Divorce and some off-topic argument

Post Reply New Topic

i missed his links, actually. i will address the parts that are worthwhile.

http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/Lesson7.pdf
This site discusses what you said about women, but also addresses the myth of men faring better. Scroll down to page 3.

http://www.yourfirm.com/7_myths.pdf
A list of divorce myths including the one discussed here, see Myth 7

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505268_162- ... -than-men/
From 2012, argues women faring better financially after divorce.

Most children—five out of six—live with their mothers after a divorce, so the financial effects of divorce on women and children are largely the same.277 Generally, women suffer more from financial losses than men because of unequal wages for men and women and because women usually have more expenses associated with the physical custody of children after divorce.278 Research has found:
About one in five women fall into poverty as a result of divorce. 279
About one in three women who own a home and have children at home  when they divorce lose their homes.280
Three out of four divorced mothers don’t receive full payment of child  support.

• The risk of experiencing an income decline of 25% of more within 2 years for women who split from their partners fell from 63% to 49%
• The risk of experiencing an income decline of 25% of more within 2 years for men who split from their partners increased from 30% to 47%

Among women, divorce or separation has a more negative effect on replacement rates than does widowhood, which, after one has accounted for unobserved differences between widowed and married women, has little effect on replacement rates. The effect of divorce is greatest among women at the top of the income distribution, where it tends to reduce the rate by more than 20 percentage points. The effect is much less among women in lower-income families, largely because they rely more on public-pension income, which is equally present among married women and divorced women in this income category. Top-quintile women who divorce, however, see their access to private-pension income and “other” income sources, such as investments, reduced significantly. What is more, divorced women in the bottom and in the middle income distribution subsequently recover from the financial effects of divorce, while women at the top do not. This might be due to differences in financial arrangements following divorce, as many women near the bottom quintile are not as wealthy as their husbands upon divorce and may be more likely to receive a lump-sum payment from which they can benefit in subsequent years. Conversely, women at the top may not benefit from such wealth, for they were more likely to have contributed to the family wealth prior to divorce. Similar conclusions were found for earlier cohorts but may not be generalizable to all cohorts of future retiring women.

Among men, separation or divorce has little effect on replacement rates, no matter what the family income was initially. Widowerhood tends to marginally increase replacement rates, particularly among men in middle-income and top-income families. Although family income may fall after the death of the wife or female partner, economic requirements fall more, and hence adult-equivalent-adjusted income rises. Whether similar results will be obtained for future cohorts of retirees is an open question.

This is part of the dismissive strategy. If you feel they're not worthwhile, by all means state why you feel they're useless.

And you didn't see the links, but you were so quick to point out how you'd responded to me and what I offered (but you didn't even bother to look at all I offered!). Your responded first, based on assumption, rather than at least observing. Again, this is the one-sidedness.

In regards to your interactions with other members based on discussions from other threads, I don't really think any of it relevant to what I'm talking about with what I had to say.

see my reply.

you asked who i was addressing, so i answered you... then now you are saying it isn't relevant. so amusing!

Thank you for the reply. But in fairness, in this quote, you were actually responding to TM about missing the links, not me. You had already written me off, even though you neglected those links until TM pointed them out you (again, after you had blown me off, not having even seen the links).

I was asking if you were addressing me or someone else, because it wasn't clear who you were referring to as "sexist."

And yes, whatever happened between you and TM and whoever the hell else is not relevant to my discussion with you here.

Also, one thing about the first link is that while a man may still have a higher income, it specifically states that he is most likely (as the higher earner) to have pay support to his ex-wife (aka alimony).

This alimony is ultimately part of the ex-wife's income. Yet, the study is treating it initially as a man's earnings.

So the man does have more than the woman, pre-alimony, but doesn't address how much of his paycheck on average will go to hear, and if/how the scales will be tipped. The British report neglected this is as well, and this is a key component of divorce.

you asked who i was addressing, so i answered you... then now you are saying it isn't relevant. so amusing!

i am obviously a convenient target for people who think sexism is warranted on the board. i do not engage in personal attacks, and i back up my statements with verifiable evidence.

i don't know what link you are referring to. the new links i posted?

OK, I'll step back for a moment:



I couldn't tell if this was a passive/aggressive response to me, or if it was a generalization about how you believe your're perceived on this forum in general. So I asked for clarification.

If it had been addressed to me, I'd have asked you to be more direct.

In learning that it was a general statement, I shared my feeling that it was completely and totally irrelevant to this thread.

You find it "amusing" that I'd ask whom it was addressed to, but then tell you it was irrelevant. In reality, until I could confirm whether or not it was directed at me, I couldn't much determine the relevance. With clarification, yes, it is irrelevant. Whatever you believe to be your general plight doesn't apply here. As far as I can tell, we've never interacted on this forum prior to this thread (or the one you split it off of).

What you may feel is "obvious" to you about what you experience on this message board in general was completely off topic and irrelevant from what we were discussing here.

No, my first link http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/Lesson7.pdf Page 3, Section B, bottom of the first paragraph.

The alimony payments are a subtraction from his general earnings. The general earnings for a man in these studies is pre-alimony payments.

just because something is not relevant to you does not mean it is irrelevant overall. you are not the only member on the board.

if several members make off-topic points directed at me personally, then of course i will address them. if you consider my response off-topic, then you should also consider their original remarks to be off-topic. yet you have chosen to direct your comments at me and not at them. funny that you did not notice what i could be responding to.

and now, you are choosing to continue to derail the topic instead of addressing the relevant study i posted.

if that study is so flawed, why did you include it as useful research?

Just because you feel something is relevant "overall" doesn't mean it pertains to this discussion.



One said you were deriding the thread by not responding to what had been posted here. The other went general, something sarcastically about "oh sure, ALL threads are her fault," then you made a statement which you felt applied "overall," but had nothing to do with the topic at hand. You were trying to apply your general opinion about how you feel you're treated elsewhere to what was going on here. And you used the term "obviously." It's not obvious, here. I'm not going to read through your old posts and I've never had a discussion with you before.



This topic has already been derailed. You actually split it off from the original thread. And you chose to call it "Divorce and some off-topic argument," so I don't think my response is inappropriate. Your title, not mine.

And what makes this study less flawed then the one you provided?