That seems like an impossible goal. If there are 2 houses instead of 1, it's going to require getting cheaper houses, smaller yards, etc. Both parties' standard of living will go down.
Not necessarily. It could result in one house and yard staying the same, and the other one being a one bedroom apartment across town with almost no furniture. In this case, only one party's standard of living goes down.
Sorry--I was making a joke. The implication being that in a middle class divorce (at least in the US), it's pretty common that the standard of living for the mother and children is maintained when it comes to house size, yard, etc. because she ends up keeping it. The stereotype is that he ends up in the crappy apartment and writing the big alimony checks and child support payments.
It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes.
> Both parties' standard of living will go down.
This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
I agree I was wrong in that they both will go down 100% of the time. It's possible to come up with rare situations in which one or the other will go up.
But to me it seems that if one of them is going to go up, it's more likely to be the higher earner whose standard will go up. The divorce caused the higher earner to lose access to a lower income (possibly zero), so thus possibly not much financial downside. The divorce caused the lower earner to lose access to a higher income, so a large financial downside.
> It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living
Are you saying a divorce could lead to more efficient use of money? That doesn't seem like the case to me. When married they were in 1 bedroom in 1 house. Now they're in 2 bedrooms in 2 houses. Less efficient. If there are kids and shared custody, the kids need double the bedrooms as well.
>(or equally between spouses)
Ok, I sort of get that point. If for example while married the higher earner spent 60% of his/her income on hobbies that didn't benefit the lower earner, then the lower earner was given 50% of the higher earner's income as alimony, that would mean the lower earner could possibly benefit. But those numbers are crazy. Most money is spent on housing, which benefits both spouses. To spend such a giant amount on a single spouse's hobbies is very unusual.
If you start from the premise that maintaining the children's quality of life is the top priority (which I believe) then it follows pretty logically from there. Keep the kids in the house, with the parent most able to care for them. Unfortunately, this is usually the mother; in a more perfect world, it would be the father just as often.
It also implies the other spouse (usually father), shouldn't be an equal active co-parent and have autonomy over where the money for the child goes, and it goes only to the other parent.
Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.
