<p>*Quote:
I have five divorced friends. one of them believed her husband would take care of her. She is the only one who didn’t have a career and she is the only one who ended up with nothing.
*</p>
<p>that is very sad…and strange. If they were married for awhile, she’d be entitled to half of what they have, including half of any retirement. She should also qualify for a Social Security Benefit (which won’t be huge, I admit) of half of whatever he qualifies for. </p>
<p>if he is still working, then she should have gotten spousal support and possibly retraining costs …if they had been married for awhile. </p>
<p>For someone to truly end up with nothing after a long marriage would suggest that the H never earned much to begin with or, at some point, there were bad financial decisions that left them pennyless and w/o any retirement.</p>
<p>At least in my experience/observation the agreement concerning the children can be rejected or later overturned by the divorce court. Also, the child support is something provided by state law since (under the case law) it is for the benefit of the child not the obligee parent.</p>
<p>Sigh, the prenups are not so valuable when a couple doesn’t have enough to split well any ways, which is the case so many times. Where prenups best serve a role is when there are substantial discrepancied between the parites or special circumstances. For two young people starting out, agreeing to get married is a mammoth step as it is. A prenup with no idea how things will turn out seems crazy. I don’t think they are being done these days, other than with non first marriages, family money/situations, significant wealth, etc. Special circumstances, in other words.</p>
<p>The problem is that circumstance change. I know some who left their fields as they were pending a breakdown of sorts. Not explained that way, but that was the situation, or that the work had gone down hill and would be a forced departure if the person did not exit on his own.</p>
<p>I really like 07DAD’s description of prenuptial contracts. Usually I have been thinking a SAH spouse needs something like a dowry. (How’s that for first world?) but the contract is great because it forces both individuals to really think about what they are planning on in the marriage. imho</p>
<p>ETA: The idea of a partnership contract really appeals to me. It forces the couple to spell out their expectations and come to an agreement. Yes, their expectations will change over time, but the contract can be redrawn regularly to reflect current circumstances.</p>
<p>It seems to me to remove a lot of the patriarchal baggage we have going on with marriage that is hard to even grasp since we don’t even think about it, just sort of accept it since that is all we have ever really seen or experienced ourselves.</p>
<p>These are being utilized here among the dual professionals who are getting married later and later. </p>
<p>Since there has to be “agreement” to the stay at home arrangement at the time it happens to trigger the right to the payout upon divorce, one parent cannot unilaterally decide “I’m staying home with the kid.”</p>
<p>alh–it does force them to think in advance of getting married.</p>
<p>Here’s something I think we can all agree on… young families should carry adequate life insurance (and disability insurance too). </p>
<p>For many, it is benefits enrollment period… it’s a good time to drop a reminder if you have older kids with kids of their own. Term insurance is pretty inexpensive for young adults.</p>
<p>But recognizing that you need to go into marriage expecting a lot of give and take just seems like good advice to the young. It would be nice we could get those marriage statistics up a bit, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Right, and I think that starts with the way people are raised. If they’re used to “give and take” and aren’t used to being indulged frequently, then doing the “give and take” just comes more naturally. When you’re used to sharing, not getting the biggest, best or most all of the time, and doing chores, then expectations will be different.</p>
<p>I remember one of my bosses married the daughter of a very wealthy San Francisco family. She wasn’t used to “give and take.” She wasn’t used to having to budget or have any concern about cost at all. She wasn’t used to really doing anything that she didn’t want to. Their marriage has lasted, but not without a lot of “giving” from my boss, who had grown up with a totally different middle-class lifestyle.</p>
<p>This is interesting to think about. From the point I accepted his marriage proposal my husband and I have always had an informal (but quite serious and deeply considered) verbal contract in which we each made clear our expectations and came to an agreement. We have adjusted our contract several times in the last 35 years to accommodate new circumstances. I was always just thinking about it as the “life plan” not a contract up till now. It has been very important to our relationship.</p>
<p>OTOH we are not one of those divide up all the day to day chores on a list kinds of couples.</p>
<p>“At least in my experience/observation the agreement concerning the children can be rejected or later overturned by the divorce court.”</p>
<p>07Dad is right, and this is close to universal. The court may take a prior agreement as to child custody or support into account, but if it is not consistent with the best interests of the child/ren, it’s out the window. </p>
<p>Re: men who don’t want a wife who makes more money/prestige/power than they do…that is TOTALLY still a thing. I’m speaking as someone who’s spent years in the dating market with my Harvard Law degree and (in the past) elite and high-paying jobs. It’s far from universal, thank goodness, but there are absolutely men who don’t find it sexy to come home a woman who’s besting them professionally, or even in the running. It’s especially a turn-off for many lawyers/bankers/etc. dating women in their own field.</p>
<p>My father (born 1940) is exactly the opposite – he’s always been thrilled/attracted/proud that my mother is so eminent in her field when he’s pretty average in his. He was delighted when she started out-earning him. It literally would never cross his mind to be insecure about it. But I think he’s pretty darn rare in his generation, and fairly rare in mine. I’m currently dating a gem who takes after my dad, so hopefully this will be a moot issue for me in the future. :)</p>
<p>Em - It’s good you are looking for life insurance for your fiance. I assume you are already covered - both spouses should have a policy. It is most important after having children, but parents are usually too busy to arrange that </p>
<p>We decided to have policies beyond what was offered through work. That way we have more coverage and also are ensured of minimal insurance even if dealing with layoffs in future.</p>
<p>Many of the nannies I have heard of are young people who have room and board as part of their compensation and don’t receive much cash. Of course this varies by area of the country, but I don’t am see this as helping SAHPs get back into the workforce at all. Being a nanny is often a stepping stone for young people and not often seen as a lifetime profession–partly due to long hours and low wages.</p>
<p>“I’d think that there would be dual career professional couples who would hire SAHM as nannies.”</p>
<p>Yes, but the reason this doesn’t happen very much is social class. The SAHMs we’re talking about are middle to upper middle class, because those are the families that have two married parents and can afford to have a parent at home for years. Being in service in someone’s home is not considered a middle-class job appropriate for someone with a college degree. Most people are uncomfortable violating the cultural rules of their own social class, and the feeling is strong enough that they’d rather take an office job at $30k than a nanny job at $45k. (And $45k is what uneducated immigrants get paid; a college-educated, middle-class white American woman would command a far higher rate than that.)</p>
<p>This isn’t meant as a criticism of the former SAHPs at all. It’s just how culture affects choices for virtually all of us.</p>
<p>I was a nanny, because I wanted to have my D with me, which is why I had to settle for below minimum wage.
I was live out- it would have went farther if we lived in, but I didnt want to move.</p>
<p>Wow–am mot aware of any nannies getting the salary you mentioned. That’s a lot of money and more than most of the folks I know who have had nannies could or would pay.</p>
<p>Here’s a website of average gross wages of nannies and much more. The weekly gross average is a bit above 600 x52 = $31200 gross. </p>
<p>There is potential status in having a parent stay home with the children. I am not sure if the status attaches to the SAHP or the breadwinner. From my position at cocktail and dinner parties, I’d say the status goes to the breadwinner. There is definitely more status in being the mega wage earner in the dream career than the SAHP. There is little status in caring for children of someone else. I think changing the status we assign all traditional womens work has to change for us to move an inch forward from where we find ourselves presently.</p>
<p>A cousin of mine went to the English Nanny and Governess School in Chagrin Falls, OH, after she was widowed. The School emphasizes the professional component of the work, and works with clients who understand and are actively looking for this–there are some. A four-year college degree is the minimum requirement for a governess, certified by this group. No doubt there are other schools of this type out there.</p>
<p>It worked out really well for her–she traveled quite a lot with the families and enjoyed educating young children. The % of the children she worked with who got into Harvard is higher than the overall admission rate.</p>
<p>It helped that she has a strong personality; and no doubt in terms of professionalism, it helped that her father was a corporate lawyer.</p>
</p>