Prof Lamar put pre-nup as an example for contracts in course of Strategic Corporate Management!
btw, the point is besides that - he also mentioned -
If all the couples had a pre-nup then it would save quite a bit of money for the economy and also, reduce burden on the judicial system.
This reminds me the case of a guy in AT&T who lost more than a 100k in trying to get custody of his kids from his ex-wife ! I had never seen him but all the interactions were over the phone. However, others who had worked with him closely (pun intended) told me that he took advantage of his good looks - hence, fidelity may have been one of the points for divorce by his spouse. She got married soon and this guy couldn't since he had 2 child supports and a 100k debt ! Later, his girlfriend had a kid and is not ready to get married and so, he pays for her kid too !
Coming back to strategy - I asked him a question (which a lady had expressed while having a similar discussion) - the lady partner says - "You dont trust me !" Well, professor didn't want to get into controversy but I knew what he wanted to say - "Given the current social system and the current stats of guys having only 15% chance of winning any divorce case, this is a good balancer"
Now, my take on this from Strategy and game theory perspective:
-Having a pre-nup forces the lady to work and pay less attention to family since the guy can leave her anytime and she might be left helpless if she kept on handling the family and the guy kept on building his career.
- However, if there's no pre-nup the lady is incentivized to misbehave since she would get both allimony (till the time she gets a job or gets married again) and child support (along with the kid). There is no incentive for him not to leave atleast on financial terms.
If there's no pre-nup then he would fear the consequences of divorce (allimony, child support) and hence, behave.
I have simply presented two specific possibilities and they indicate that pre-nups are a must and the lady must also build her career (if she doesn't trust her guy). Developed world has its own set of problems and this is one of them.
The fact remains that divorces have high costs unless they are mutual and silent. The lawyers make a huge chunk of money out of these cases. Also, you would then say - in a relation as sacred as marriage - when do you say - enough is enough? - I would say "Never" [assuming ur original choice was good]
3 comments:
>-Having a pre-nup forces the lady
>to work
This isn't true. A couple might have a pre-nup but the woman (or man) might not work.
I think it's always good for both parties to work. You never know what life has in store... the breadwinner partner could become disabled or die. Income and quality of life would become an issue for the surviving family members.
>and pay less attention to family
>since the guy can leave her anytime
>and she might be left helpless if
>she kept on handling the family and
>the guy kept on building his
>career.
I have an older friend who has been in this exact position. The husband made a good salary, so the wife stayed home to take care of the kids. He had an affair, left the mother of his children, and she was left scrambling. His lawyers painted her as a deadbeat, not willing to work, so she lost custody of the kids and had to settle with seeing them every other weekend until they turned 18. This decision, to a woman who had not spent more than 20 days away from her children their entire lives.
Without her husband's bankbook, she had no re$ources to hire big lawyers.
>However, if there's no pre-nup the
>lady is incentivized to misbehave
Remember, pre-nups work both ways. The man could be a total dead-beat... or he might have a mid-life crisis and run off with his secretary.
Consider that a woman might become the bread-winner in the family (for whatever reason). The male doesn't feel masculine enough because he is earning less, so he takes up a mistress to regain his lost masculinity. He leaves his wife, and he sues her for alimony. It goes both ways.
>since she would get both allimony
>(till the time she gets a job or
>gets married again) and child
>support (along with the kid).
Children need monetary support, no matter what.
>If there's no pre-nup then he would
>fear the consequences of divorce
>(allimony, child support) and
>hence, behave.
When a leggy, skinny, blonde, 20-something woman is dangled in front of the eyes of a man in the middle of a mid-life crisis, I doubt the first thing that pops into the man's mind is "pre-nup". ;-)
>...pre-nups are a must and the lady
>must also build her career (if she
>doesn't trust her guy).
I agree, pre-nups are a must... because it forces the couple to think about the gravity of the vows they're about to take. If a couple can't discuss their financial futures while they are still in love, a divorce will make discussing finances ten times worse. The only people who get rich on a divorce are the lawyers.
Another good reason for the pre-nup is that the couple is more likely to be fair to each other while they are still in love. Once the relationship falls apart, neither side is thinking good thoughts of the other.
>The fact remains that divorces have
>high costs unless they are mutual
>and silent.
...and they are hardly ever both mutal and silent.
A lawyer-friend told me once that divorce is easy. Two people can agree that they don't love each other and a divorce is necessary in a very short period of time. However, these same people will not
agree who should get custody of the children or who should take ownership of the house, the car, the dog, the furniture, etc. Divorce? Easy. Everything else that comes after it? Hard.
>Also, you would then say - in a
>relation as sacred as marriage -
>when do you say - enough is enough?
Sometimes, sacredness doesn't factor in to it. Again, what man is thinking of his pre-nup or his God when the leggy blonde secretary is smiling and flipping her hair back?
You make good points, and thanks for letting me vent... :-)
Here's hoping this link doesn't rot...
http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/28/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm
It's an article called "When She Makes More Than He." In it, the author sites that 1 out of 3 women make more than their spouses. (Which reminds me of an earlier post of yours where you pointed out the jump of women in education.)
She also points out that in a situation where women earn more than men:
1. Men sometimes feel threatened.
2. Woman sometimes feel resentful and guilty, and
3. Outsiders are disparaging. (i.e. "he's using you".)
@ digijen:
I like to discuss ideas and you have made some good points.
Some more points from my side which are slightly tangential to this one.
I was reading this somewhere and it occured to me :
When ppl start looking for results in short-term they have such issues such as divorce: be it the guy ogling at the young blond in his office or the lady ogling at her younger teammate.
It is like the example given by Stephen Covey in 7 effective habits - of the goose and the golden eggs.
When ppl want their way - they would manipulate the partner in various ways, start finding faults, etc.
A part of this has to be attributed to the upbringing also. If kids see this happening in their family while they were kids - it has long lasting impression on their brains and they try to adopt similar methods to get their way - either at work place or in the family. They see manipulation as a way to achieve the short term results - Golden eggs ! In the process, they kill the goose (marriage !- the small courtesies and the other aspects which makes the marriage happen)
So, for divorces to be lesser - developed nations have to change the mindset of the ppl at large. ...unless lawyers want to lobby in order to keep their customer base increasing. That would create huge chaos !
Post a Comment