U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-01-2011, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Tucson
42,837 posts, read 77,164,326 times
Reputation: 22814

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
A lot of women go on and on for days about self-sufficiency but at the end of the days it's empty talk, what they truly mean is "can I attain a higher material consumption lifestyle as a function of offering companionship and my body to this man versus going at it alone?" If the answer is "the same standard" or "no", they all of a sudden don't find you compatible. So there's a lot to be said about hypocrisy and not liking to be called out.
Oh, I have no problem with this concept whatsoever! People get into relationships in order to improve their life in one way or another, preferably in more than one. I see no reason for putting up with another person's idiosyncrasies if he doesn't enhance my life but takes away from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2011, 06:59 PM
 
1,738 posts, read 3,885,871 times
Reputation: 4566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I have to wonder how many of these guys are even breaking 6 figures, let alone anything that would actually constitute as wealth that would warrant a prenup. I'm like you, tho. I went into my marriage with nothing and we still have pretty much nothing outside a couple of cars, a house (no, a mortgage lol), and a 401k.
"Anything that would warrant a prenup"? That's just the thing. What could be MORE warranting of a prenup than your ability to pay the bills without hardship...a boat, a second property like the rich? Hell naw.

I'm sick and tired of this pervasive assertion that only the rich and famous warrant a prenup. You folks clearly missed econ 101. Let me refresh the peanut gallery on the concept of marginal utility theory and diminishing marginal utility:

To quote Chris Rock (and to keep it funny for the attention span challenged):
"You got twen'y million, your wife want 10, big deal u' ain't starving....but if you make 30 thausn'..and yo' wife want fifteen, you might have to kill a'!!"

Jesus, how simpler can it be explained people? Enough already with the "meh prenups are for rich people" NOOO. Prenups are for working people. You know why? Because of diminishing marginal utility. Your last dollar has inherently lesser utility than your first one. A rich man's upper half wealth (the one the wife will rob him of) has less utility than his bottom half. But, as opposed to every working stiff out there, the rich man's wealth don't put him close to the cost of living line, the line where a divorce creates a financial hardship in order to maintain a nominal living standard.

You people simply haven't had the pleasure of living on a community property state, where it's not just a matter of "assets", but wages are ALSO considered assets to be divided. That's right, half your sweat goes to your spend-all exwife while you saved and removed food from your mouth so the household didn't end up in the street.

To reiterate the point, some rich dude losing his fourth-property downpayment on a divorce isn't all of a sudden a rigtheous proposition that should have been protected with a prenup, while you all decry the working stiff's loss of his ability to even keep his primary and only roof as a result of losing half his meager earnings to the tune of slapping him down one whole social class, "eh, par for the course, poor people don't need prenups, meh, meeeeh." Gimme a break already. How can this economic differentiation not be all but SELF-APPARENT to you all? How can a third boat be considered worthy of protection but another's ability to remain cost-of-living solvent be considered so immaterial and unworthy of a prenup protection? What kind of cracker jack math yields such a lopsided view of what's worthy of a prenup and what isn't? I simply cannot come up with any more examples that would illustrate this basic economic principle.

I'd LOOOVE to hear an explanation to refute or invalidate my reasoning for what such diametrically opposite view of what condition is warranting of a prenup, from that of the peanut gallery. I mean, humor me here...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 07:11 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,213,204 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
"Anything that would warrant a prenup"? That's just the thing. What could be MORE warranting of a prenup than your ability to pay the bills without hardship...a boat, a second property like the rich? Hell naw.

I'm sick and tired of this pervasive assertion that only the rich and famous warrant a prenup. You folks clearly missed econ 101. Let me refresh the peanut gallery on the concept of marginal utility theory and diminishing marginal utility:
....

I'd LOOOVE to hear an explanation to refute or invalidate my reasoning for what such diametrically opposite view of what condition is warranting of a prenup, from that of the peanut gallery. I mean, humor me here...
So, you're wife who is also earning 70-80k/yr, has her own car, 401k, etc is going to convince the courts that her soon to be ex-husband, who also only earns a living to pay the bills, to pay alimony? I don't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 07:11 PM
 
1,738 posts, read 3,885,871 times
Reputation: 4566
Quote:
Originally Posted by sierraAZ View Post
Oh, I have no problem with this concept whatsoever! People get into relationships in order to improve their life in one way or another, preferably in more than one. I see no reason for putting up with another person's idiosyncrasies if he doesn't enhance my life but takes away from it.
Yeah but when you monetize said opportunity cost for bartering the qualities that detract from your "happiness" for those that "make up for it", when you monetize that math, it makes you a prostitute. I don't find that opportunity cost (from a man's perspective) worthy of a marriage contract. I'd rather rent if that what it comes down to.

Again, I have no objection to the concept of not going into something that's going to cause you hardship, but that is skirting very dangerously into "for better or for better" territory. And as your own response allude to, people are springloaded to bolt when things turn "for poorer". To then begrudge a man and considering his insistence on a prenup as unreasonable and pretentious is the mother of all hypocrisies, specially in light of your very admonition to not wanting to face hardship. I just like to highlight said contradiction and offer an equalizer (waiving economic legal benefits via prenup/ no marriage contract) and surprise surprise, no takers. A prenup only causes you harm if all you are considering that partner for is the monetary improvements to your life, as that would be the only thing that'd you not be gaining, which implies the rest of the qualities, the non-economic ones, were not in your "for better" column. That's the only way a prenup "detracts" from you. If you never had the desire of gaining his material entitlement, a prenup does not detract from your condition. And again, it's not surprising the lack of traction that assertion receives. I rest my case.

Last edited by hindsight2020; 02-01-2011 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 07:18 PM
 
1,738 posts, read 3,885,871 times
Reputation: 4566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
So, you're wife who is also earning 70-80k/yr, has her own car, 401k, etc is going to convince the courts that her soon to be ex-husband, who also only earns a living to pay the bills, to pay alimony? I don't think so.
Forget alimony, I'll give you a better one. Both make 80K, spouse A smokes all her money away, spouse B does all the savings. Come divorce, court removes 50% of spouses B savings while spouse A gets to split the cc debt she had and zero savings to spouse B since she didn't have any. Remember both made the same. Yeah, real self-correcting, the "both sposues make the same/nothing" sceanrio. It's a race to the bottom.

The saver in the relationship always loses. Furthermore, I can't legislate the behavior of the wildcard we call human beings. Humans flip, flake, flop, without notice. I don't wish to legislate that or even fight it, I just simply suggest it's equitable to not go back to the soup kitchen because the flake flaked. That's all. And that's what a prenup protects against. A rich person simply doesn't have such hardship since he/she is inherently protected by the concept of marginal utility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 07:31 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,213,204 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
Forget alimony, I'll give you a better one. Both make 80K, spouse A smokes all her money away, spouse B does all the savings. Come divorce, court removes 50% of spouses B savings while spouse A gets to split the cc debt she had and zero savings to spouse B since she didn't have any. Remember both made the same. Yeah, real self-correcting, the "both sposues make the same/nothing" sceanrio. It's a race to the bottom.
Of course, we have moved on to Jerry Springer land. We always must. It happened to my dad. His wife was a spend thrift, tho, she made more than he did. He also cashed in his pension to pay off her CC debt. You know when he did this? When they first got married. He didn't know she was up to her eye balls in CC debt when they got married. 17 years later they lost their house, separated, and he no longer has that pension and she's not giving him a dime of hers.

OTOH, before I married my dh, years before, I pulled up his credit on the big 3s and got a look at what he's been up. How far back do those reports go? At least 7years. So, that will provide some consistent long term information. I now pull both our reports every year. There are no separate accounts that the other isn't aware of. Monies are pooled and decisions are made together. Given that I knew him for years before I married him I understood his spending habits, his sense of personal responsibility, and his priorities. People don't change from one year to the next. They're not a responsible adult 10 years ago, today and then become a flake next year (barring mental illness or something). The guy in your hypothetical is a moron as well as his wife.

So, I'll have to agree with you here. Not only should those going on their 2nd or 3rd marriages who have children from other marriages consider prenups, as well as the rich and famous, but the morons among us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 07:43 PM
 
1,738 posts, read 3,885,871 times
Reputation: 4566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Of course, we have moved on to Jerry Springer land. We always must. It happened to my dad. His wife was a spend thrift, tho, she made more than he did. He also cashed in his pension to pay off her CC debt. You know when he did this? When they first got married. He didn't know she was up to her eye balls in CC debt when they got married. 17 years later they lost their house, separated, and he no longer has that pension and she's not giving him a dime of hers.

OTOH, before I married my dh, years before, I pulled up his credit on the big 3s and got a look at what he's been up. How far back do those reports go? At least 7years. So, that will provide some consistent long term information. I now pull both our reports every year. There are no separate accounts that the other isn't aware of. Monies are pooled and decisions are made together. Given that I knew him for years before I married him I understood his spending habits, his sense of personal responsibility, and his priorities. People don't change from one year to the next. They're not a responsible adult 10 years ago, today and then become a flake next year (barring mental illness or something). The guy in your hypothetical is a moron as well as his wife.

So, I'll have to agree with you here. Not only should those going on their 2nd or 3rd marriages who have children from other marriages consider prenups, as well as the rich and famous, but the morons among us.
I'll take the fact you just called me a moron, a compliment. The income was lower real life than on the example, but the economic dynamics were very much as stated. You can't guarantee behavior, you simply can't. You're betting you were a better picker than me. I'd be careful with that smugness. I still stand by my assertion (and it sounds like you agree with me on that point according to your reply) that one cannot legislate behavior, so the best one can do is to make calculated decisions to insulate from the wildcard. I personally consider a prenup, "moron" life lesson specifically in mind, another available tool in the shed of tools one could have accessible to equalize those variables. That's all. I don't subscribe however to the idea that prenups are immaterial on the basis that "well Im much better at picking that you", I hear that from the "romance is paramount" and the never before married crowd. Everything is about being great at "picking". That's aloof. There are more than economic behavior reasons for people divorcing, I simply suggest not having to pay anm economic penalty for those variables, which by the way, could be insidious and not "apparently apparent" like a 7 year track record of bad credit et al.

I still think you fight the notion of marginal utility I speak of. Rich people need prenups because they're rich, working people need prenups because they're morons. Come on now, that's loaded beyond civility.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 08:06 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,213,204 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
I'll take the fact you just called me a moron, a compliment.
I wasn't calling you a moron. Clearly, you're not in that situation. I was referring to my dad being a moron if anything.

Quote:
The income was lower real life than on the example, but the economic dynamics were very much as stated. You can't guarantee behavior, you simply can't.
That was your story? I didn't realize.

Quote:
You're betting you were a better picker than me. I'd be careful with that smugness. I still stand by my assertion (and it sounds like you agree with me on that point according to your reply) that one cannot legislate behavior, so the best one can do is to make calculated decisions to insulate from the wildcard. I personally consider a prenup, "moron" life lesson specifically in mind, another available tool in the shed of tools one could have accessible to equalize those variables. That's all. I don't subscribe however to the idea that prenups are immaterial on the basis that "well Im much better at picking that you", I hear that from the "romance is paramount" and the never before married crowd. Everything is about being great at "picking". That's aloof. There are more than economic behavior reasons for people divorcing, I simply suggest not having to pay anm economic penalty for those variables, which by the way, could be insidious and not "apparently apparent" like a 7 year track record of bad credit et al.
I know I'm a better pick. It is what it is. I approached marriage pragmatically. I simply cannot wrap my head around the reasoning behind decisions some people make, like my dad. For example, he married this woman within a year of knowing her. Maybe it was just over a year. He had no idea about her finances. A credit check would have taken him 30 minutes. That's not to say a person has to be perfect, but how can a person not know? And then, again, he cashes in his pension. What? Following the knowledge that she's a financial disaster he allows her to keep separate accounts for the entire marriage. He made that bed. He was lazy.

Further, it goes beyond just a credit check. When you know someone for 2, 3, 4 years you have the opportunity to watch how they go about their business. You come to learn if this person has it together or is a flake. My dad's wife has always been a flake. She didn't magically become one after they married just like your ex didn't magically become one after you married.

Quote:
I still think you fight the notion of marginal utility I speak of. Rich people need prenups because they're rich, working people need prenups because they're morons. Come on now, that's loaded beyond civility.....
Well, I don't understand how a prenup is going to work for working-class morons. If you're too lazy to take care of your business before you marry and during the marriage, I can't see how you would follow the boundaries planned out in a prenup for folk that don't really have anything. You save cash, she simply says that she used her cash for the household. As if you're going to have your shyte together enough to prove otherwise. If you had your shyte together you wouldn't be with her in the first place. Or you wouldn't be with her the 2nd year of marriage. What you're saying just doesn't make sense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 08:22 PM
 
1,738 posts, read 3,885,871 times
Reputation: 4566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I wasn't calling you a moron. Clearly, you're not in that situation. I was referring to my dad being a moron if anything.

That was your story? I didn't realize.

I know I'm a better pick. It is what it is. I approached marriage pragmatically. I simply cannot wrap my head around the reasoning behind decisions some people make, like my dad. For example, he married this woman within a year of knowing her. Maybe it was just over a year. He had no idea about her finances. A credit check would have taken him 30 minutes. That's not to say a person has to be perfect, but how can a person not know? And then, again, he cashes in his pension. What? Following the knowledge that she's a financial disaster he allows her to keep separate accounts for the entire marriage. He made that bed. He was lazy.

Further, it goes beyond just a credit check. When you know someone for 2, 3, 4 years you have the opportunity to watch how they go about their business. You come to learn if this person has it together or is a flake. My dad's wife has always been a flake. She didn't magically become one after they married just like your ex didn't magically become one after you married.

Well, I don't understand how a prenup is going to work for working-class morons. If you're too lazy to take care of your business before you marry and during the marriage, I can't see how you would follow the boundaries planned out in a prenup for folk that don't really have anything. You save cash, she simply says that she used her cash for the household. As if you're going to have your shyte together enough to prove otherwise. If you had your shyte together you wouldn't be with her in the first place. Or you wouldn't be with her the 2nd year of marriage. What you're saying just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't disagree with anything you espoused on your last response. I still think a prenup would insulate me from punitive economic outcomes to a marital disolution. I don't think only bad pickers end up divorced. Bunch of unhappy marriages in the "50% still married figure". Married doesn't mean they are in a genuine relationship. So that skews the statistics.

I think I'm just as pragmatic as you are when it comes to the marriage proposition. I don't however feel as confident in the surety of my "choices" as you seem to be about your spouse. I wish you the best in that endeavor. I don't think a prenup is that unreasonable of a request. I do consider animosity towards the idea of a prenup one of your "indicators" that warn against the wisdom of pursuing marriage with said person. I guess to each their own on that one. But yeah I do agree with you on the pragmatism of "picking better". I feel if I was a woman, the same spiel would be received with acceptance and atta girls. Espousing the same as a male is viewed with contempt. That's a slippery slope, but that's for another day.

I do take away something I find very agreeable with your position. do not let a female guilt you out of your pragmatism, you're spot on on that one. Good luck!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2011, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Tucson
42,837 posts, read 77,164,326 times
Reputation: 22814
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
Yeah but when you monetize said opportunity cost for bartering the qualities that detract from your "happiness" for those that "make up for it", when you monetize that math, it makes you a prostitute. I don't find that opportunity cost (from a man's perspective) worthy of a marriage contract. I'd rather rent if that what it comes down to.
Fine. I've no problem with that, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top