Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I love to reduce labour in my life. That's precisely why I think if there are two able-bodied adults with either no kids or school-aged kids, both should work. I think generally people marry somebody of similar class and therefore similar earnings potential. Obviously you could be a lawyer and marry a high school drop-out with low earnings potential, but from my experience people usually marry somebody consistent with their class so I wouldn't say the 40 years of work to make 5 years of work scenario you made up is relevant in general terms, but I'm definitely not in the mood to back that up with a hunt for evidence so take it with a grain of salt.
So back to reducing labour. I do not want to work an extra five or 10 years in order to support somebody when - instead - they could be contributing to our financial health and growth allowing us both to retire earlier together. It's short-sighted to say keeping somebody at home is less work. Sure, maybe it is in the short-term, but it's certainly not in the long-term. Right now my wife and I are both "young" and it's time to make hay while the sun is shining. If she's just going to watch soaps all day and make casserole's for supper and earn $0/month, then I just married a liability. That's crazy to me. Let's both work, thus sharing the burden and labour, and then both retire at the same time, which would be years earlier than had just one of us worked while the other blobbed around.
|
So you want to be a homemaker as soon as you can afford it.
Then in your retirement you and your spouse can make casseroles and watch soaps all day together.
I think you dramatically undervalue the amount of time you and your spouse put into to maintaining a household and how much free time you can generate by cutting out your half.