Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Our Money?

1789101113»

Posts

  • VivixenneVivixenne Remember your training, and we'll get through this just fine. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.

    Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?

    I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.

    He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.

    He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?

    Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.


    Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.

    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Vivixenne on
    XBOX: NOVADELPHINI | DISCORD: NOVADELPHINI #7387 | TWITTER
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    well obviously the other partner has to go to the kitchen and watch the little 12" black and white tv

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.

    Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?

    I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.

    He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.

    He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?

    Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.


    Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.

    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Mind you, this is still hypothetical, so it can be implied that the people in question share a deep emotional connection, considering they are married.

    Javen on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I'd still like to know what actually makes the work a stranger does worth money and the work a spouse does not.

    The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.

    Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.

    Except the homemaker isn't just cleaning up their own mess. They're cleaning up after their spouse and children the spouse would have to clean up after if there wasn't someone doing it for them. Homemakers also often do things and run errands for their spouses that in no way directly benefit them.

    Homemaker doesn't have a boss and has complete autonomy in their job. Most maid/daycare jobs don't have that framework and one of the things that make them stressful is those pressures of working under someone and having deadlines, standards etc. set by outside parties. Also, a homemaker has much better job security than your average maid/daycare worker. If the latter is fired they do not keep getting money from their employer.

    Cliff on
    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.

    Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?

    I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.

    He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.

    He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?

    Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.


    Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.

    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Then they won't do that since it would be impossible to split the cost.

    Cliff on
    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    hahaha

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Then they won't do that since it would be impossible to split the cost.

    That's awesome.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Someone mentioned a while back that this is like a virgin talking about sex. The wall of ignorance without experience is completely impenetrable.

    Javen on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Javen wrote: »
    Someone mentioned a while back that this is like a virgin talking about sex. The wall of ignorance without experience is completely impenetrable.

    So if my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't judge, bacause I have no personal experience with marriage.

    Cliff on
    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.

    Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?

    I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.

    He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.

    He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?

    Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.


    Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.

    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Then they won't do that since it would be impossible to split the cost.

    This is completely irrational behavior. It makes absolutely zero sense to do without out of the fear that someone else might be able to utilize the benefits of their work in conjunction with your own.

    Javen on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Someone mentioned a while back that this is like a virgin talking about sex. The wall of ignorance without experience is completely impenetrable.

    So if my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't judge, bacause I have no personal experience with marriage.

    Assuming you're aware of the circumstances behind the situation, experience with marriage should not be necessary. Ostensibly, you have personal experience with human interaction.

    Javen on
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Someone mentioned a while back that this is like a virgin talking about sex. The wall of ignorance without experience is completely impenetrable.

    So if my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't judge, bacause I have no personal experience with marriage.

    that's not even a comparable situation
    at all

    it's like you're comparing kicking a kitten with being squad mates in the military

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • VivixenneVivixenne Remember your training, and we'll get through this just fine. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Okay so based on Cliff's responses in the last couple of posts, two people with disparaging income levels can be in a relationship together, but only if they live at the standard that the person with the LOWER income level affords them.

    Say my partner makes $200,000 a year and I make $50,000 a year. Let's also assume we both want to live a nice life as our income affords us, because we are normal human beings.

    According to Cliff's principle, we can only be a functional couple if my partner limits his lifestyle to a $100,000/year lifestyle (50/50), even though he can probably afford better than that?

    Moreover, while Cliff is preaching financial independence, this also assumes that MY income is used up 100% while my partner saves 67% of his, all because my partner wants to live to the highest standard we can afford as a couple?

    So if this relationship ends, I walk away with no savings and my partner walks away with the majority of his income.

    What's your take on this, then, given your pre-stated stance that it's OKAY for people with disparaging incomes to date one another as long as they are contributing equally to the relationship?

    You may answer then that I should be saving money as well, but say I save $10,000 a year... that lowers our lifestyle cost to $80,000 a year (because my partner still has to spend only as much as I do!). What then happens to the right my partner has to spend his money and live the lifestyle he can afford?

    Should he then divorce me and find a partner in a higher income bracket so that he is thereby better equipped to spend more of his own money?

    Vivixenne on
    XBOX: NOVADELPHINI | DISCORD: NOVADELPHINI #7387 | TWITTER
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    It was never meant to be Viv. Get a real job you bum, etc.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    maybe the person with the higher wage in that situation should take a vacation to vegas every year, by himself, and blow all of his extra salary in one week.

    Pi-r8 on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    maybe the person with the higher wage in that situation should take a vacation to vegas every year, by himself, and blow all of his extra salary in one week.

    But what if they won big, Pi? What then eh??

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    maybe the person with the higher wage in that situation should take a vacation to vegas every year, by himself, and blow all of his extra salary in one week.

    But what if they won big, Pi? What then eh??
    THEY MUST KEEP PLAYING UNTIL THEY LOSE.

    Pi-r8 on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Blaket wrote: »
    Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.

    Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?

    I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.

    He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.

    He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?

    Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.


    Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.

    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Then they won't do that since it would be impossible to split the cost.

    This is amazing. You are amazing.

    Drez on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I'd still like to know what actually makes the work a stranger does worth money and the work a spouse does not.

    The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.

    Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.

    Except the homemaker isn't just cleaning up their own mess. They're cleaning up after their spouse and children the spouse would have to clean up after if there wasn't someone doing it for them. Homemakers also often do things and run errands for their spouses that in no way directly benefit them.

    Homemaker doesn't have a boss and has complete autonomy in their job. Most maid/daycare jobs don't have that framework and one of the things that make them stressful is those pressures of working under someone and having deadlines, standards etc. set by outside parties. Also, a homemaker has much better job security than your average maid/daycare worker. If the latter is fired they do not keep getting money from their employer.

    There are lots of self employed people who do those jobs. Having a boss doesn't make something have monetary value.

    Quid on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    But basically since my wife can only be in a relationship with me by never rising above manager and the only way for this relationship to be fair is for us to live at equal income levels, I'm just going to start burning my extra income so as to make us truly happy rather than buy us patio furniture while her income pads our savings.

    Quid on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited May 2010
    What if cliff has been trolling all this time?

    Perpetual on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    What if cliff has been trolling all this time?

    Of the two possible explanations, I like this one better.

    Aroused Bull on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Holy shit my entire current relationship is doomed to failure!

    Because I am the sole breadwinner while my significant other works her way through a massive undergraduate semester for this, the summer, and the spring semesters.

    Also holy shit this brought Druhim and other SE++ kids into D&D.

    Wowwwww
    sup Druhim, been a while

    Arch on
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    hiya Arch :)

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    What if cliff has been trolling all this time?

    Then I say we get an annulment and separate from Cliff. No alimony. No child support.

    Drez on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    What if the person who earned the higher wage now wants to upgrade their lifestyle? Say they can now afford a big-screen TV or a nicer apartment, but they would be bearing almost 100% of the cost because while their income has increased, the other partner's has not.

    What then?

    Then they won't do that since it would be impossible to split the cost.

    Mindblowing.

    So, are you saying people will naturally not do this (because that is demonstrably false)? Are you saying that they should be prevented from doing so? Are you saying that to do so is some moral failing, and that what one should do is sabotage your own quality of life in order to prevent significant others from getting their hands on one's hard-earned?

    Seriously, I can't see any way to interpret this that squares with the way people, or relationships, function.

    japan on
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    The answer is simple japan. It doesn't square. It's very clear throughout this thread that Cliff doesn't understand how people relate to each other and he's not really engaging in a conversation with the forum so much as just repeating that no one in a relationship should benefit from the largess of the wealthier partner.

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    The answer is simple japan. It doesn't square. It's very clear throughout this thread that Cliff doesn't understand how people relate to each other and he's not really engaging in a conversation with the forum so much as just repeating that no one in a relationship should benefit from the largess of the wealthier partner.

    So trickle-down economics shouldn't apply to domestic partnerships, just to the market?

    Arch on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2010
    Since the people on one side of this argument are either A) trolling or B) robots, I think we should throw in the towel. I don't think any productive discussion has occured in the last 15 pages.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
This discussion has been closed.