From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: How much $$ is enough?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:58:23 GMT

Canadian women team up with the government to propose a new rationale
to extract money from men.

If a married woman quits her job to raise children or maintain the
household, her loss in seniority and competitiveness means a loss in
income when she re-enters the job market.  This income loss represents
a "burden of the marriage" that, in case of divorce, must be shared by
her ex-husband, according to a report by the national Commission on the
Status of Women and the Department of Justice.  Her ex-husband must
shoulder his share of this burden until she re-establishes her career
-regardless- of the time required, even if it takes the rest of her
life.

Of course, she's not allowed to take as long as she wants; the "time
required" is calculated from income tables from census data.  And this
is just one of many independent sources of spousal support.

What do y'all think of this proposal?  Is it a long-needed stroke for
women's economic justice?  Or is it another example of the New Women's
Liberation, by which women are liberated from the economic consequences
of their choices (with the gallant aid of the nearest male wallet)?  Or
somewhere in between :-)?  I wonder if this idea has hit the US, and
how it would fare there?

I'm recounting this in sex-specific terms because that's the way the
proposal is written, and in all the income calculations in the report,
loss rates are calculated assuming women's earnings, and none assume
that husbands drop out of the labor force.

My reaction?  It's a pity that the psychological burden of losing
one's home and family can't be neatly tabulated on a balance sheet.

-S. Schultz
-----
    My kisses are sweeter than honey,
    And guess what, so is my money.
	-- Aretha



----From the report (emphasis original)---------

The analysis presented in this paper...suggests strongly that women who
interrupt or reduce their paid labour force activity in order to assume
family duties, are likely to suffer a sizable loss of earning capacity
that may continue for many years AFTER their re-entry to the labour
force.  For women whose labour force interruptions have lasted for 10
years or longer, the cumulative present value of post re-entry earnings
losses will typically exceed $80,000.  These losses are estimated
relative to the earnings of women who have not interrupted or reduced
their labour force attachment....

Even labour force interruptions lasting as little as two years can have
significant long-term costs in terms of lost earnings ($30,000 or
more).

   --An Economic Model to assist in the Determination of Spousal
     Support, July 1992, Richard Kerr, Department of Justice and Status
     Women Canada

------News article-----------

WIFE'S LOST EARNINGS MUST BE FACTORED IN, STUDY SAYS

Helen Branswell Vancouver Sun 7/7/92
=============================================

OTTAWA -- Women who stay home to raise children are likely to lose tens
of thousands of dollars in earning capacity while they are out of the
work force.  But divorce settlements rarely reflect those losses, a
federal overnment study says.

Even two years out of the labor force can cause significant and long-
term earning losses, said the report.  It suggested a formula for
calculating those losses and recommended they be factored into property
settlements or support payments when marriages end in divorce.

The report was commissioned by the departments of Justice and Status of
Women and was released Monday.

"It may take years and in some cases [a woman who resumes work after a
divorce] may never catch up to the level of earnings that she would
have had had she remained in the labor force," said Richard Kerr, the
Ottawa economics consultant who wrote the report.

"If the marriage ends and we want to determine a fair sharing of the
burdens or the advantages of the marriage, then we need to take into
account the fact that that woman for years in the future is going to be
earning less as a consequence of joint decisions that she and her
husband made when they were married."
....

Susan Vella, president of the National Association of Women and the
Law, said the idea that women ought to be compensated for lost earning
potential is a step in the right direction.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct