We both have roughly equal educational backgrounds, but when our first child was born, my husband and I made the decision together that I would be a stay at home mother. We feel it’s been the best thing for the children, but we know it’s been the best thing for his career. He’s free to work a flexible schedule, travel at will and accept advantageous transfers without compromise. As a result, he’s scaled the corporate ladder in a sprightly fashion. Yes, he’s worked hard, and yes, he’s smart, but that’s not enough. With very few exceptions, most of his fellow climbers who have reached the same level are also married to spouses who do not work outside the home. Being able to focus without compromise, and being able sieze opportunities as soon as they are offered are not insignificant advantages in the corporate world.
Corporate salaries do not rise on a nice, gentle slope. In fact, they start getting bigger, very, very much bigger, all compensation included, right about now — just when my children are leaving home for college, my degree is hopelessly outdated, and I have no relevant work experience. I’m sure, with a few years help, I could get myself “on my feet” somewhere just north of subsistence level, but my husband would be living very well indeed, essentially off the fruits of my sacrifice.
That is the traditional argument for alimony, that it helps make things more fair when a couple divorces. But it’s not the only reason to keep alimony as an option. Society reaps certain benefits from stay at home spouses — well-reared children are one and more focused, efficient, or effective workers are another. There are enough reasons to think that the model of one parent at home with the children is socially helpful for us to be very reluctant to discourage it, and taking away alimony is taking away one of the safety nets for people who make that choice. It would be a very silly thing to do indeed just because some spoiled and whiny women think they should get to pick and choose which laws apply to them, or because K-Fed’s clearly an opportunist. Why, oh why would we ever let people like that make policy for the rest of us?
