Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think maybe the overheard wives were being a little tongue in cheek and the author fell for it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My best friend is a SAHM and she is paid a salary by her DH. It's a safety net that she banks. I don't think she gets a percentage of his yearly bonus.

This can't be freaking real.

Yep, it's real. It started when decided to SAH. She gets an amount equivalent to what she was earning in her university researcher position. It's her money in case they divorce. Her father had affairs so she's got childhood issues about marriage and money.

How is it possible to maintain a marriage of equals when one literally pays the other a salary like an employee? Or does that not bother her?

Did she want to SAH?

My husband gives me an allowance each month. I use it for beauty appointments and clothes. It works great for us. This way he doesn't freak out how much I spend on these things.

Like you're his child? Healthy!

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:We have a lot of wealthy friends who live in that area of NY, and I have never heard of such a thing. It sounds so ridiculous that I tend to believe the author made it up. She certainly can't hide her contempt for her neighbors. Hope she is planning a move.

Anonymous wrote:Her engagement ring only cost $7000 and she's bragging about it! For the kind of money he makes, that's a cheap ring.

Anonymous wrote:My mom was a SAHM. She was very involved with managing our family's budget and my dad was very clear that they were a team

I can't imagine how any woman, working or SAH, would be okay with being treated as a child or employee within a marriage.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, this person is exactly write. Women who SAHM are making an irrational decision from an economic point of view. They may not care about that, but it's true. It is not in their self interest, even though they may think so at first.

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.

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.