuse to do house work, stop having sex on a regular basis, spend all of her husbands money, and sit around eating twinkies while watching daytime tv. This is because she knows that she will get alimony and mommy (child) support; which for all intents and purposes is marriage insurance. Marriage insurance provided unwillingly by the husband, and to the determent of the husband.
By providing one party in a marriage with alimony you create financial incentives for them to act dishonestly before the marriage takes place, and to act inappropriately while actually married. You also provide a financial incentive to get divorced. And like it or not the fact is people respond to financial incentives.
2.)
The second problem with alimony is that its purpose is to compensate a party for the opportunity costs’ incurred for entering into a contract. After all once you strip away the propaganda that’s all marriage really is, a contract. And the idea of forcing one party to pay for the opportunity costs’ incurred by another party is ludicrous.
Suppose that tomorrow I decide to invest $10,000 into mutual fund (A) and after a year I only get a return of 6%. But I could have gotten a return of 13% from mutual fund (B). No judge in his right mind would force mutual fund (A) to pay me the extra 7% interest that I lost out on because I made a poor decision when choosing to invest my money.
The same common sense logic should apply to marriage. No one forced the wife to get married. She chose to enter into a contract and invest her time and efforts. If the marriage works out then great; she should be able to enjoy the fruits of her labor. If it doesn’t work out then too bad! She has to take responsibility for the risks that come with entering into a contract as the rewards. Either women are our peers or they’re not. Either they’re the property of the man they marry or they’re an independent and equal person capable of taking responsibility for their decisions. Society needs to pick one because they can’t have it both ways.
3.)
The assumption that alimony is based upon is flawed. Obviously given a chance to work unencumbered by marriage good looking high school drop outs rarely end up making as much money as a neurosurgeons. And while sometimes a wife may help her husbands career she may also hurt it or end up having no significant effect either way.
I suspect that a lot of the time a husband indeed makes more money because of his wife; because he is forced to. For example his wife may unilaterally decide to become “accidentally” pregnant, and then again unilaterally decide to have then keep the child. The husband is then forced into a harder, higher paying, less rewarding, and more stressful job. Notice that although he now is forced to make more money this doesn’t make him more wealthy. All of the extra money goes to expenses that his wife incurred which he had no say over.
4.)
Assuming that custody is 50/50 then no one should get child support. It’s Child Support not mommy support. Child support is for the child, and in a 50/50 custody arrangement each party is bearing their part of the cost for raising the child.
There are two ways to fix this mess. The best way is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together, and allow two or more consenting adults to create their own marriage contracts which the government will then enforce.
The second thing that could happen is to simply end alimony. As a practical matter the best thing that all you single guys can do to protect yourself is simply refuse to get married, and write your representatives. No one is forcing you to get married and sign your life away. Once women start realizing that men are refusing to get married because of an unfair family law system the problem will start to fix it’s self. After all it’s almost always women pushing for marriage; most of the time guys could care less about getting hitched.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:36 am
I have powerfully mixed feelings. In general I'd like to agree with Glenn. Balanced against that, given our current society's contempt for men, I rather doubt it is possible to not have alimony abused in nasty ways.
As I said in Dr. Helen's piece, I already KNOW that with the law being as it is alimony for disability is female only. How could that be fixed given our society? I cannot think of a way to get fairness for males who need alimony.
We might be able to eliminate alimony, we cannot I would think, given our society, get fairness. Thus, we probably have to eliminate alimony.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Mike Hunter: I agree with everything you have said - you make some very nice points in your post.
Problem with contracts is that the court adopts the 'woman as child' point of view and assumes they are incapable of entering into a legal contract.
I have had a signed and notarized post-nup agreement in front of the family court for two and a half years but the judge has refused to rule on the validity of the agreement and the Judicial Discipline Commission says that a non-ruling is a non-problem. So guess that leaves the 'never get married' option. :-)
December 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Glenn,
Though I agree with your conclusions, I think you've missed something important. The bread-winning ex-spouse in the scenario you detailed is going to have their earning potentianal damaged by the divorce. All of a sudden they will be maintaining a home, a job that they'd shared off to the stay-at-home spouse before.
Neither party in the divorce is going to be able to maintain their married lifestyle - two houses aren't as cheap as one. Ideally an alimony payment would scale down over time, as the ex-bread-winner loses the career momentum having a stay-at-home-spouse provided, and the ex-stay-at-home spouse gains or regains current marketplace skills.
Also, your example is a pretty good illustration that you lose custody the moment your spouse decides to leave paid work behind in favor of child care.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I always pose a seires of questions to anyone who think alimony is a good idea
1. Do you think it is fair for a woman to keep the same lifestyle fter a divorce?
2. How is an income that once supported one household supposed to support two?
3. Or dont you think it is fair for a man to keep the same lifestyle after a divorce?
4. If a spouse is supposed to support an ex financially in order to maintain their lifestyle, should the ex provide sex to the spouse suppoerting them to maintain that azspect of the lifestyle
5. Do you think its fair that women without children who stayed home just because get alimony?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Alimony is involuntary servitude. When one is slapped with an alimony order (and I am speaking from experience), you have no option but to comply - there is no escape. You cannot flee the state or the country. You cannot get rid of it thru bankruptcy. The court (but more to the point - your ex-spouse) controls your life. Think about this in terms of the many people who divorce when an alimony order is not granted and are free to continue their lives. Alimony prevents closure. You get divorced so you can get away from the one who made you miserable. Here are some other facts...you lose your job, but you still owe the alimony. Does this seem fair? The alimony is guaranteed to an ex-spouse even though the income upon which it is based is not guaranteed. What if you want to downsize and take a job that you earn less (so what if it is intentional to avoid having to pay...the point being made is that if you have less income, it should reduce or eliminate your alimony - but it doesn't - the court would impute your income to a higher amount!). When one is married, one spouse cannot run down to the court and tell the judge to make her spouse work harder to earn more money or don't allow him to downsize his employment. The court doesn't care....now when they divorce and there is an alimony order it is an entirely different story. His life does not belong to him anymore. What about retirement? Forget it...
There is no justification for enslaving one to another which is just what alimony does. It must be eliminated.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
[...] thoughts on alimony Originally posted as a comment to this post on Glenn Sacks' [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
AWESOME REPLY Celia!
"I am sick to death of hearing how hard it is to be a stay at home parent – I see it as a privilege and a joy - why on earth should you be “compensated” for doing something that YOU actually want to do."
- Precisely! All I hear young mothers do today is moan and complain as if the weight of the world is on their shoulders. They are the most spoiled, selfish, resentful bunch I have ever seen. The truth is, once they have kids, I think they realize that they never wanted them in the first place!
"Give me a break. Life wasn’t meant to be easy."
- Oh, but for today's entitlement princesses, it's supposed to be!
"The entire legal disaster we call family law in America today has its genesis in EQUITY (ie courts of equity) and the broad interpretations of just what a judge says might constitute “equity”. The problem arises out of judicial discretion when it could be solved by objective measure."
- Damn, woman, you are spot on!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am
[...] learn more about alimony in general, see my blog post Some Thoughts on Dr. Helen's Piece 'Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?' or click [...]
January 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[...] learn more about alimony in general, see my blog post Some Thoughts on Dr. Helen's Piece 'Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?' or click [...]
September 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As I read this article, it pains me to see that society and the so called "powers that be" are creating deadbeat women. The alimony and child support system creates an unecessary dependence for women and provides no initiative for them to better their lives or the lives of their children in the case of divorce. Why go to school or find a better job when you know you can force your ex-husband, or father of your children, to provide a free meal ticket the rest of your life? What do you think this mindset does to our children? Like their mothers, they grow up to be dependent on others despite the involvement of the provider (Dad). This is a terrible, terrible system with no accountability.