They are both on the autism spectrum and one of their kids is already diagnosed with it at a young age. I don't think filling up the world with even more autistic kids is a good thing. It's already an epidemic. Aside from costing the state a ton of money, typically with no return as very few autistic people end up in employment, rates of depression and anxiety in autistic kids is really, really high. It raises the average level of misery a lot.
One of two my kids is autistic, and we won't be having any more.
One shouldn't have to sacrifice most of one's individual property rights to enter into a life partnership with someone for purposes of raising children, but that is the default in most states with their heavyweight version of marriage. There'd be more marriages and more fertility if they offered a lightweight version with more sensible individualistic defaults as regards property -- everything remains separate property by default, instead of everything is community property by default. Including income earned during the marriage.
This is a special case of "we want people to have X, so we force bundling of X with Y, and the effect of that is just to make Y rarer and more difficult to get" which is a common failure mode of government. Other examples of this include the minimum wage, occupational licensing, etc.
The reason you offer up half your property rights is because your wife is offering significantly valuable goods in turn. And if you aren't willing to do that, she can get a better deal elsewhere.
If you add up the cost of buying an egg, surrogacy, and 24/7 live in nanny, as well as a live-in housekeeper and live-in prostitute, it'll generally cost far more than half of what the average man owns and earns. It's only for the 1% it gets zany. You're getting off cheap.
If it weren't for the legal protections of marriage, I would have *never* in a million years had children at all. It was only because my husband was willing to commit his financial support that I was willing to do it.
it's the only job you can quit and still get a golden parachute from (both a lump sum and residuals forever). The incentive structure is wack, especially if you're marrying Jeff Bezos. There seem to be a plethora of ex wives of rich men who got way more than they deserved.
If a person could formally sell equity that entitles the buyer to a percentage of their earnings forever, there should probably be a legal limit of 25% to how much equity they can sell, to avoid it devolving into something slavery-adjacent.
Also, that list of service providers adds up to a lot more than the average wife provides, and her financial position is not dependent on actually providing any of those services (nor even whether she stays with the man). If the quid is mandated by law but the quo is totally optional, it's not a quid pro quo. The women's revealed preference is to do all that for free because they love the husband/kids. They could quit and leave and keep the same financial position at any time, unlike any other quid pro quo for labor.
They are both on the autism spectrum and one of their kids is already diagnosed with it at a young age. I don't think filling up the world with even more autistic kids is a good thing. It's already an epidemic. Aside from costing the state a ton of money, typically with no return as very few autistic people end up in employment, rates of depression and anxiety in autistic kids is really, really high. It raises the average level of misery a lot.
One of two my kids is autistic, and we won't be having any more.
One shouldn't have to sacrifice most of one's individual property rights to enter into a life partnership with someone for purposes of raising children, but that is the default in most states with their heavyweight version of marriage. There'd be more marriages and more fertility if they offered a lightweight version with more sensible individualistic defaults as regards property -- everything remains separate property by default, instead of everything is community property by default. Including income earned during the marriage.
This is a special case of "we want people to have X, so we force bundling of X with Y, and the effect of that is just to make Y rarer and more difficult to get" which is a common failure mode of government. Other examples of this include the minimum wage, occupational licensing, etc.
No. There'd be less.
The reason you offer up half your property rights is because your wife is offering significantly valuable goods in turn. And if you aren't willing to do that, she can get a better deal elsewhere.
If you add up the cost of buying an egg, surrogacy, and 24/7 live in nanny, as well as a live-in housekeeper and live-in prostitute, it'll generally cost far more than half of what the average man owns and earns. It's only for the 1% it gets zany. You're getting off cheap.
If it weren't for the legal protections of marriage, I would have *never* in a million years had children at all. It was only because my husband was willing to commit his financial support that I was willing to do it.
it's the only job you can quit and still get a golden parachute from (both a lump sum and residuals forever). The incentive structure is wack, especially if you're marrying Jeff Bezos. There seem to be a plethora of ex wives of rich men who got way more than they deserved.
If a person could formally sell equity that entitles the buyer to a percentage of their earnings forever, there should probably be a legal limit of 25% to how much equity they can sell, to avoid it devolving into something slavery-adjacent.
Also, that list of service providers adds up to a lot more than the average wife provides, and her financial position is not dependent on actually providing any of those services (nor even whether she stays with the man). If the quid is mandated by law but the quo is totally optional, it's not a quid pro quo. The women's revealed preference is to do all that for free because they love the husband/kids. They could quit and leave and keep the same financial position at any time, unlike any other quid pro quo for labor.
The Duggar family did a great job with this.