Wife Bonuses

[Anonymous]

Wednesday Martin threw a grenade into the mommy wars, ugh. I find her more hypocritical and judgmental than anthropological.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wednesday Martin threw a grenade into the mommy wars, ugh. I find her more hypocritical and judgmental than anthropological.

She's the second wife of an investment manager who has two kids from his prior marriage and two with Martin. She has an agenda here, but I'm not so sure that it's really about SAHMs themselves. I'd be really curious to know her husband's first wife's story.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, apparently the book goes into how she was chasing after a Birkin bag, but it's justified in her case because she's totally gainfully employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the article was a little wobbly, but I am a SAHM and my DH always gives a me a percentage of his yearly bonus, to spend or save as I want. This has never changed based on my "performance".

I don't understand this 'give me some of his money'. It's both of your money; you staying home allows him to focus on work, you are a team.

+1 Every penny from either side goes to one pot and is our money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So heres something I will never admit in real life. In my early 20s I dated a married man. He was really wealthy and gave out wads of cash often. He would say things like "go shopping on me" or "try ABC spa and think of me" or " why don't you go look at cars". It was his exit tool, one that probably worked on many women before and after me. I just decided to hoard the cash. I put it in an account and when we broke up it was around 33k ("dated" for about 2 years). I invested it in a risky tech start up a few years later (mid 90s) and got fairly lucky. I bought a house and have never had a mortgage all because of my whore self.

Good for you. It's hard for me to say that being a cheated on wife, but I wholeheartedly am glad you did this for yourself. Really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So heres something I will never admit in real life. In my early 20s I dated a married man. He was really wealthy and gave out wads of cash often. He would say things like "go shopping on me" or "try ABC spa and think of me" or " why don't you go look at cars". It was his exit tool, one that probably worked on many women before and after me. I just decided to hoard the cash. I put it in an account and when we broke up it was around 33k ("dated" for about 2 years). I invested it in a risky tech start up a few years later (mid 90s) and got fairly lucky. I bought a house and have never had a mortgage all because of my whore self.

Good for you. It's hard for me to say that being a cheated on wife, but I wholeheartedly am glad you did this for yourself. Really.

Bahaha

[Anonymous]

I feel like the wife bonus article is the flip side to that ridiculous "I can't afford my wife" article making the rounds on facebook, where in both cases, the women are opting out of the formal economy and choosing to participate in the informal economy. All a SAH spouse does (whether a parent or not, and whether for a five-figure, six-figure, or seven-figure dude) is shift her labor onto her husband's side of the ledger so that he can get formal payment and credit for both of their work. There are some economic benefits to this that they share -- he doesn't have to pay sales tax or employer tax for her services like he would have to for a nanny or a maid service, she doesn't have to pay employee tax/SS/Medicare like everyone with a reportable salary does either. However, by and large the bulk of the benefits of this arrangement go to him -- he can tap his SS after retirement, she gets zip credit for all her years of (home) work, and she damn sure doesn't get paid overtime. Their au pair has more legal protections than she does.

Labor laws exist because exploitation is too too easy. The fact that anyone is being exploited doesn't help the rest of us -- it lowers our earning potential as well (see "scabs"). If one person has an indentured servant and another person doesn't, it's a hell of a lot easier for the person with the indentured servant to pull the all-nighter at the office and get the promotion. You get the point.

I just balk at any of these women (either UES bonus earners or the can't-afford-my-wife-masses) reveling in their status as informal economy workers. Then again, like most other types of cash-only, informal economy workers, they may just have a higher tolerance for high risk/high reward arrangements. And, as a lot of the ex-wives report, this arrangement certainly carries all-or-nothing risks to it.

[Anonymous]

My brother just sent me the link to the article bc it mentions Save Venice which DH and I have been involved with for years and whose gala we'll be attending in Venice.

Fluff piece. I don't know anyone who gets a "wife bonus".

[Anonymous]

feel like the wife bonus article is the flip side to that ridiculous "I can't afford my wife" article making the rounds on facebook, where in both cases, the women are opting out of the formal economy and choosing to participate in the informal economy. All a SAH spouse does (whether a parent or not, and whether for a five-figure, six-figure, or seven-figure dude) is shift her labor onto her husband's side of the ledger so that he can get formal payment and credit for both of their work. There are some economic benefits to this that they share -- he doesn't have to pay sales tax or employer tax for her services like he would have to for a nanny or a maid service, she doesn't have to pay employee tax/SS/Medicare like everyone with a reportable salary does either. However, by and large the bulk of the benefits of this arrangement go to him -- he can tap his SS after retirement, she gets zip credit for all her years of (home) work, and she damn sure doesn't get paid overtime. Their au pair has more legal protections than she does.

Bunk. Absolutely bunk. Do you think dual income families are all hiring nannies and maids and cooks? No. Two things happen. Either one of them takes of the bulk of the work on top of making money or they divide up the household work in a more equitable fashion. The happiest people I know, do the latter. The unhappy people are stuck either way in the former or opting out of the work force.

What I do see is this whole pressure on working spouses to step up every second they are home. They are expected to contribute minute for minute with the spouse whose home (or even worse the home spouse decides they need a break). I had a friend with a SAHD husband. It was the worst because it didn't make anyone's life easier. Everyone was miserable. Dad was miserable being home. Mom was miserable being stressed and having to do a second shift since her SOB husband didn't get things like dinner or laundry done and everyone is miserable because no one feels like the other is doing their part. It's horrible. My friend gave her ex an out, he took it, and she's happily single parenting because it is so much easier to go it alone than to drag an albatross with you through life.

The only way a SAHP works is if that person embraces everything about home life, happily and the working parent is happy carrying the financial burden alone. Otherwise, you are just inserting a bomb in your marriage.

[Anonymous]

I get a wife bonus, ie 50% of my banker DHs bonus. We are very well to do but nowhere near as rich as the people in the article. My husband has always transferred 50% of his bonus to me. It is a non-trivial amount of money. It sort of started out as a sort of joke but has become a tradition with us. I have a job but he outearns me by a wide margin.

[Anonymous]

"The only way a SAHP works is if that person embraces everything about home life, happily and the working parent is happy carrying the financial burden alone. Otherwise, you are just inserting a bomb in your marriage. "

This. That's why neither my spouse nor I ever SAH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get a wife bonus, ie 50% of my banker DHs bonus. We are very well to do but nowhere near as rich as the people in the article. My husband has always transferred 50% of his bonus to me. It is a non-trivial amount of money. It sort of started out as a sort of joke but has become a tradition with us. I have a job but he outearns me by a wide margin.

What is this transferring money to me? Don't people have shared accounts or is separate accounts more common with wealthier folks bc they are always strategizing a divorce??

[Anonymous]

We have many banking accounts to stay under FDIC protection. The bonus sharing is another way to spread it around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the wife bonus article is the flip side to that ridiculous "I can't afford my wife" article making the rounds on facebook, where in both cases, the women are opting out of the formal economy and choosing to participate in the informal economy. All a SAH spouse does (whether a parent or not, and whether for a five-figure, six-figure, or seven-figure dude) is shift her labor onto her husband's side of the ledger so that he can get formal payment and credit for both of their work. There are some economic benefits to this that they share -- he doesn't have to pay sales tax or employer tax for her services like he would have to for a nanny or a maid service, she doesn't have to pay employee tax/SS/Medicare like everyone with a reportable salary does either. However, by and large the bulk of the benefits of this arrangement go to him -- he can tap his SS after retirement, she gets zip credit for all her years of (home) work, and she damn sure doesn't get paid overtime. Their au pair has more legal protections than she does.

Labor laws exist because exploitation is too too easy. The fact that anyone is being exploited doesn't help the rest of us -- it lowers our earning potential as well (see "scabs"). If one person has an indentured servant and another person doesn't, it's a hell of a lot easier for the person with the indentured servant to pull the all-nighter at the office and get the promotion. You get the point.

I just balk at any of these women (either UES bonus earners or the can't-afford-my-wife-masses) reveling in their status as informal economy workers. Then again, like most other types of cash-only, informal economy workers, they may just have a higher tolerance for high risk/high reward arrangements. And, as a lot of the ex-wives report, this arrangement certainly carries all-or-nothing risks to it.

It scares me that you actually believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the wife bonus article is the flip side to that ridiculous "I can't afford my wife" article making the rounds on facebook, where in both cases, the women are opting out of the formal economy and choosing to participate in the informal economy. All a SAH spouse does (whether a parent or not, and whether for a five-figure, six-figure, or seven-figure dude) is shift her labor onto her husband's side of the ledger so that he can get formal payment and credit for both of their work. There are some economic benefits to this that they share -- he doesn't have to pay sales tax or employer tax for her services like he would have to for a nanny or a maid service, she doesn't have to pay employee tax/SS/Medicare like everyone with a reportable salary does either. However, by and large the bulk of the benefits of this arrangement go to him -- he can tap his SS after retirement, she gets zip credit for all her years of (home) work, and she damn sure doesn't get paid overtime. Their au pair has more legal protections than she does.

Labor laws exist because exploitation is too too easy. The fact that anyone is being exploited doesn't help the rest of us -- it lowers our earning potential as well (see "scabs"). If one person has an indentured servant and another person doesn't, it's a hell of a lot easier for the person with the indentured servant to pull the all-nighter at the office and get the promotion. You get the point.

I just balk at any of these women (either UES bonus earners or the can't-afford-my-wife-masses) reveling in their status as informal economy workers. Then again, like most other types of cash-only, informal economy workers, they may just have a higher tolerance for high risk/high reward arrangements. And, as a lot of the ex-wives report, this arrangement certainly carries all-or-nothing risks to it.

It scares me that you actually believe this.

It scares you that I believe that uncompensated, untallied exchanges of goods and services can easily lead to exploitation? Or it scares you to think that hundreds of years after the western concept of romantic love, there may still ultimately be a base transactional element to the institution of marriage that remains at its core, and that some women made a bad bargain?