NYT: Forget Pancakes. Pay Mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

Yep. You better hang on to that man because you shouldn't get a penny you didn't earn yourself in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That approach won’t work.

But a significantly increased tax credit or stipend per young child (0-5) based on need beyond the poverty level might work.

Of course, it might also create a perverse incentive to have more babies. A possible solution might be a cap on benefits.

The reality is most sahms don’t need to be paid. Heck, many have hired help.

Just found out a particularly unscrupulous family member just had her 6th child. The oldest had finally aged out of whatever social services was giving her for that child so she had to go and have another to keep those checks rolling in. She lives in a townhouse in Olney paid by someone else and has refused to ever get married because it will impact what benefits are available to her. Thus, her children have had the misfortune of living with a revolving door of men. She's like 38 years old, this has been her career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

What I think is that your extremely fortunate situation is extremely unusual and should not drive policy for the vast number of much poorer working families. Demanding THAT is the unfair thing here, not you having to get a job someday when you are already beyond privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “valuable” work. This is a red herring argument. Bottom line: it’s not paid work and will likely never be. The government will never agree to be your employer for choosing to stay home to care for your children.

Why don’t we focus on the things we can actually control, like better maternity leave policies to support ALL women, not just those who can afford to stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

What I think is that your extremely fortunate situation is extremely unusual and should not drive policy for the vast number of much poorer working families. Demanding THAT is the unfair thing here, not you having to get a job someday when you are already beyond privileged.

The point is that the law should be equitable for everyone.

If a couple mutually decides that one will stay home and not earn their own money, then the earner should be prepared (and be forced, if it comes to that) to pay alimony in a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “valuable” work. This is a red herring argument. Bottom line: it’s not paid work and will likely never be. The government will never agree to be your employer for choosing to stay home to care for your children.

Why don’t we focus on the things we can actually control, like better maternity leave policies to support ALL women, not just those who can afford to stay home?

Or maybe you can stop being bitter towards wealthy women??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a stupid piece that I can't believe the NYT published it. The article proposes that the government should pay all women for childcare and house cleaning. That is about the most anti-feminist thing I can imagine.

If the author is so concerned about the low wages of women who provide childcare and/or cleaning services, why not simply advocate to pay these people better? Instead she (who apparently did not work outside the home while raising her children) thinks she should have gotten paid for that choice. Unbelievably self-centered.

I totally agree. It's very coddling of women. "There there, pat you on the head, we agree it's hard work so we will give you a little wage to acknowledge it. Now back to childbearing!"

The alternative is that women (and their partners) decide for themselves - a parent stays at home, or they both enter the workforce and pay others for childcare.

Women have the smarts to decide for themselves.

And do what with their kids? Leave them to appallingly low paid workers.

Speak for yourself. My childcare provider is handsomely paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

What I think is that your extremely fortunate situation is extremely unusual and should not drive policy for the vast number of much poorer working families. Demanding THAT is the unfair thing here, not you having to get a job someday when you are already beyond privileged.

The point is that the law should be equitable for everyone.

If a couple mutually decides that one will stay home and not earn their own money, then the earner should be prepared (and be forced, if it comes to that) to pay alimony in a divorce.

How is the law not equitable for everyone in your state? You are free to move to a state where you like the laws better. Perhaps you are conflating what you feel might be “fair” with “equitable.” They aren’t the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

Post nup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very least, we should bring alimony back.

Alimony is a feminist issue imo. If we believe women are equals and empower them to make choices, then we need to make sure they don't suffer the consequences of them.

No, not until the aspects of alimony that wildly favor UMC and UC women while harming working class families are ended. Wealthy women who don't want jobs should not be driving policy.

huh? how does alimony hurt working class families?

There is a lot of academic research about this. Alimony laws (and their partner of fault-divorce laws) overwhelmingly help wealthy and largely white women. But they hurt working families, because when poorer families divorce, there is usually not enough money to feasibly set up alimony. However, having the harsher laws in place made divorce much more expensive. Also, not only did people end up staying in bad marriage situations, it also had the unintended impact of reducing the desire for work afterwards.

I remember back when NOW opposed the end of fault-based divorce in NY even though there was lots of evidence that changing the fault laws would help lower-income kids and families. However, the wealthy white women who controlled NOW did not particularly care about poorer women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “valuable” work. This is a red herring argument. Bottom line: it’s not paid work and will likely never be. The government will never agree to be your employer for choosing to stay home to care for your children.

Why don’t we focus on the things we can actually control, like better maternity leave policies to support ALL women, not just those who can afford to stay home?

Or maybe you can stop being bitter towards wealthy women??

I’m not bitter toward wealthy women. I could afford to stay home if I wanted to. I understand that it’s a choice many don’t have, and so this whole argument is silly. Plain and simple. I’m not sure why we are even debating it because there’s no way SAHMs will ever be paid in this country. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.

half is not enough to live on

You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?

Why does that matter unless you disagree that raising kids is not work?

+ 1

If being a SAHM is valuable work, then they should get social security too.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “valuable” work. This is a red herring argument. Bottom line: it’s not paid work and will likely never be. The government will never agree to be your employer for choosing to stay home to care for your children.

Why don’t we focus on the things we can actually control, like better maternity leave policies to support ALL women, not just those who can afford to stay home?

Or maybe you can stop being bitter towards wealthy women??

I’m not bitter toward wealthy women. I could afford to stay home if I wanted to. I understand that it’s a choice many don’t have, and so this whole argument is silly. Plain and simple. I’m not sure why we are even debating it because there’s no way SAHMs will ever be paid in this country. Sorry.

The point is that they shouldn't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.

Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.

And you all think that is fair?

What I think is that your extremely fortunate situation is extremely unusual and should not drive policy for the vast number of much poorer working families. Demanding THAT is the unfair thing here, not you having to get a job someday when you are already beyond privileged.

The point is that the law should be equitable for everyone.

If a couple mutually decides that one will stay home and not earn their own money, then the earner should be prepared (and be forced, if it comes to that) to pay alimony in a divorce.

Well, alimony laws weren't equitable for everyone and so they were reasonably changed. Go sign a post-nup if you are so worried, and stop demanding that poor women and families bear even more of a burden so you don't have to get a job some day.

Do you have any idea how spoiled and entitled you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.

SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.

If you start to pay attention to how long a couple was married before the breadwinner filed for divorce, you will start to notice a pattern: the marriage typically ends before 10 years and the former spouse is SOL w/r/t SS benefits.