Divorce and some off-topic argument

Post Reply New Topic

they also used original Canadian data, not just Australian data. the Australian data was simply for comparison.

the study doesn't include every aspect, but the data is solid for the demographics that are present. so far, every study we have seen in this thread has acknowledged that, on average, women take a financial hit in comparison to men post-divorce.

A: It's ages 55 and up only. Seeing as the divorce rate at 55 - 59 is 5.7% and 60 - 65 is 3,1% and 65 and over is 1,1% this is hardly relevant data.
B: It's pensions not actual work-income.
C: It compares with family income IE the joint income of husband and wife prior to the divorce and individual income after.

So, as I said about the UK study, the results could be down to methodology and that appears to clearly be the case here.

This is simple math, the men have higher pensions (replacement rates) thus when they combine with the lower pension of the woman since married couples tend to file joint tax returns (which is what the study was based on) the woman has an artificially high replacement rate due to hers being averaged out with her husbands, which upon a divorce she loses access to. This can be due to a higher replacement rate because of private pensions the man has, or due to lower incomes over a lifetime by the woman. Also, could you please find relevant studies, not just random ones with titles you like?

Now there are some relevant studies:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8341228j31k7753/

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 0885277251

http://www.frbsf.org/economics/conferen ... illips.pdf

However, these point to non-divorce factors, or as BlueMax indicated "Spending of a husbands income" as a factor, in addition to some other factors such as economies of scale. Furthermore, given that women end up as primary caregivers after a divorce more frequently than men, this alone can easily be argued to factor into the woman's post-divorce income where small children are involved. It could even be argued that the "primary caregiver" concern currently favoring women when it comes to custody of children should be altered to reflect a 50-50 custody in order to get accurate numbers. Hours spent caring for children = hours spent in unpaid labor.

So, how can I put this in a good way. When calculating post-divorce income, the income of the person who is not the primary caregiver should be reduced by a variable to account for the time the person does not have to spend in unpaid labor with children, and vice versa for the primary caregiver in order to get accurate data. After all, comparing the income a person who works less (often at a lower wage) and previously benefited greatly from family economy and economies of scale, with a person who works more at a higher wage, who no longer benefit from economies of scale is not a good comparison.

However, given that your assertion is correct, it would in fact lend credence to the assertion that the male contributes more to the financial well being than does the woman in the form of pure capital. Thus in the event of a dissolution of the marriage and a 50-50 split of assets, the male could be argued to take a harder economic hit. This is provided that one does not create a valuation and measuring system for unpaid labor in the home.

Overall, it's a hard topic to handle, because its a matter of how long a period should be used. After all 55% of white women and 42% of black women remarry within 5 years of the divorce, and remarriage has a strong positive effect on their economy, so with a period of 2 - 5 years a lot of those benefits is going to be excluded from the data sample. Furthermore, if child support and alimony payments are not made (I believe one of the studies said 31% only was paid) that will skew the numbers substantially as well.

In essence the "financial hit" becomes questionable, because if the woman was earning less prior to marriage, earning even less during marriage and relying on the husbands income, yet ends up with the primary caregiver position after the dissolution of the marriage, as the financial hit is her not working enough and being unable to use her husbands salary. In addition to that, given that the man is likely to have contributed a higher amount of cash to their assets, that needs to be calculated in as well. Income is a poor measurement of anything except the sum of money that comes into your account every month.

For instance, if you and I were married and then got divorced, I made $100.000 a year, and you made $50.000 a year, I made the the payments on our house worth $500.000 and our cars worth $30.000 and you get them in the divorce then the 5 year calculation would be:

Me : 500.000 income
You : 250.000 income

Which is a 250k difference in my favor, so yea you took a hard hit. However, if we deduct the 530.000 in assets you got in the divorce, then you're beating me by 280.000. That's not even including the appreciation of something like a house over time.

I guess, if these studies prove anything it's that sociologists should stop trying to f**k with economics.

P.S hours spent working in paid labor should also be added as an additional variable.

OK, I've gotta do this, at least for some explanation.

Alright, I'm rereading through the posts.

It began when edgewaters complained that the thread had gone off topic. TM replied and accused you of being the culprit specifically in regards to this thread. Edgewaters then made a sarcastically-tinged generalization jump about "every thread" being derailed in such a way, and how you are always blamed for it. Although he was sticking up for you, he took it to the general level. In response, TM then made his own generalization about how you behave on other threads, and claiming you were doing the same here.

At this point, it turns into a one-on-one between edgewaters and TM. TM accuses you of behaving this way elsewhere, edgewaters continues bemoaning the off-topic nature (which is kind of ironic on his part considering that he's now involved in an off-topic discussion with TM). TM then decides to leave, ending the one-on-one with edgewaters. Some other people respond to this one-on-one with facetious replies.

It's here that you make your comment, not clearly addressing TM and edgwaters, and possibly trying to apply how you feel you're treated in general to how you're being treated here. Remember, although TM and edgwaters were discussing your behavior in a general sense, neither was involved in the main discussion that was going on here. Your response seemed to encompass THIS THREAD'S MAIN DISCUSSION under the same blanket with how you feel you're treated elsewhere.

Remember, I was participating with you in the MAIN DISCUSSION about divorce we were having (of which edgewaters and TM were not contributing). Then you say "i have been providing advice to the OP," specifically addressing the original thread, "and i also will fight against misinformation and sexism (directed at either men or women, but it's obvious which one is more prevalent here)." It was at this point one could interpret you were saying that the need to fight sexism also applied to this thread's MAIN DISCUSSION. As a contributor of this thread's main discussion, I was a bit taken aback.

And if you were talking in a general sense, not specific to this thread's MAIN DISCUSSION about divorce, why did you lump in "helping the OP," which was specifically pertinent here, with a generalization that didn't apply here? That's when it seemed you were lumping the whole thread here as part of your general "addressing sexism" stance. This was the context of my confusion, you're trying to equate how you feel you're treated elsewhere with what was happening here in the main discussion, not just in TM and edgewater's one-on-one. You bundled generality with the MAIN DISCUSSION of this tread.

your analysis is flawed, because you are ignoring the fact i was mentioned by name before i spoke up. it does not make sense that you take issue with my response, but not with their original statements. they referred to me in general, not just in the context of this thread. you seem to be looking for some flaw in my post, when there wasn't any . i don't think i can make my answers any clearer, so if you still don't get it then there is not much more than i can say.

for the other part, someone was trying to state that members were not helping the OP by veering off topic, so i was asserting that in fact... i did help the OP as well as i could.

i am interested to know why you don't seem to be able to acknowledge that there is absolutely no support for your stance regarding gender disparities in income post-divorce. data from at least 3 countries supports my assertions, but you have not been able to provide similar data to support your assertion. is this personal for you?

yes, it has been shown that men spend more hours engaged in paid labour, and community volunteer hours and the "second shift" of unpaid labour is primarily undertaken by women. basically, in the grand scheme of things nobody is sitting on their asses eating bon-bons.

i have spoken to female friends who gave up their jobs at the urging of their husbands once the children came along. they were still very very busy with other activities but they no longer worked outside the home. the husbands encouraged this scenario and seemed to enjoy being the sole breadwinners.

then, when the divorces happened, the women were left with much less money (and no recent job experience to fall back on). so they were essentially left penniless after their divorces unless they fought in the courts to get alimony. it's a no-win situation and i always encourage my friends to have income of their own.

remarriage makes a big difference, but the economic changes that result from that are not included in the studies. in divorce proceedings, assets are included in the calculations for alimony and child support.

i cannot access any of your studies, so i can't comment on them. if you can access them, it would be helpful if you shared the link. if you cannot access them, then we can't really discuss the contents.

you are correct that not everything is included in any of the studies, but they are the best i could find - and they do offer a snapshot of circumstances. the fact they are not all-inclusive does not make them completely irrelevant.

i won't comment on the idea that women are spending men's money, because the money is considered shared - it does not belong to one spouse or the other.

TM got the last word in our discussion - that means I left, actually.

Yes it was ironic to complain about it being off-topic which itself took it further off-topic, but it was a lost cause already, and your idea that this thread is a discrete phenomenon, is both arbitrary and incorrect, as per the fact that it is predictable, consistent, and can be reliably reproduced.

I tried to be polite and drop the subject but you want to continue attacking... YOU. Not me.

Quite the contrary. I specifically spelled out that they mentioned you by name.



The flaw was that you failed to specify whom you were addressing specifically in your response. You didn't mention either of them by name. And it could be interpreted as dragging me into it, as I was one of the people you were speaking with in the MAIN DISCUSSION of the thread. While their discussion was off-topic one-on-one, they addressed you specifically. You didn't address either of them specifically, but took the umbrella approach, which may or may not have included me. This was your key flaw. Is this a ToM problem you have, you assume I should know whom you're speaking of when you don't clearly specify? The ambiguity could be interpreted as applying to our discussion in the thread, meaning you may or may not have been addressing me. At least with their discussion it was clear whom they were talking about.




So you were addressing an additional poster as well? When you address multiple people with a blanket statement, this is where ambiguity comes in. Be more specific with whom you're addressing.

I'll have to take your word for it. I haven't conducted any tests, or been involved in a thread like this before.

I don't believe either of us have provided anything substantial. You take the approach of "oh, my report says this, therefore, I win!" One report is from England and focuses on a small sample of people. The Canadian report only focuses on aged 55+ divorcees who are reaching the age of retirement/pension collecting.

And none of these reports take into account a man's income AFTER paying alimony/child support, or a woman's income AFTER collecting alimony/child support from her ex-husband, or a younger woman's ability to remarry another man who's income wouldn't be included with hers for statistical purposes, but which she would, as a new wife, have access to.

My take on who's right and who's wrong based on this thread: INCONCLUSIVE.

It happens when they weren't pulling their weight financially to begin with.

Cue thunderous applause, jumping up and down! Well, well said! Thank you! Huzzah!