The new art of Alimony

Interesting article found at the Wall Street Journal

If you're stupid enough to get married with the overwhelming evidence against it, then I have no sympathy for you.

article said: Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

Hmmm... this is interesting. Now we know today wives make more than husbands in 25% of the housholds. Yet somehow men account for 97% of all alimoney-payers? Now either those rich-wife families don't divorce, or something is amiss with the supposed equality of genders under the current law.

youngchemist2003 said: article said: Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

Hmmm... this is interesting. Now we know today wives make more than husbands in 25% of the housholds. Yet somehow men account for 97% of all alimoney-payers? Now either those rich-wife families don't divorce, or something is amiss with the supposed equality of genders under the current law.
These census statistics are taking into account alimony agreements that may have been set up 10-20 years ago, whereas the fact that women are outearning men is a very recent phenomena. So the census statistics will be more heavily weighted to the earlier times when most men made more than women.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: Then youll MAKE money everytime you get married and divorced

Don't give BBB any ideas!

biomedeng said: youngchemist2003 said: article said: Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

Hmmm... this is interesting. Now we know today wives make more than husbands in 25% of the housholds. Yet somehow men account for 97% of all alimoney-payers? Now either those rich-wife families don't divorce, or something is amiss with the supposed equality of genders under the current law.
These census statistics are taking into account alimony agreements that may have been set up 10-20 years ago, whereas the fact that women are outearning men is a very recent phenomena. So the census statistics will be more heavily weighted to the earlier times when most men made more than women.

So you are saying that in the 80's and 90's, only 3% of the wives out earned their husbands?

I agree with you in that there is a shift in the overall earning power of women, but there are couple of things.

(1) I doubt that the % of higher earning wives increased by 800% in 10-20 years.
(2) most divorce happen well before 10 years of marriage. Most common being 5 or 7 years depend on the sources.

Theres a Briana-Briana-Briana who posted "Getting Married For Fun and Profit" on a feminist forum.

youngchemist2003 said: So you are saying that in the 80's and 90's, only 3% of the wives out earned their husbands?

I agree with you in that there is a shift in the overall earning power of women, but there are couple of things.

(1) I doubt that the % of higher earning wives increased by 800% in 10-20 years.
(2) most divorce happen well before 10 years of marriage. Most common being 5 or 7 years depend on the sources.
I don't know what it was like in the 80s as far as women outearning men. My point was that you cannot say that because currently 25% of women outearn men that the alimony statistics (that take into account older divorce agrements) should be 25% of women pay alimony to men.
I do agree with you that in general the divorce courts are pro-women when it comes to financial settlements. However, IMHO this trend is rapidly changing. In the article posted by the OP there is even calls for reform to end alimony payments when the ex-spouse begins a new romantic relationship with someone else (even if they don't get married--eliminating the situation where someone refuses to get married to the new partner so they can keep collecting alimony). Also calls to reform allimony to eliminate it when the spouse cheats or commits a crime.
One could also examine whether or not men are more hesitant to demand alimony when their wives outearn them. Or maybe the families where women outearn men weren't always that way throughout the relationship and the court takes that into consideration.
Regarding your comment on shorter marriages, I was under the impression that some states do not award alimony (or award less) if the marriage was below a certain number of years.

youngchemist2003 said: article said: Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

Hmmm... this is interesting. Now we know today wives make more than husbands in 25% of the housholds. Yet somehow men account for 97% of all alimoney-payers? Now either those rich-wife families don't divorce, or something is amiss with the supposed equality of genders under the current law.

Husbands of wives who make more may be nicer to their wives, or less machismo to begin with, and therefore less likely to start arguments that lead to divorce?

TxAggieJen said: Husbands of wives who make more may be nicer to their wives, or less machismo to begin with, and therefore less likely to start arguments that lead to divorce? Yes, guys start arguments that lead to divorce; ones like "You spent my paycheck on a bag?" If a woman buys her Prada bag with her extra earnings her man is much less likely to make a fuss over it. Seriously speaking, most divorces do spring from financial/consumer problems and I'd bet most couples in which the woman outearns her mate make more than the median.

youngchemist2003 said: article said: Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

Hmmm... this is interesting. Now we know today wives make more than husbands in 25% of the housholds. Yet somehow men account for 97% of all alimoney-payers? Now either those rich-wife families don't divorce, or something is amiss with the supposed equality of genders under the current law."Earn more" isnt "earn all". I'd assume that in the 25% where the wife earns more, many of the husbands still earn their own paycheck (that is competitive to the wife's, even if less). I'd also assume that of those 97% of alimony payers, the wife recieving the alimony was unemployed/earned significantly less than the husband. I could see there only being 3% of cases where the wife was the main source of support for the family.

SUCKISSTAPLES said: vistaluck said: I think we all need to get married eventually but we just don't want to lose any $$$ when divorce comes. I like to get married as many times as possible but I just don't want to pay any $$$$ for divorcing. There is no point for doing that because the love is over.stop marrying broke girls with bad credit and a LV bag habit, and start marrying the rich ones with lots of family wealth.

Then youll MAKE money everytime you get married and divorced

ha ha ha....

Anakin

anakinskywalker said: SUCKISSTAPLES said: biomedeng said: no one should expect to come out of a divorce with more than they had in the marriage. Ask the girls who dated investment bankers what they think about that

Though I almost never wish anyone harm, I truly find it hard to want anything other than that such gold-digging girls should get used for free sex by their "mark" for a few years (while they are 25 to 35 years of age), and then discarded with no marriage and no alimony. It seems to me that that would serve the gold-digging b*tches right.

Also, it would be truly ironic: the "mark" ending up using the con-woman.

Anakin

Of course, I myself could never do such a thing. I would not be able to bring myself to be so cruel to anyone, even a gold-digging b*tch. But if someone else does it, I would say justice has been done.

Anakin

Gentlemen.

This is a game you cannot beat.

You want progeny. You want sex. You want a quality spouse to raise your kids and share your life with. For those of use who partied in our teens and twenties, you cannot do this for 20 years.

You also DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MAN raising your children.

You also want to be successful and make a proper income for your family.

You must submit. Its like When Jerry Reinsdorf (Chi bulls owner) had to negotiate with MJ (Jordan) during the latter stages of his Jordan's career. Jordan was bigger than the BULL and, arguably, BIGGER THAN THE NBA. Reinsdorf had to accept the fact that for the first time, he was negotiating with a man who had ALL OF THE LEVERAGE. He gave Jordan $30 Mill a year and was done with it.

Smarter men have come to the same conclusions on marriage.

Marry quality and it will probably be OK. If not, then do what you can, but move on.

Until Men can bear children, it is what it is.

Married men know this. Single men still believe they are going to find a way to beat this.

Its not happening.

patch96 said: Gentlemen.

This is a game you cannot beat.

You want progeny. You want sex. You want a quality spouse to raise your kids and share your life with. For those of use who partied in our teens and twenties, you cannot do this for 20 years.

You also DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MAN raising your children.

You also want to be successful and make a proper income for your family.

You must submit. Its like When Jerry Reinsdorf (Chi bulls owner) had to negotiate with MJ (Jordan) during the latter stages of his Jordan's career. Jordan was bigger than the BULL and, arguably, BIGGER THAN THE NBA. Reinsdorf had to accept the fact that for the first time, he was negotiating with a man who had ALL OF THE LEVERAGE. He gave Jordan $30 Mill a year and was done with it.

Smarter men have come to the same conclusions on marriage.

Marry quality and it will probably be OK. If not, then do what you can, but move on.

Until Men can bear children, it is what it is.

Married men know this. Single men still believe they are going to find a way to beat this.

Its not happening.


AND

 

A quality female (young, no prior kids (if pre-26 years of age) ,good looking, intelligent, and family oriented )is not signing that agreement. A quality female has options and knows it. You aren't the only guy with a IT/PHD/MD/JD/Fill in the blank degree knocking on the door. A quality woman has her entire family (and some of yours) supporting her decision that the document is a deal breaker 100%.

If your woman TRULY loves you, this is the highest insult unless, of course, you are a Kennedy/Gates/etc. - the type not found on public forums discussing pre-nups.

Truer words have never been spoken

patch96 said: Gentlemen.

This is a game you cannot beat.

You want progeny. You want sex. You want a quality spouse to raise your kids and share your life with. For those of use who partied in our teens and twenties, you cannot do this for 20 years.

You also DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MAN raising your children.

You also want to be successful and make a proper income for your family.

You must submit. Its like When Jerry Reinsdorf (Chi bulls owner) had to negotiate with MJ (Jordan) during the latter stages of his Jordan's career. Jordan was bigger than the BULL and, arguably, BIGGER THAN THE NBA. Reinsdorf had to accept the fact that for the first time, he was negotiating with a man who had ALL OF THE LEVERAGE. He gave Jordan $30 Mill a year and was done with it.

Smarter men have come to the same conclusions on marriage.

Marry quality and it will probably be OK. If not, then do what you can, but move on.

Until Men can bear children, it is what it is.

Married men know this. Single men still believe they are going to find a way to beat this.

Its not happening. All may be true... But, I can destroy wealth pretty easily... Which I would do before I started paying for weekday dad's xbox games. And I don't have a problem leaving the country. Kids are the x factor, however. I better watch 'Not Without My Daughter' and see where things went wrong for that guy

patch96 said: Gentlemen.

This is a game you cannot beat.

You want progeny. You want sex. You want a quality spouse to raise your kids and share your life with. For those of use who partied in our teens and twenties, you cannot do this for 20 years.

You also DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MAN raising your children.

You also want to be successful and make a proper income for your family.

You must submit. Its like When Jerry Reinsdorf (Chi bulls owner) had to negotiate with MJ (Jordan) during the latter stages of his Jordan's career. Jordan was bigger than the BULL and, arguably, BIGGER THAN THE NBA. Reinsdorf had to accept the fact that for the first time, he was negotiating with a man who had ALL OF THE LEVERAGE. He gave Jordan $30 Mill a year and was done with it.

Smarter men have come to the same conclusions on marriage.

Marry quality and it will probably be OK. If not, then do what you can, but move on.

Until Men can bear children, it is what it is.

Married men know this. Single men still believe they are going to find a way to beat this.

Its not happening.

There is one way to beat this, but that involves taking one for the team... for eternity.

jcb193 said: Look, as a person currently paying alimony to an ex-wife who makes just as much money as me (legal fees would have been as high at the alimony payment and I ultimately figured I'd rather give it to her than a lawyer, even though I couldn't stand her guts during the divorce), I still think in the end game divorce does favor the men. I don't have kids, so I can't attest to that, but I know I will bounce back much more easily than she may.

1.) Women don't care that I've been divorced, dating has been a lot easier than I expected.
2.) Jobs and pay still skew slightly in men's favor.
3.) I can date any girl at any age. That is not necessarily true of my ex.
4.) I have no biological clock.

So, although she may have won on the financial aspect, I still think socially and mentally, it is easier on the guy. I know this is the wrong forum for this comment, but in the grand sceme of things, it's still only money. We had joint accounts, no pre-nup, and I would do it all again the same way. Unfortunately for people in America, financials are the only aspect of a marriage that you can quantify, and that is why it causes so many problems.....

All you need is to run a few miles three times per week and a good gig.

Actually, that's wrong. In the case of my 350 lb soon to be brother-in-law . . all you need is a good gig.

Cheapoking said: Interesting article found at the Wall Street JournalThis is f--d up. Unless facts were withheld, a once settled divorce decree should remain forever settled. Ex- means ex-, as in the past. If these people need money they can go to blood relatives or find a new person to pay for their expenses.

These are all cases of injustice.

wow that is ridiculous... ex wife can still receive alimony even if they remarried in many states.... just wow....

anakinskywalker said: SUCKISSTAPLES said: biomedeng said: no one should expect to come out of a divorce with more than they had in the marriage. Ask the girls who dated investment bankers what they think about that

Though I almost never wish anyone harm, I truly find it hard to want anything other than that such gold-digging girls should get used for free sex by their "mark" for a few years (while they are 25 to 35 years of age), and then discarded with no marriage and no alimony. It seems to me that that would serve the gold-digging b*tches right.

Also, it would be truly ironic: the "mark" ending up using the con-woman.

Anakin

It's not free. The guys have to pay for dinner, entertainment, expensive gift, expensive vacation. If you count those out, it's probably cheaper to just hire a hooker.