[ty6853]

You're not convinced, that's fine. You're open either possibility and asking for proof. To prove something happens at least sometimes I need at least say 2 anecdotes, which I could scrounge from some forum. But you have already decided it's misanthropic without proving that either, you are just rigging the game to play the fuck fuck game where you want it proven to some level of scientific rigor beyond what's quickly communicated on a tech bullshitting forum, while simultaneously claiming misanthropy without the level of rigor you demand for claiming so.

There are claims made by divorced people. Sometimes is not any exact percentage. The peer reviewed studies have conclusions like "the results [ of studying post earnings loss divorce ] are, however, consistent with role theories, in which the husband’s attractiveness declines if he fails to fulfill a traditional role as a breadwinner."

What would be hard to believe is that people _dont_ sometimes use the courts to lock into income streams they are loosing. That borders on extraordinarily improbable.

[SketchySeaBeast]

I'm unsure what the "fuck fuck game" is, but I honestly think HN tries to be more than just a "tech bullshitting forum". I think there's hope that you put some thought into what you say and how you say it.

Sure, there are certainly marriages for financial convenience, but you presented this like a widespread phenomena, so much so that you felt like you wanted to warn people about it.

You said so yourself, it's well documented that spouses divorce because of a change in finances and you could provide the evidence yourself of that, but, to my knowledge, not well documented that it's a common reason that spouses divorce because they want to force the unemployed high earning spouse into miserable work.

I'm not looking for a direct scientific study, but it would be nice if you could provide some sort of news article or the like about this phenomena. I'm sorry that I didn't just uncritically accept your anecdote as being true.

[ty6853]

What level of proof do you demand to show something happens sometimes? Because you keep changing it to strawman like 'common.' And to be clear, unless it is zero, you've not applied same to your misanthropic claim.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Misanthropic is not a claim I'm making based upon data. It's not possible to validate independently, but a judgment by myself. Your claim sounds misanthropic to me - it sounds like, if we are high earners, we should distrust our spouses because they are just out for our money and will demand we work miserable jobs to make sure they have enough, and if we don't they'll divorce it and demand the money of us. That's bleak and distrustful of people.

I'm not expecting a Cambridge study, but I was hoping you had some sort of news article or something rising above an anecdote in a forum about how some guy's wife forced him back into his job. You seems to feel you should warn people about in this forum, so you believe that it happens at a rate such that it could happen to any of us. So in that case, "common" seems less "strawman", and more "correct usage". You don't have it, that's fine, but if that's the case, why do you believe it?

[ty6853]

Alright I will switch to easily proven facts. Child support and alimony are usually based on imputed income, meaning what a judge thinks you can earn. Voluntarily taking lower pay is strong evidence you could earn higher.

Finance linked divorce is common, support is common, and throwing people in a tiny cage for not coming up with a fraction of imputed income sometimes happens. We can squabble over why it happens, but when you are locked in a cage after taking a lower stress job the reason may not matter, and the fact I could be wrong about motivations will not get these people out of jail.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Sure, and that's why I feel it's a misanthropic take.

[ty6853]

Yes of course. People are magically different in divorce than every other litigious aspect of society and totally don't sometimes use the courts to lock in an elevated income stream at the expense of someone else. This sober view can be characterized however you like, but it being wrong defies precedent in an extraordinary way.