Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Did you read? Even when you get alimony, it’s not enough to live on. Unless you’re married to a gazillionaire, you better continue working to protect yourself.

Anonymous wrote:You are more at risk when you are young. The older you are, the more assets you have accumulated and also the more likely you are to get alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

your experience is an ANOMALY. The exception is not the rule. The majority of women are not and will never leave with millions from a divorce. Please stop being willfully obtuse.

Which is why the majority of women should work during marriage and never rely on a fake sense of stability the marriage gives

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

your experience is an ANOMALY. The exception is not the rule. The majority of women are not and will never leave with millions from a divorce. Please stop being willfully obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

My experience is not that awful: I got $3.5mm in divorce settlement in income producing real estate. But I did go back to work for $60k/year, as I am still accustomed to a certain lifestyle and my extra $60K give me a luxury apartment in the same neighborhood where I lived with exH $3mm home.
If I had worked, I would have gotten the same $3.5 divorce settlement AND my own earning capacity of $200k year, avoiding loss of earnings of additional $3mm between ages 43-63.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting stay home while married to a lower earner, or not having at least $10mm in joint marital assets to split, in case of a divorce

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Thank you for sharing your story PP. These anti-work SAHMs on this board seem to think that they will never ever have to work again their whole lives if they divorce but it’s not reality, just like your experience illustrates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

I am fairly young so alimony in my case would be around 1 year of my earnings e.g. $50-70K. A "better deal" would mean $70K. The divorce itself takes 2-3 years if you go through court. It wasn't worth it to forgo 2 more years of employment to get such a "deal".

If I had worked throughout marriage, my current income would be close to $200K. I left my career in 2007 at $85K/year. I resumed at 43 with a salary of $60k/year. Many of my classmates from university started way lower in 2007 but grew to 200K.

The imbedded costs of wasted qualification is huge: it's also loss of the future post-divorce income and future pension. My actuary calculated that my decision to stay a home resulted at around $3mm lifetime earnings loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"

Sure, but even working moms face the same lifestyle changes after divorce. They’re typically now living on half the HHI that they previously had. The only difference is that at least they may have a more senior position at their job. From what I have heard, moms that were working but in a lower earning job before divorce get a bad deal because the court will give less alimony than a SAHM would get.

Anonymous wrote:Having gone through a sudden divorce recently, and after 10 years SAHM, I regret this decision to stay at home. It works only if you husband is making so much and you have so much in joint assets that divorce can't change your social status, neighborhood you live, your circle of friends etc. Alimony is peanuts and wasting 10 years of working career to go back to beginner corporate positions alongside 25 y.o. graduates "sucks"