U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2016, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,311 posts, read 4,154,596 times
Reputation: 18291

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
She is making a negative, blanket statement about men, all men.
No, she is not. She's simply pointing out the obvious: it is impossible to predict what someone (male or female) will be like 20 years or more into the future. And if a woman has been encouraged to stay at home with the kids or just work part-time for "pin money" because because of societal dictates like "a woman's place is in the home, and a man should be the family breadwinner" and her husband later divorces her, she may pay an awful financial price for that decision, and spend her golden years in poverty. The elderly married women fluffythewondercat praised as "choosing well" did nothing of the sort; they were merely lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2016, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,311 posts, read 4,154,596 times
Reputation: 18291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
It's a divorce thing, not a gender thing.
Not entirely. How many men spend years out of the work force as stay at home dads? Not many. A man who's always worked full-time outside the home whose wife later divorces him will suffer financially, of course, but at least he'll have not missed out on years of salary increases and job experience, and he'll have received Social Security credits for all those years of work. His position is not as bad as that of a woman (who may not have any real work skills) who's trying to re-enter the current full-time job market in middle age after years of unemployment or only working sporadic part-time low-skill jobs.

It's not solely a divorce thing because society still has gendered expectations for who should stay at home with the kids, and because alimony these days is generally of limited duration (regardless of who is receiving it).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
31,627 posts, read 19,955,234 times
Reputation: 45704
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie13 View Post
The only way I can describe it is that, once a man has a new woman, he really doesn't care what becomes of his former woman. At all. In fact, normally he will fight to keep as much of the marital assets as possible for himself and the new woman. It's as if the former woman is dead to him, even though they loved each other and built a life and family together for a long time. I can't understand it. Maybe a man who has ditched his long-term wife for a new model could chime in?
Nothing in here about being a SAHM.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Columbia SC
8,954 posts, read 7,733,997 times
Reputation: 12164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
I have a word of advice to you. There are many different types of retirement planners, and not all of them look out for *your* best interests. It is a regulated industry, and I recommend you seek the advice of a specific type of planner.

Seek the advice of a "fee only" advisor. This is different from a "fee based" advisor, and different from a "wealth advisor" who might work at a stock brokerages such as Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones or Merrill Lynch.

Please read Fee-Only Financial Advisors: What You Need to Know | Investopedia

DM me if you would like more information.
I always used fee based planners along with education and reading about finances. My fee based planners had nothing to sell me. They only advised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Columbia SC
8,954 posts, read 7,733,997 times
Reputation: 12164
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Of course! You're always better off as a DINK!...apparently even after paying alimony and child support - maybe less than what is mandated now.
For about 5 years my (1966 to 1970) alimony and child support was over 1/2 of my take home pay. Fortunately the company kept me on the road most of that time (Field Service Engineer) so I survived on their money. I later got into sales and started making good money so the payments became less painful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 07:10 PM
 
5,426 posts, read 3,446,805 times
Reputation: 13699
I agree that payments divorced men often are required to make are over the top and ridiculous. And the payments can be more than is needed. In many cases, I don't see how average-salaried divorced men survive on their paychecks minus payments after divorce. And how they can support two households. I'm not in favor of alimony. I find alimony a very out-dated concept. (in many cases)

I was agreeing upthread that acting as if the former female spouse is dead is not unusual.

Last edited by matisse12; 10-11-2016 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,580 posts, read 17,553,447 times
Reputation: 27640
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
For about 5 years my (1966 to 1970) alimony and child support was over 1/2 of my take home pay. Fortunately the company kept me on the road most of that time (Field Service Engineer) so I survived on their money. I later got into sales and started making good money so the payments became less painful.
Unless you are a very high income earner, hard to survive on half an income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2016, 09:44 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,221 posts, read 6,320,879 times
Reputation: 9827
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQ2015 View Post
But isn't this true of divorced women too except perhaps the part about ditching their spouse for a new model? Most divorced women that I know also try to get as much of the financial assets as possible and then treat their ex as if he is dead except for the child support. It is as if he never existed.
Some women do ditch their spouse for a new model. Maybe not as common as men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2016, 12:32 AM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
7,628 posts, read 4,693,202 times
Reputation: 27916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
No, she is not. She's simply pointing out the obvious: it is impossible to predict what someone (male or female) will be like 20 years or more into the future. And if a woman has been encouraged to stay at home with the kids or just work part-time for "pin money" because because of societal dictates like "a woman's place is in the home, and a man should be the family breadwinner" and her husband later divorces her, she may pay an awful financial price for that decision, and spend her golden years in poverty. The elderly married women fluffythewondercat praised as "choosing well" did nothing of the sort; they were merely lucky.
Hate to point out the obvious but you have a higher probability of ending up not-poor if you choose well and marry someone who is established in his profession and a high earner than you would if you did not. Choosing well usually means you have more choices for yourself later on.

I am enjoying the fact that so many people were outraged over "choose well." My work here is done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2016, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Central NY
4,662 posts, read 3,241,188 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat View Post
Hate to point out the obvious but you have a higher probability of ending up not-poor if you choose well and marry someone who is established in his profession and a high earner than you would if you did not. Choosing well usually means you have more choices for yourself later on.

I am enjoying the fact that so many people were outraged over "choose well." My work here is done.
I find the last sentence (bolded by me) to be a very condescending comment.

I can only speak for myself here. When I got married at age 19, what did I know about "marrying well." There were too many other things to think about. The "marrying well" seems very calculated, to me.
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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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