What is Just Compensation for a "Life Lost"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you feel that you are owed a $100k living? The average salary in this country is less than half that -- for people who work full-time. Most people will work all of their lives and never make close to that, including people with college degrees.

In the example above, I would offer that Annie's closest colleague at the firm, also a woman and also her year, did stay to make partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions practice and is now, at age 60, earning more than $2 million/year. Annie would feel, rightly, that she gave up a future earning $2 million/year, so that George could pursue his future potential (successfully) earning $5 million/year. That is why she would feel that she is owed a very generous alimony.

As you yourself point out, most people in the U.S. make nowhere near that amount, and would thus not expect, or indeed be awarded, that particularly generous alimony.

Still... people don't think spending your days in the spa, gym and country club is a huge sacrifice. She made her choice... family. He made his choice ... money.

It's a bummer... but there are decisions and consequences. Most people want their cake... but the cake is either eaten or stale.

In the example above, Annie was not spending her days at the spa, gym, and country club. She was spending her days taking care of a household and family that was moving regularly around the world so that her spouse could pursue every possible career opportunity, while his and her children also adjusted and thrived with every step, not an easy thing to do. If she had not been so engaged, and required to move around, she would have presumably built a successful law practice like her good friend and former-colleague Meryl. In cases like these, including much less extreme examples of career sacrifice and moves, the career-sacrificing spouse is awarded very healthy, long-term alimony. And in many cases, the very wealthy, high-income ex-spouse does not begrudge them the alimony because they recognize their ex-spouse's sacrifice and contribution to the family, the children's, and indeed their success.

I am sorry if that was not your experience, or perhaps you are the type that begrudges an at-home spouse for ultimately getting paid more for his or her in-home work than you are paid for your out-of-the-home work?

Once the kids are a certain age this is just not true (unless she homeschools). The kids are in school and "run the household" is just lame. Stop making this some telenovela. Some men are nice and give their wives more money than they should. That is fine. But the fact is that she made her decision and she needs to live with it. She could have made other decision if money was her first concern, as it usually is for men.

I am sorry that you feel you need to be paid to care for your own children... that is truly bizarre. You should feel blessed that you got to live off the dole for so long.

My mother worked for the State Department (or as I suspect, perhaps one of the three-letter agencies) when I was growing up. We lived literally on every continent except one, and though my father was a professor (or was he?), he found it very difficult to find work abroad at every new posting with the understanding that he would be gone in another year or two at most. In any case, he never found or established the continuity of work necessary to advance most successful careers. Some of the places we lived were quite risky, and I am personally glad that my sister and I had one parent able to devote their time to our adjustment and development.

So in my case, I would say the "at-home" work did not end when we were at school, and in fact became more complicated in some cases my dad had to drive us long-distances to the nearest international or American schools, and even longer distances to places for the musical training both my sister and I engaged in at a high level.

My friend works for the CIA.... we can say it... DHS is not going to bust us... and his wife STAYED IN THE STATES AND CONTINUED HER CAREER. If he decides to work for the CIA and travel all over the world that is his choice, she in the meantime is a very successful lawyer.

How may children do they have? Or don't they have any yet? If the latter, then yes, I can see how this mutually-beneficial arrangement is sustainable in the long-run. "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids."

3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story of George and Annie (totally fictional).

George is a Vienna boy who attends Virginia Tech, where he earns his BS, MS and PhD in ChE. Annie is a San Francisco girl who earns in BA in Philosophy at Yale. They both meet at Harvard, while she is earning her JD and he is earning his MBA.

After Harvard, she clerks on the Fourth Circuit and he begins his career for Mobil. She goes on to join him in the DC area a year later, in 1981, where she is clerking on the Supreme Court. They get married the summer after her clerkship, and she begins work that fall for Skadden in the practice area of Mergers and Acquisitions.

They spend the next nine years enjoying life as a high-earning, no-children, career-focused, fun-loving couple. Annie's and George's career are going very well, and they travel all over the world as vacations permit. In her ninth year at the law firm now, Annie has been assured through reviews that she is on the track to make partner in M&A in the next year or two at most. Then George comes home one day, in 1990, to tell Annie that he has been offered a two-year job posting in Abu Dhabi which will surely lead to the executive ranks in Development.

Annie considers this, talks to friends, family, and colleagues, and is reassured that a two-year break, after which they will return to DC, should not postpone her partnership opportunities too much -- besides it is a good time to start the family they had always planned.

Two years in the UAE turns into three which is then unexpectedly (but why derail George's momentum now?) followed by three years in Nigeria, and now the family has two children - a boy and a girl - both under the age of six. It is now 1996, and George turns down another promotion opportunity in Papua New Guinea to finally return to DC. On the eve of their return, though, another company - Exxon - with whom George has worked, offers him a deputy vice-president position in Development, which pays much more, but is in Houston. George and Annie decide to move to Houston, where two children soon become three.

Three years later, in 1999, Exxon and Mobil merge, and George is recalled to Virginia, where his star continues to rise. Annie takes care of the logistics of their move, and as she thinks about where the family should live and where the children will go to school, she contemplates a return to work. Full-time, partnership at Skadden is not eventually out of the question as they want her back, but will be difficult to attain in the near-future as she has not done any M&A work - or indeed any legal work - for the past nine years. Annie settles the family in McLean, gets the two older children into Sidwell, and stays home with the two-year old as she works on hiring a nanny and finding a job.

In 2000, Annie finds in-house work at a relatively new corporation, Capital One, which conveniently is located near their home. However, that first year back at work is not easy, one nanny leaves and then another, and their little girl is having constant infections, ear, sinuses, pneumonia, which require constant doctors appointments. George, obviously, cannot or does not want to take the time off of work for these, and in any case he is constantly traveling internationally.

Annie finds it increasingly stressful to maintain her legal schedule responsibly at a company that is growing by leaps and bounds while having to pick up the older children from afterschool programs at 6:00 p.m. (when the nanny is making dinner) and take time from her schedule for school meetings, doctor's appointments. However, with the help of an accommodating employer and later a part time schedule, she manages to balance everything for the next year-and-a-half.

In late 2001 George is sent to London, and the family follows. More relocation, more finding schools, more transfers in an increasingly tense world. Every time Annie is left to contemplate and coordinate the logistics, help execute the seamless transfer and adjust the children to a great new life in their next stop.

It is now 2014, the three children are off and well at Stanford and Virginia Tech as they launch their own careers, and the youngest daughter is about to start at Yale. George is now Vice President at another global oil company and extremely well-situated and compensated.

In truth, Annie and George have been growing apart for some time now, and she is ready to return to the States and assume to semblance of a more-normal life closer to the children. George needs to remain abroad for his career, and they amicably decide to divorce at this point after a long, and relatively good marriage.

George any Annie have been married 33 years, since 1981. She has been out of legal practice, except for her brief, year-and-a-half long stint at Capital One, back in 2000-2001, for almost twenty-four years.

Annie is now a 60-year old, unemployed attorney. George is now a senior vice president of an international oil company earning upwards of $5 million/year. If she takes the next 33 years to try to build up her career, as Goerge took to build up his, she will be almost 90 before she reaches her full earning potential, and that is clearly not going to happen at her age for many reasons.

I hope that this completely fabricated example helps to illustrate why a spouse is often compensated for a lifetime career loss.

Annie made all these decisions. She had many points at which she could decide to go back to work. She had an option at every stage of the game, and she shouidl have known to protect herself.

That's not exactly how normal people in functioning marriages think. Yes, it's smart to try to protect your own earning potential to the extent you can, but generally married couples make decisions together about what is best for the family. Once George's career took off, it seems that following it to the detriment of Annie's was the decision they mutually decided was best for the family (and those looming college tuitions). It would have been nice if later on they had mutually decided to stay married and move back to VA together, but they didn't. It's not good public policy to leave Annie with the short stick when the time comes that they just can't make mutual decisions anymore and decide to divorce, just because George has the power to control the draw.

Actually ... most men want their wife to go back to work once the kids are in school, many men want their wives to work the whole time. "most normal people" is not a fact... it's an opinion. Generally married couples compromise and most don't really agree 100% on everything. Maybe George wanted to commute back and forth, or go over seas himself, or wanted Annie to get a job.

Besides in your scenario Annie would be fine with 1/2 the assets earned during the time of the marriage and would not need alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you feel that you are owed a $100k living? The average salary in this country is less than half that -- for people who work full-time. Most people will work all of their lives and never make close to that, including people with college degrees.

In the example above, I would offer that Annie's closest colleague at the firm, also a woman and also her year, did stay to make partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions practice and is now, at age 60, earning more than $2 million/year. Annie would feel, rightly, that she gave up a future earning $2 million/year, so that George could pursue his future potential (successfully) earning $5 million/year. That is why she would feel that she is owed a very generous alimony.

As you yourself point out, most people in the U.S. make nowhere near that amount, and would thus not expect, or indeed be awarded, that particularly generous alimony.

Still... people don't think spending your days in the spa, gym and country club is a huge sacrifice. She made her choice... family. He made his choice ... money.

It's a bummer... but there are decisions and consequences. Most people want their cake... but the cake is either eaten or stale.

In the example above, Annie was not spending her days at the spa, gym, and country club. She was spending her days taking care of a household and family that was moving regularly around the world so that her spouse could pursue every possible career opportunity, while his and her children also adjusted and thrived with every step, not an easy thing to do. If she had not been so engaged, and required to move around, she would have presumably built a successful law practice like her good friend and former-colleague Meryl. In cases like these, including much less extreme examples of career sacrifice and moves, the career-sacrificing spouse is awarded very healthy, long-term alimony. And in many cases, the very wealthy, high-income ex-spouse does not begrudge them the alimony because they recognize their ex-spouse's sacrifice and contribution to the family, the children's, and indeed their success.

I am sorry if that was not your experience, or perhaps you are the type that begrudges an at-home spouse for ultimately getting paid more for his or her in-home work than you are paid for your out-of-the-home work?

Once the kids are a certain age this is just not true (unless she homeschools). The kids are in school and "run the household" is just lame. Stop making this some telenovela. Some men are nice and give their wives more money than they should. That is fine. But the fact is that she made her decision and she needs to live with it. She could have made other decision if money was her first concern, as it usually is for men.

I am sorry that you feel you need to be paid to care for your own children... that is truly bizarre. You should feel blessed that you got to live off the dole for so long.

My mother worked for the State Department (or as I suspect, perhaps one of the three-letter agencies) when I was growing up. We lived literally on every continent except one, and though my father was a professor (or was he?), he found it very difficult to find work abroad at every new posting with the understanding that he would be gone in another year or two at most. In any case, he never found or established the continuity of work necessary to advance most successful careers. Some of the places we lived were quite risky, and I am personally glad that my sister and I had one parent able to devote their time to our adjustment and development.

So in my case, I would say the "at-home" work did not end when we were at school, and in fact became more complicated in some cases my dad had to drive us long-distances to the nearest international or American schools, and even longer distances to places for the musical training both my sister and I engaged in at a high level.

My friend works for the CIA.... we can say it... DHS is not going to bust us... and his wife STAYED IN THE STATES AND CONTINUED HER CAREER. If he decides to work for the CIA and travel all over the world that is his choice[i], she in the meantime is a very successful lawyer.

How may children do they have? Or don't they have any yet? If the latter, then yes, I can see how this mutually-beneficial arrangement is sustainable in the long-run. "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids."

3

That is great for them. I assume they must live near some family, which many people in these situations do not, but you will probably tell me that they have absolutely no family or support anywhere in the DC area, just to validate this extreme example. In any case, how sad for the children that there dad is always abroad working and they never get to see him?

Or, I am sorry, did you say "IF he decides . . . to travel all over the world"? So it appears, in your example, that he has sacrificed his (potential advancement) opportunities abroad by deciding primarily to stay locally. That is what I thought, in your friend's case, her husband has made the sacrifice by continuing to work primarily out of his DC base, so that his wife can continue with her successful law practice. Someone always has to make the sacrifice. I am glad that he made one for her and the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure of the legalities of your state divorce laws, but since you have been married to your husband for I am assuming more than a decade, then you should be entitled to more than 3 yrs of alimony payments. I think it is up to a judge in divorce court rather than your husband who gets what + how much + for how long. Ultimately, the final say is done in a court of law.

If your divorce attorney disagrees, I would try to find another one who seems to be more pro-active for YOU.

Agreed. Yes, it's good to trust a lawyer. BUT you should get a second opinion. I've had a lawyer before who didn't side with me. After finding anther one, I got what I wanted. The lawyer is working for you. Don't forget that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story of George and Annie (totally fictional).

George is a Vienna boy who attends Virginia Tech, where he earns his BS, MS and PhD in ChE. Annie is a San Francisco girl who earns in BA in Philosophy at Yale. They both meet at Harvard, while she is earning her JD and he is earning his MBA.

After Harvard, she clerks on the Fourth Circuit and he begins his career for Mobil. She goes on to join him in the DC area a year later, in 1981, where she is clerking on the Supreme Court. They get married the summer after her clerkship, and she begins work that fall for Skadden in the practice area of Mergers and Acquisitions.

They spend the next nine years enjoying life as a high-earning, no-children, career-focused, fun-loving couple. Annie's and George's career are going very well, and they travel all over the world as vacations permit. In her ninth year at the law firm now, Annie has been assured through reviews that she is on the track to make partner in M&A in the next year or two at most. Then George comes home one day, in 1990, to tell Annie that he has been offered a two-year job posting in Abu Dhabi which will surely lead to the executive ranks in Development.

Annie considers this, talks to friends, family, and colleagues, and is reassured that a two-year break, after which they will return to DC, should not postpone her partnership opportunities too much -- besides it is a good time to start the family they had always planned.

Two years in the UAE turns into three which is then unexpectedly (but why derail George's momentum now?) followed by three years in Nigeria, and now the family has two children - a boy and a girl - both under the age of six. It is now 1996, and George turns down another promotion opportunity in Papua New Guinea to finally return to DC. On the eve of their return, though, another company - Exxon - with whom George has worked, offers him a deputy vice-president position in Development, which pays much more, but is in Houston. George and Annie decide to move to Houston, where two children soon become three.

Three years later, in 1999, Exxon and Mobil merge, and George is recalled to Virginia, where his star continues to rise. Annie takes care of the logistics of their move, and as she thinks about where the family should live and where the children will go to school, she contemplates a return to work. Full-time, partnership at Skadden is not eventually out of the question as they want her back, but will be difficult to attain in the near-future as she has not done any M&A work - or indeed any legal work - for the past nine years. Annie settles the family in McLean, gets the two older children into Sidwell, and stays home with the two-year old as she works on hiring a nanny and finding a job.

In 2000, Annie finds in-house work at a relatively new corporation, Capital One, which conveniently is located near their home. However, that first year back at work is not easy, one nanny leaves and then another, and their little girl is having constant infections, ear, sinuses, pneumonia, which require constant doctors appointments. George, obviously, cannot or does not want to take the time off of work for these, and in any case he is constantly traveling internationally.

Annie finds it increasingly stressful to maintain her legal schedule responsibly at a company that is growing by leaps and bounds while having to pick up the older children from afterschool programs at 6:00 p.m. (when the nanny is making dinner) and take time from her schedule for school meetings, doctor's appointments. However, with the help of an accommodating employer and later a part time schedule, she manages to balance everything for the next year-and-a-half.

In late 2001 George is sent to London, and the family follows. More relocation, more finding schools, more transfers in an increasingly tense world. Every time Annie is left to contemplate and coordinate the logistics, help execute the seamless transfer and adjust the children to a great new life in their next stop.

It is now 2014, the three children are off and well at Stanford and Virginia Tech as they launch their own careers, and the youngest daughter is about to start at Yale. George is now Vice President at another global oil company and extremely well-situated and compensated.

In truth, Annie and George have been growing apart for some time now, and she is ready to return to the States and assume to semblance of a more-normal life closer to the children. George needs to remain abroad for his career, and they amicably decide to divorce at this point after a long, and relatively good marriage.

George any Annie have been married 33 years, since 1981. She has been out of legal practice, except for her brief, year-and-a-half long stint at Capital One, back in 2000-2001, for almost twenty-four years.

Annie is now a 60-year old, unemployed attorney. George is now a senior vice president of an international oil company earning upwards of $5 million/year. If she takes the next 33 years to try to build up her career, as Goerge took to build up his, she will be almost 90 before she reaches her full earning potential, and that is clearly not going to happen at her age for many reasons.

I hope that this completely fabricated example helps to illustrate why a spouse is often compensated for a lifetime career loss.

And in the fairfax county formula, she would receive 1.5 million per year, probably indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story of George and Annie (totally fictional).

George is a Vienna boy who attends Virginia Tech, where he earns his BS, MS and PhD in ChE. Annie is a San Francisco girl who earns in BA in Philosophy at Yale. They both meet at Harvard, while she is earning her JD and he is earning his MBA.

After Harvard, she clerks on the Fourth Circuit and he begins his career for Mobil. She goes on to join him in the DC area a year later, in 1981, where she is clerking on the Supreme Court. They get married the summer after her clerkship, and she begins work that fall for Skadden in the practice area of Mergers and Acquisitions.

They spend the next nine years enjoying life as a high-earning, no-children, career-focused, fun-loving couple. Annie's and George's career are going very well, and they travel all over the world as vacations permit. In her ninth year at the law firm now, Annie has been assured through reviews that she is on the track to make partner in M&A in the next year or two at most. Then George comes home one day, in 1990, to tell Annie that he has been offered a two-year job posting in Abu Dhabi which will surely lead to the executive ranks in Development.

Annie considers this, talks to friends, family, and colleagues, and is reassured that a two-year break, after which they will return to DC, should not postpone her partnership opportunities too much -- besides it is a good time to start the family they had always planned.

Two years in the UAE turns into three which is then unexpectedly (but why derail George's momentum now?) followed by three years in Nigeria, and now the family has two children - a boy and a girl - both under the age of six. It is now 1996, and George turns down another promotion opportunity in Papua New Guinea to finally return to DC. On the eve of their return, though, another company - Exxon - with whom George has worked, offers him a deputy vice-president position in Development, which pays much more, but is in Houston. George and Annie decide to move to Houston, where two children soon become three.

Three years later, in 1999, Exxon and Mobil merge, and George is recalled to Virginia, where his star continues to rise. Annie takes care of the logistics of their move, and as she thinks about where the family should live and where the children will go to school, she contemplates a return to work. Full-time, partnership at Skadden is not eventually out of the question as they want her back, but will be difficult to attain in the near-future as she has not done any M&A work - or indeed any legal work - for the past nine years. Annie settles the family in McLean, gets the two older children into Sidwell, and stays home with the two-year old as she works on hiring a nanny and finding a job.

In 2000, Annie finds in-house work at a relatively new corporation, Capital One, which conveniently is located near their home. However, that first year back at work is not easy, one nanny leaves and then another, and their little girl is having constant infections, ear, sinuses, pneumonia, which require constant doctors appointments. George, obviously, cannot or does not want to take the time off of work for these, and in any case he is constantly traveling internationally.

Annie finds it increasingly stressful to maintain her legal schedule responsibly at a company that is growing by leaps and bounds while having to pick up the older children from afterschool programs at 6:00 p.m. (when the nanny is making dinner) and take time from her schedule for school meetings, doctor's appointments. However, with the help of an accommodating employer and later a part time schedule, she manages to balance everything for the next year-and-a-half.

In late 2001 George is sent to London, and the family follows. More relocation, more finding schools, more transfers in an increasingly tense world. Every time Annie is left to contemplate and coordinate the logistics, help execute the seamless transfer and adjust the children to a great new life in their next stop.

It is now 2014, the three children are off and well at Stanford and Virginia Tech as they launch their own careers, and the youngest daughter is about to start at Yale. George is now Vice President at another global oil company and extremely well-situated and compensated.

In truth, Annie and George have been growing apart for some time now, and she is ready to return to the States and assume to semblance of a more-normal life closer to the children. George needs to remain abroad for his career, and they amicably decide to divorce at this point after a long, and relatively good marriage.

George any Annie have been married 33 years, since 1981. She has been out of legal practice, except for her brief, year-and-a-half long stint at Capital One, back in 2000-2001, for almost twenty-four years.

Annie is now a 60-year old, unemployed attorney. George is now a senior vice president of an international oil company earning upwards of $5 million/year. If she takes the next 33 years to try to build up her career, as Goerge took to build up his, she will be almost 90 before she reaches her full earning potential, and that is clearly not going to happen at her age for many reasons.

I hope that this completely fabricated example helps to illustrate why a spouse is often compensated for a lifetime career loss.

Annie made all these decisions. She had many points at which she could decide to go back to work. She had an option at every stage of the game, and she shouidl have known to protect herself.

That's not exactly how normal people in functioning marriages think. Yes, it's smart to try to protect your own earning potential to the extent you can, but generally married couples make decisions together about what is best for the family. Once George's career took off, it seems that following it to the detriment of Annie's was the decision they mutually decided was best for the family (and those looming college tuitions). It would have been nice if later on they had mutually decided to stay married and move back to VA together, but they didn't. It's not good public policy to leave Annie with the short stick when the time comes that they just can't make mutual decisions anymore and decide to divorce, just because George has the power to control the draw.

Actually ... most men want their wife to go back to work once the kids are in school, many men want their wives to work the whole time. "most normal people" is not a fact... it's an opinion. Generally married couples compromise and most don't really agree 100% on everything. Maybe George wanted to commute back and forth, or go over seas himself, or wanted Annie to get a job.

Besides in your scenario Annie would be fine with 1/2 the assets earned during the time of the marriage and would not need alimony.

Actually, I am married, 25+ years, to a high-income earner, and every time that I have told my spouse that I am pursuing a job, s/he has strongly discouraged me though our three children are all now in their late school and college years. It does happen, especially among people in stressful jobs that require much family flexibility, moves, and accommodation. There are many, at-home husbands and wives in this situation that I have met over the years and all over the world, particularly in this economic sector. In almost every case, the working spouse not only prefers it this way because of the flexibility it affords her or him, but has actively discouraged the other spouse from working themselves. I am sorry to burst your limited and provincial experience working and living amongst the locally-entrenched DC lawyers, lobbyists, contractors, and politicians who never live anywhere else, and thus never face these sort of international challenges requiring the sacrifice by one spouse or another.

[Anonymous]

Actually ... most men want their wife to go back to work once the kids are in school, many men want their wives to work the whole time. "most normal people" is not a fact... it's an opinion. Generally married couples compromise and most don't really agree 100% on everything. Maybe George wanted to commute back and forth, or go over seas himself, or wanted Annie to get a job.

Besides in your scenario Annie would be fine with 1/2 the assets earned during the time of the marriage and would not need alimony.


Yep. Most men want you to carry and deliver their children, work full time, do 75 percent of the work at home and still look great. Not to mention you shouldn't be stressed out and should want to fuck all the time. Thankfully I didn't marry someone like this. Funny how we used to not be allowed to work and now we have to work. Life as a woman is tough.

If my husband leaves me and I had to quit my job to support him and raise his children, I better get half. My advice would be if you marry someone who might leave you one day, don't have his children for him. Ask him why he doesn't have them?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Previous poster, that is a frightening GIF image. As always, unfortunately, the poor get nothing and the rich get richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think. I do think my DH owes me more for all I have given up.

Bullshit. Who forced you to marry him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think. I do think my DH owes me more for all I have given up.

Bullshit. Who forced you to marry him?

+1 - Since when does somebody owe you for the poor choices YOU made?

[Anonymous]

Various levels of divorce hell.

This is a summary of my observations, based on my friends' experiences with divorce.

When both spouses work full-time in careers that -- more or less -- can each individually support a person with one or two children comfortably, then the divorce mainly comes down to questions of custody issues and logistics, with a more-or-less equitable split of the marital assets.

When both spouses work full-time in careers that -- most definitely -- cannot individually support a person with one or two children comfortably, then the divorce comes down to issues of child support, and questions of custody issues and logistics, with a more-or-less equitable split of marital assets.

When one spouse is an at-home spouse:

If the earning spouse is very wealthy (earning $5 million or more a year) then the spouses can generally agree on split that pays generous alimony and child support, full college and household expenses - because the earning spouse can afford two essentially maintain two households. The marital assets may be split a little more generously toward the non-working spouse.

If the earning spouse is middle class to wealthy the divorces are the most contentious. Both spouses have become accustomed to a life of nice vacations, club memberships, good schools, and the at-home spouse is often highly-educated and has given up a career track. At this income level, the earning-spouse cannot generously support two households in the style of European vacations, Big 3 schools, BMWs, and country club memberships. In fact, s/he may want to move on to a second spouse and family who will want and expect all those things, but the ex-spouse and family want them too. These divorces are super-contentious on issues like the distribution of marital assets, alimony, child support, and will be fought tooth-and-nail with lots of resentment on both sides.

Divorce among low-earning spouse with a minimum-wage, clerical, or even lower GS-scale jobs have, remarkably, been less contentious. It is what it is, neither spouse is accustomed to a fancy lifestyle, and the at-home spouse can often get an entry-level job paying close-to what the earning spouse used to provide. These ex-couples sometimes find that the financial situation is somewhat better since they both now work earning a beginning salary. However, issues of child custody, logistics and child support may throw a wrench in the proceedings since they both now work and are busier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you feel that you are owed a $100k living? The average salary in this country is less than half that -- for people who work full-time. Most people will work all of their lives and never make close to that, including people with college degrees.

In the example above, I would offer that Annie's closest colleague at the firm, also a woman and also her year, did stay to make partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions practice and is now, at age 60, earning more than $2 million/year. Annie would feel, rightly, that she gave up a future earning $2 million/year, so that George could pursue his future potential (successfully) earning $5 million/year. That is why she would feel that she is owed a very generous alimony.

As you yourself point out, most people in the U.S. make nowhere near that amount, and would thus not expect, or indeed be awarded, that particularly generous alimony.

Still... people don't think spending your days in the spa, gym and country club is a huge sacrifice. She made her choice... family. He made his choice ... money.

It's a bummer... but there are decisions and consequences. Most people want their cake... but the cake is either eaten or stale.

In the example above, Annie was not spending her days at the spa, gym, and country club. She was spending her days taking care of a household and family that was moving regularly around the world so that her spouse could pursue every possible career opportunity, while his and her children also adjusted and thrived with every step, not an easy thing to do. If she had not been so engaged, and required to move around, she would have presumably built a successful law practice like her good friend and former-colleague Meryl. In cases like these, including much less extreme examples of career sacrifice and moves, the career-sacrificing spouse is awarded very healthy, long-term alimony. And in many cases, the very wealthy, high-income ex-spouse does not begrudge them the alimony because they recognize their ex-spouse's sacrifice and contribution to the family, the children's, and indeed their success.

I am sorry if that was not your experience, or perhaps you are the type that begrudges an at-home spouse for ultimately getting paid more for his or her in-home work than you are paid for your out-of-the-home work?

Once the kids are a certain age this is just not true (unless she homeschools). The kids are in school and "run the household" is just lame. Stop making this some telenovela. Some men are nice and give their wives more money than they should. That is fine. But the fact is that she made her decision and she needs to live with it. She could have made other decision if money was her first concern, as it usually is for men.

I am sorry that you feel you need to be paid to care for your own children... that is truly bizarre. You should feel blessed that you got to live off the dole for so long.

My mother worked for the State Department (or as I suspect, perhaps one of the three-letter agencies) when I was growing up. We lived literally on every continent except one, and though my father was a professor (or was he?), he found it very difficult to find work abroad at every new posting with the understanding that he would be gone in another year or two at most. In any case, he never found or established the continuity of work necessary to advance most successful careers. Some of the places we lived were quite risky, and I am personally glad that my sister and I had one parent able to devote their time to our adjustment and development.

So in my case, I would say the "at-home" work did not end when we were at school, and in fact became more complicated in some cases my dad had to drive us long-distances to the nearest international or American schools, and even longer distances to places for the musical training both my sister and I engaged in at a high level.

My friend works for the CIA.... we can say it... DHS is not going to bust us... and his wife STAYED IN THE STATES AND CONTINUED HER CAREER. If he decides to work for the CIA and travel all over the world that is his choice[i], she in the meantime is a very successful lawyer.

How may children do they have? Or don't they have any yet? If the latter, then yes, I can see how this mutually-beneficial arrangement is sustainable in the long-run. "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids."

3

That is great for them. I assume they must live near some family, which many people in these situations do not, but you will probably tell me that they have absolutely no family or support anywhere in the DC area, just to validate this extreme example. In any case, how sad for the children that there dad is always abroad working and they never get to see him?

Or, I am sorry, did you say "IF he decides . . . to travel all over the world"? So it appears, in your example, that he has sacrificed his (potential advancement) opportunities abroad by deciding primarily to stay locally. That is what I thought, in your friend's case, her husband has made the sacrifice by continuing to work primarily out of his DC base, so that his wife can continue with her successful law practice. Someone always has to make the sacrifice. I am glad that he made one for her and the family.

She has family in the area... not that they are any help. His mother is in the area and is a bit helpful but is a MIL so "helpful" is maybe an overstatement. She has enough money to get help so that is an advantage. They have 3 kids so for some years he did decide to be away a lot. He was home here and there for a week, or for a weekend and sometime for a month. I think he has taken positions less prestigious in his line of work to be close for the kids for a year or two. There are 3 kids and the oldest is 13, so there are many years and many decision point about career. Part of it was daddy tracked for a bit, and then not once the kids were all in school full time.

Everybody make decision ... I am not one to judge... but this specific couple often says... "there are children out there that needed me more than you did last week, or yesterday, or last night (depending the situation)." The wife works a lot too... and she does work with children rights too.

I think there are many dad that rarely see their child. I have a friend who is a surgeon, one morning he teen asked where he traveled to this week... he had not traveled... he just had late surgeries for a week. "I missed a week of my kids life" he mused as he told me the story.

I have many friends that fly out on Sunday/Monday and return on Thursday, leaving the spouse behind to "run the household"... 1/2 work, 1/2 don't.

Being in the 1% is not for the faint of heart. I personally, have a faint heart... and I mommy tracked (a decision I don't expect to be paid for later in life)... enough to take my kids to school and pick them up but can still support myself if my H runs off with the pool boy.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting the anecdote above. I just don't think it is realistic to expect a spouse to be responsible for compensating someone for "opportunity loss" of that magnitude.

When you get married, you agree to assume some responsibilty for you spouse's welfare -- not compensating him or her for a theoretical career. In the case above, Annie is probably entitled to a few years of alimony, making it possible for her to get a job, and maintain a reasonable standard of living. It's unrealistic to expect to be compensated for theoretical seven-figure salary career.

And remember, she is automatically entitled to half of their assets. If he was making millions, then she presumably will be walking away with seven figures herself. Boo friggin hoo.

[Anonymous]

ugh ... typos... sorry