Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!nike!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Yale-Harvard marriage study
Message-ID: <455@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 11:58:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.455
Posted: Fri Oct  3 11:58:11 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 12:40:51 EDT
References: <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath soc.singles:315 soc.women:216
Summary: Cruel?

In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes:
>In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote:
>>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success
>>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices...
>So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership!
>garry wiegand   (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu)
Cruel?  Perhaps, but also realistic.  A promotion worth 10% to a partner
making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%.  Net gain
for the parnership, $3,000.

If the reverse action were taken, which
gave the $10,000 parnter a 10% raise, but cost the $40,000 parnter 10%,
the loss would be $3,000.

Because it is a parntership, the $10,000 parnter
will probably get a good portion of the additional income, which could
be invested in measures leading to increases for the $10,000 parnter.

In fact, the better long term investment (assuming both parnters are
equally motivated) would be to invest nearly all of the gain in measures
that will maximise the $10,000 parnter's opportunities for additional
income, such as additional education.

In a more "equal" parntership, where one makes $40,000 and the other makes
$38,000, the person sacrificing experience and political clout should
be able to offset or recover the loss with education, or other income
related "investments".

One of the best investments anyone can make is in the education of
a highly motivated person who has not yet reached their potential.
The education of a talented spouse almost guarentees a safe maximum
return on the investment.

I have actually heard of one head hunter that has a "family plan"
which will provide opportunities for both partners if they are
professionals.

Part of the difficulty arises out of the nature of opportunities
at the upper income levels.  The net rewards are significantly
more subtantial, but the sacrifices include relocation, travel,
and displacement of the spouse.

Sometimes, dramatic changes can benefit both partners.  One couple
relocated because of an opportunity that was extremely profitable
to only one of the partners, but the other, not having a history
of previous "bad attitude" known by superiors, was able to get
a position with more responsibility, income, and authority than
would have been possible at all in her previous situation.

There is obviously more at stake here than just money.  Each
decision will not be this clear.  The problems often boil down
to a natural resistance to change.  I've known single people,
who when laid off, either waited for the company to rehire
them while they collected unemployment, or insisted on staying
in Rochester N.Y. in spite of the fact that there was a glut
of highly skilled engineers doing the same thing.

Having made drastic changes, including leaving parents, friends
and what were thought to be important contacts, and gained
from the experience, is an excellent growth experience.