Top Law Schools

bk187 wrote:I think we can all agree on one thing: no matter who you marry, odds are your marriage will probably either fail or be miserable.

But you'll live longer...so maybe it's worth it.

bk187 wrote:I think we can all agree on one thing: no matter who you marry, odds are your marriage will probably either fail or be miserable.

Conceded.

Anonymous User wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Perseus_I wrote:....and resenting the fact that you're not there to help her take care of the kids. Trust me, I come from a long line of those types of families. Women with real careers are more interesting to talk to anyway. Overall, for both financial and personal reasons, I am in favor of professionals marrying each other. I am sure it can work the other way, but the chances of it not working out are quite high.

Wow, way to generalize. You obviously have a very specific set of attributes you look for in friends. Otherwise, you might have taken the effort to get to know the millions of women your age who actually want to be homemakers and enjoy it. Personally, I find professional women to be dull. They spend their entire lives trying to fit into a male-dominated profession and coarsen themselves in order to fit in to the point that they become more like men than real women. If I wanted to hang out with professional women, I might as well hang out with professional guys because they have the exact same personalities, goals, etc. It's refreshing to have a woman who is nurturing, caring, happy, etc. who can tell you stories about all the hilarious shit your kid did while you're at work. Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide. Also, I don't believe any of the people in this thread claiming that professional couples are less likely to divorce than professionals married to non-professionals. Even if that's the case, it's probably more correlated to socio-economic status in general than being a professional. People who struggle financially are probably more likely to fail at marriage, but this category of people probably doesn't include single-provider couples where the working partner is in biglaw.

My goodness, I sure hope you don't talk like this in real life, or that you are never in charge of hiring or promotions anywhere; you're an equal opportunity lawsuit waiting to happen, unless you are a woman. Then I apologize.

Accidently anon. This is Persues_I.

If I'm ever lucky enough to be in a position to hire people, I obviously won't base my hiring decisions using the exact same standard that I use for assessing people as potential spouses. I know plenty of successful female attorneys and I would definitely hire them, promote them, etc. I just wouldn't find them as attractive as other women, which actually insulates me from potential problems rather than exposing me to them.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Perseus_I wrote:....and resenting the fact that you're not there to help her take care of the kids. Trust me, I come from a long line of those types of families. Women with real careers are more interesting to talk to anyway. Overall, for both financial and personal reasons, I am in favor of professionals marrying each other. I am sure it can work the other way, but the chances of it not working out are quite high.

Wow, way to generalize. You obviously have a very specific set of attributes you look for in friends. Otherwise, you might have taken the effort to get to know the millions of women your age who actually want to be homemakers and enjoy it. Personally, I find professional women to be dull. They spend their entire lives trying to fit into a male-dominated profession and coarsen themselves in order to fit in to the point that they become more like men than real women. If I wanted to hang out with professional women, I might as well hang out with professional guys because they have the exact same personalities, goals, etc. It's refreshing to have a woman who is nurturing, caring, happy, etc. who can tell you stories about all the hilarious shit your kid did while you're at work. Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide. Also, I don't believe any of the people in this thread claiming that professional couples are less likely to divorce than professionals married to non-professionals. Even if that's the case, it's probably more correlated to socio-economic status in general than being a professional. People who struggle financially are probably more likely to fail at marriage, but this category of people probably doesn't include single-provider couples where the working partner is in biglaw.

My goodness, I sure hope you don't talk like this in real life, or that you are never in charge of hiring or promotions anywhere; you're an equal opportunity lawsuit waiting to happen, unless you are a woman. Then I apologize.

Accidently anon. This is Persues_I.

If I'm ever lucky enough to be in a position to hire people, I obviously won't base my hiring decisions using the exact same standard that I use for assessing people as potential spouses. I know plenty of successful female attorneys and I would definitely hire them, promote them, etc. I just wouldn't find them as attractive as other women, which actually insulates me from potential problems rather than exposing me to them.

Hopefully, you will be able to hide the fact that you are sexist when you are at work and that it won't inadvertently slip through that you think your professional women colleagues are "not real women but actually more like men." I can just think of how some I know would react to this.

You clearly belong in the 19th Century.

Perseus_I wrote:Hopefully, you will be able to hide the fact that you are sexist when you are at work and that it won't inadvertently slip through that you think your professional women colleagues are "not real women but actually more like men." I can just think of how some I know would react to this.

Hopefully you'll learn not to throw around baseless insults before you become an adult and actually have to work in the real world. I'm not a sexist. I think women should be able to do whatever they want with their lives and I've encouraged my own wife to do the same. You are taking that statement totally out of context. I was talking about attributes I looked for in a potential spouse. Also, isn't it the opposite of being a sexist to treat women like you treat men?

nouseforaname123 wrote:

Perseus_I wrote:Overall, for both financial and personal reasons, I am in favor of professionals marrying each other. I am sure it can work the other way, but the chances of it not working out are quite high.

I don't have an opinion either way, but lots of assertions in this thread with little support.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... vorce.html

Women working full-time are 29 per cent more likely to get divorced than those who stay at home and raise children.

I suppose no one can think of any reason why data reported by this particular publication might not be applicable?

A figure relevant in the U.S.: [F]for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20 percent[.]

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide.

This usually comes with a lot of stipulations, and doesn't consider the longer term (even if you'd save some money while your kids are young, the long-term damage to your career prospects from5 or 10 years out of the workforce makes you difficult to employ later and more likely to take a job that isn't interesting and doesn't pay well). Here, we're talking about professional employment, and I suspect an income of over $100k brings in more than staying at home saves.

quakeroats wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide.

This usually comes with a lot of stipulations, and doesn't consider the longer term (even if you'd save some money while your kids are young, the long-term damage to your career prospects from5 or 10 years out of the workforce makes you difficult to employ later and more likely to take a job that isn't interesting and doesn't pay well). Here, we're talking about professional employment, and I suspect an income of over $100k brings in more than staying at home saves.

After a family makes over something like 85k per year, there is no marginal increase in happiness due to change in financial circumstances. I'll find the link that supports this. It was stated by a guy that gave a TED Talk a while ago.

Therefore, if one spouse is making 160k, there is no benefit to the other spouse making any income at all. Assuming there is at least some benefit to taking care of your own kids rather than letting someone else watching them all the time, being a stay-at-home mom is a net plus, assuming the wage-earning spouse makes enough money.

.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide.

This usually comes with a lot of stipulations, and doesn't consider the longer term (even if you'd save some money while your kids are young, the long-term damage to your career prospects from5 or 10 years out of the workforce makes you difficult to employ later and more likely to take a job that isn't interesting and doesn't pay well). Here, we're talking about professional employment, and I suspect an income of over $100k brings in more than staying at home saves.

After a family makes over something like 85k per year, there is no marginal increase in happiness due to change in financial circumstances. I'll find the link that supports this. It was stated by a guy that gave a TED Talk a while ago.

Therefore, if one spouse is making 160k, there is no benefit to the other spouse making any income at all. Assuming there is at least some benefit to taking care of your own kids rather than letting someone else watching them all the time, being a stay-at-home mom is a net plus, assuming the wage-earning spouse makes enough money.

It's a huuuuge facepalm-y, are-you-fucking-kidding-me leap to say that because you don't need more money, a woman's happiness will not be increased by working. And in fact, the opposite is true. SAHMs are more likely to be depressed.

Anonymous User wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: They spend their entire lives trying to fit into a male-dominated profession and coarsen themselves in order to fit in to the point that they become more like men than real women. If I wanted to hang out with professional women, I might as well hang out with professional guys because they have the exact same personalities, goals, etc. It's refreshing to have a woman who is nurturing, caring, happy, etc. who can tell you stories about all the hilarious shit your kid did while you're at work.

My goodness, I sure hope you don't talk like this in real life, or that you are never in charge of hiring or promotions anywhere; you're an equal opportunity lawsuit waiting to happen, unless you are a woman. Then I apologize.

Accidently anon. This is Persues_I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism

IAFG wrote:It's a huuuuge facepalm-y, are-you-fucking-kidding-me leap to say that because you don't need more money, a woman's happiness will not be increased by working. And in fact, the opposite is true. SAHMs are more likely to be depressed.

I just mostly wonder why guys who advocate this type of arrangement don't volunteer to be SAHD's.

Danteshek wrote:Hooey. Single people will find it a lot harder to keep it together. Who is going to cook for you and do your laundry? Who is going to listen to you bitch and moan about how hard work is? Being married to the right person will make you MUCH more successful no matter what you do.

Also, best post in this thread

keg411 wrote:

IAFG wrote:It's a huuuuge facepalm-y, are-you-fucking-kidding-me leap to say that because you don't need more money, a woman's happiness will not be increased by working. And in fact, the opposite is true. SAHMs are more likely to be depressed.

I just mostly wonder why guys who advocate this type of arrangement don't volunteer to be SAHD's.

There is strong social pressure NOT to be stay at home dads.

AreJay711 wrote:

Danteshek wrote:Hooey. Single people will find it a lot harder to keep it together. Who is going to cook for you and do your laundry? Who is going to listen to you bitch and moan about how hard work is? Being married to the right person will make you MUCH more successful no matter what you do.

Also, best post in this thread

It's not, because like a lot of other posts in this thread, it only considers the lawyer's happiness in the marriage. So you'll be thrilled until she files.

IAFG wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

Danteshek wrote:Hooey. Single people will find it a lot harder to keep it together. Who is going to cook for you and do your laundry? Who is going to listen to you bitch and moan about how hard work is? Being married to the right person will make you MUCH more successful no matter what you do.

Also, best post in this thread

It's not, because like a lot of other posts in this thread, it only considers the lawyer's happiness in the marriage. So you'll be thrilled until she files.

that's why you get a pre-nup, duh

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:
After a family makes over something like 85k per year, there is no marginal increase in happiness due to change in financial circumstances. I'll find the link that supports this. It was stated by a guy that gave a TED Talk a while ago.

Here's a Harvard PhD in Economics and Wharton prof and current Chief Economist of the Department of Labor suggesting otherwise:

Q: There has been press coverage suggesting that happiness plateaus at a certain income level. Are you finding something different?
I haven’t seen a study that actually showed that happiness plateaus. What we see is that happiness rises with the log of income. I think that's where people get confused. A 10% rise in income is associated with a similar change in happiness at any income level. But when your income is $20,000 that 10% is a lot less money than when your income is $200,000. As your income goes up, the extra happiness or life satisfaction you get per dollar shrinks because it is a smaller proportion of your income. But we see that happiness rises quite steadily with the log of income.

A poor individual or a poor country is going to get a lot more happiness out of a dollar than a rich person or a rich country. But a 10% increase in income in a poor country is going to get us about the same amount of increase in happiness as a 10% rise in income in a rich country.

A lot of economists had hypothesized that relative income is what matters, so it doesn't matter if I get richer if everybody else is also getting richer. In that case my happiness isn't going to change. It only changes if my station in society changes. But, in fact, we find that richer countries are happier than poorer countries and as countries get richer, their citizens get happier. I should note, however, that there is one exception. The United States has gotten wealthier over the last 40 years and we haven't gotten any happier on average.

Q: Why is that?
We don't have any definitive answer. Things have changed in terms of family life. Things have changed in terms of social cohesion. There have also been changes in inequality; we know that the top 1% of the income distribution has had enormous income gains. And looking at the whole population, even if the top 1% got really, really happy, that wouldn't affect the average happiness very much.

--LinkRemoved--

AreJay711 wrote:

keg411 wrote:

IAFG wrote:It's a huuuuge facepalm-y, are-you-fucking-kidding-me leap to say that because you don't need more money, a woman's happiness will not be increased by working. And in fact, the opposite is true. SAHMs are more likely to be depressed.

I just mostly wonder why guys who advocate this type of arrangement don't volunteer to be SAHD's.

There is strong social pressure NOT to be stay at home dads.

But if the $$$ are the same, which was the argument Julio made, then who really cares who makes the money and who stays at home?

Also, I agree with IAFG -- it's all fine and good until she leaves you for someone hotter/richer/pays more attention to her.

IAFG wrote:Lawyer-lawyer couples have a fairly low divorce rate.

It's not marriage that's disconcerting, it's kids.

This. Just don't have kids. Lord knows our generation can't really afford them and we have enough people here anyway.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

Perseus_I wrote:Hopefully, you will be able to hide the fact that you are sexist when you are at work and that it won't inadvertently slip through that you think your professional women colleagues are "not real women but actually more like men." I can just think of how some I know would react to this.

Hopefully you'll learn not to throw around baseless insults before you become an adult and actually have to work in the real world. I'm not a sexist. I think women should be able to do whatever they want with their lives and I've encouraged my own wife to do the same. You are taking that statement totally out of context. I was talking about attributes I looked for in a potential spouse. Also, isn't it the opposite of being a sexist to treat women like you treat men?

Yeah, I don't think he was being sexist. He's just saying that he prefers a spouse that is very feminine, looks to him for leadership, and is not ultra ambitious and high-strung. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, just like there would be nothing wrong with a man who prefers an independent and highly sophisticated professional woman.

IAFG wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote: Financially, it's been proven in numerous studies that stay-at-home moms save an enormous amount of money for families given the services they provide.

This usually comes with a lot of stipulations, and doesn't consider the longer term (even if you'd save some money while your kids are young, the long-term damage to your career prospects from5 or 10 years out of the workforce makes you difficult to employ later and more likely to take a job that isn't interesting and doesn't pay well). Here, we're talking about professional employment, and I suspect an income of over $100k brings in more than staying at home saves.

After a family makes over something like 85k per year, there is no marginal increase in happiness due to change in financial circumstances. I'll find the link that supports this. It was stated by a guy that gave a TED Talk a while ago.

Therefore, if one spouse is making 160k, there is no benefit to the other spouse making any income at all. Assuming there is at least some benefit to taking care of your own kids rather than letting someone else watching them all the time, being a stay-at-home mom is a net plus, assuming the wage-earning spouse makes enough money.

It's a huuuuge facepalm-y, are-you-fucking-kidding-me leap to say that because you don't need more money, a woman's happiness will not be increased by working. And in fact, the opposite is true. SAHMs are more likely to be depressed.

I was strictly speaking in terms of dollars and cents. I 100% agree with you on this: if a woman isn't happy because she's not working, she should work. There are definitely women like this.

I know you might have a hard time believing it, but some women actually want to be SAHMs.

quakeroats wrote:I should note, however, that there is one exception. The United States has gotten wealthier over the last 40 years and we haven't gotten any happier on average.

I'm curious what you think has caused this?

The worst is when working women try to denigrate SAHMs. I never understood why women they feel the need to do this.

IAFG wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

Danteshek wrote:Hooey. Single people will find it a lot harder to keep it together. Who is going to cook for you and do your laundry? Who is going to listen to you bitch and moan about how hard work is? Being married to the right person will make you MUCH more successful no matter what you do.

Also, best post in this thread

It's not, because like a lot of other posts in this thread, it only considers the lawyer's happiness in the marriage. So you'll be thrilled until she files.

Right. You need to find someone who is happy doing that. I'm met women who really just want to be a mother and homemaker. I certainly don't think it would be that hard to find someone willing to do all the same things they would do if they were single if the trade off is a 2-3X as big paycheck.