Predicting spousal support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"He should’ve thought about that before letting his d!ck wander."

Huh? News flash: Some women cheat, become alcoholics, or are abusive... just like some men.

Most state laws allow to overturn presumption of 50/50 and avoid alimony in certain cases. He would need to prove she was cheating, alcoholic, not a good mother or spouse. That’s on him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

There are so many wrong generalizations here I can’t even…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

[Anonymous]

I was a SAHM for more than a decade. Post-divorce I went back to work full time. However, I still do 99% of child-related things. XH still has the equivalent benefit of a SAHM because he still doesn't do any of the carpools, doc appointments, sick day callouts, sports practices, etc. I doubt this is uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about? You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

Yeas and 108k after tax is $150-170к before tax. If husbands hourly billable rate is way more than that he’s better of focusing on his career. And if at the same time if the wife’s income is under $170k it’s best for their combined family income if she focuses on household (which may include way more than just raising children). SAHM from wealthy families that I know run own business from home , often adjacent to what husband is doing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Anonymous wrote:You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

I'm simply saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area. Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Anonymous wrote:You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

I'm simply saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area. Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.

And? The OP and others were SAHMs, so obviously not in a two working parent household and didn't manage to solve all these problems as you say. In reality there are only 2 options when you have kids: either you outsource childcare or you do it on your own. So 2 working parent households in the US mostly outsource, hence childcare costs. You can hire a 24/7 nanny/tutor for example. In other countries, households that have 2 working parents often have very involved grandmothers. I personally know of families where a grandma stays home every time a child gets sick. It's not common in the US. And I haven't even touched upon families that have children with serious health problems, prolonged disease or special needs! All in all, you can read that SAHM trend is going up, not down in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

Yeas and 108k after tax is $150-170к before tax. If husbands hourly billable rate is way more than that he’s better of focusing on his career. And if at the same time if the wife’s income is under $170k it’s best for their combined family income if she focuses on household (which may include way more than just raising children). SAHM from wealthy families that I know run own business from home , often adjacent to what husband is doing

I agree. And being a SAHM when there's family business is actually a really well thought-out arrangement for all parties involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Anonymous wrote:You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

I'm simply saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area. Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.

And? The OP and others were SAHMs, so obviously not in a two working parent household and didn't manage to solve all these problems as you say. In reality there are only 2 options when you have kids: either you outsource childcare or you do it on your own. So 2 working parent households in the US mostly outsource, hence childcare costs. You can hire a 24/7 nanny/tutor for example. In other countries, households that have 2 working parents often have very involved grandmothers. I personally know of families where a grandma stays home every time a child gets sick. It's not common in the US. And I haven't even touched upon families that have children with serious health problems, prolonged disease or special needs!

SAHM solved the childcare problem. That's why you stay home. SAHM are not breaking any child supervision laws you mention, because they are supervising the children. I don't understand what you're talking about.

All in all, you can read that SAHM trend is going up, not down in the US.

U.S. fertility rates are also dropping to a all-time lows. Staying at home with children isn't appealing to U.S. women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Anonymous wrote:You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

I'm simply saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area. Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.

And? The OP and others were SAHMs, so obviously not in a two working parent household and didn't manage to solve all these problems as you say. In reality there are only 2 options when you have kids: either you outsource childcare or you do it on your own. So 2 working parent households in the US mostly outsource, hence childcare costs. You can hire a 24/7 nanny/tutor for example. In other countries, households that have 2 working parents often have very involved grandmothers. I personally know of families where a grandma stays home every time a child gets sick. It's not common in the US. And I haven't even touched upon families that have children with serious health problems, prolonged disease or special needs!

SAHM solved the childcare problem. That's why you stay home. SAHM are not breaking any child supervision laws you mention, because they are supervising the children. I don't understand what you're talking about.

All in all, you can read that SAHM trend is going up, not down in the US.

U.S. fertility rates are also dropping to a all-time lows. Staying at home with children isn't appealing to U.S. women.

Huh? I'm responding to this: Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.


As I said the trend is going up for those that have kids. Obviously if you don't have children, you're better off being in the workforce. That said, in the US alimony is not dependent on having children. In the end, marriage is a contract and each party has to understand what kind of contract they agree to. If you don't like the contract, like when your wife becomes a SAHM and forces you to work at gunpoint, you divorce as quickly as possible. If you stay, it's taken as an agreement. Hence what you cannot say after 20 years is that actually you didn't like that your wife was a SAHM all these years... and it's her fault she was stupid to stay at home to raise your children as you both agreed and now that the kids are grown, she should just go and live under a bridge! Have you ever thought how written laws, including divorce laws, came about? When men stopped honoring their agreements.

And obviously young women don't want to get married and have children! In old times a man stood for his family's well-being, now it's only about himself! A family man goes on and on about HIS money and HIS property. If own kids get forgotten the moment a younger woman appears on the horizon, then obviously their mother becomes completely useless!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

"Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k"

You're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Obviously each family does their own calculations. Or what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area.

Anonymous wrote:You think a woman gets pregnant and forces her husband to go to work at gunpoint while she's munching cookies on the couch? How do you think SAHMs come about in the US (non-existent in Europe and most other countries)? Btw, I can also tell you from living in several different countries that US laws about how old a child has to be to stay home alone or whether children can walk by themselves on the streets also plays a role. In the US, child supervision laws are way stricter than elsewhere, meaning someone has to be there to take care of a child. In many European countries you can leave a 6-7 yo child home alone. In DC for example a child under 10 cannot be unsupervised for any period of time, in Maryland you can leave an 8 yo for 1.5 hours during daytime and an 11-12 yo for up to 3 hours during daytime and even a 15 yo you cannot leave overnight alone!

I'm simply saying you're not earning 100k and living in a 3k childcare per child per month per area. Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.

And? The OP and others were SAHMs, so obviously not in a two working parent household and didn't manage to solve all these problems as you say. In reality there are only 2 options when you have kids: either you outsource childcare or you do it on your own. So 2 working parent households in the US mostly outsource, hence childcare costs. You can hire a 24/7 nanny/tutor for example. In other countries, households that have 2 working parents often have very involved grandmothers. I personally know of families where a grandma stays home every time a child gets sick. It's not common in the US. And I haven't even touched upon families that have children with serious health problems, prolonged disease or special needs!

SAHM solved the childcare problem. That's why you stay home. SAHM are not breaking any child supervision laws you mention, because they are supervising the children. I don't understand what you're talking about.

All in all, you can read that SAHM trend is going up, not down in the US.

U.S. fertility rates are also dropping to a all-time lows. Staying at home with children isn't appealing to U.S. women.

Huh? I'm responding to this: Also US households with two working parents manage to solve all the problems you mention.


As I said the trend is going up for those that have kids. Obviously if you don't have children, you're better off being in the workforce. That said, in the US alimony is not dependent on having children. In the end, marriage is a contract and each party has to understand what kind of contract they agree to. If you don't like the contract, like when your wife becomes a SAHM and forces you to work at gunpoint, you divorce as quickly as possible. If you stay, it's taken as an agreement. Hence what you cannot say after 20 years is that actually you didn't like that your wife was a SAHM all these years... and it's her fault she was stupid to stay at home to raise your children as you both agreed and now that the kids are grown, she should just go and live under a bridge! Have you ever thought how written laws, including divorce laws, came about? When men stopped honoring their agreements.

And obviously young women don't want to get married and have children! In old times a man stood for his family's well-being, now it's only about himself! A family man goes on and on about HIS money and HIS property. If own kids get forgotten the moment a younger woman appears on the horizon, then obviously their mother becomes completely useless!

Your man was selfish. We don't need you defining the zeitgeist for us.

Just do us a favor and make sure your daughters and nieces understand to avoid men and consider permanent birth control to avoid this nightmare society you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

No, in divorces where alimony matters (as seems to be the issue here), the husband is often a highly paid professional spending most of his time in his office. Childcare in the US is so expensive, as is after-school care that most families that go SAHM route figure out that it's not beneficial to pay $3000 for childcare per child per month (standard nowadays). Which is how you end up with SAHMs. It's not like the woman suddenly decided to give up her well-paid job to change diapers. Usually it's a family decision where the husband concentrates on earning income and the wife concentrates on the home front, sometimes the other way around. Generally, husbands are fine with this division of labor (paid and unpaid) when everything goes fine, as after all, it's financially prudent. So in your example sure, maybe the family income would be $160K if both work, but then with 2 children, your yearly cost for childcare is $72K. With 3 kids it's $108K. That's how families decide to go the SAHM route, got it? You seem to think SAHMs want to be at their husband's mercy with no income just for fun.

Yeas and 108k after tax is $150-170к before tax. If husbands hourly billable rate is way more than that he’s better of focusing on his career. And if at the same time if the wife’s income is under $170k it’s best for their combined family income if she focuses on household (which may include way more than just raising children). SAHM from wealthy families that I know run own business from home , often adjacent to what husband is doing

I agree. And being a SAHM when there's family business is actually a really well thought-out arrangement for all parties involved.

Many wealthy families have the second spouse manage a business that also allows for real tax savings. I was managing real estate business with hundreds of thousands in revenue, which enabled to offset my exH's salary and realize tax savings in thousands of dollars over the years. So technically many women are not entirely "SAH" - they de-facto "work from home". And I worked 24/7 (business+childcare) eg way more than many women who go to office would have!

[Anonymous]

Gimme a break. A wife handling the family business is not a SAHM. She's directly contributing to the family's finances.

And nobody pays for 3 separate child care fees at $35k/year. They'd hire a nanny or get an au pair.