Author Topic: When $1 billion is not enough  (Read 8265 times)

pzxc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2015, 12:43:33 PM »
You know when people say "It's not the money, it's the principle."?  For a billion dollars I would say Fuck the principle, give me the money.


CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Location: Central Texas (but not cool enough for Austin)
  • Can I FIRE yet?
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2015, 01:11:47 PM »
I seriously wonder what percentage of her final settlement will go to her lawyers' fine principles.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2015, 01:38:20 PM »
Yeah I don't know, I haven't really read anything about this case and the only thing I know is the headlines that pop up. As someone that has never been married (and thus knows nearly nothing about divorce), would she be entitled to half or what amount is she looking for? I have heard of cases were one of the parties wants a scorched earth policy, could it be this? Or is she thinking that he will settle to make this headache go away?

Either way, I suppose a billion bucks isn't as much as it used to be.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2015, 01:52:12 PM »
Not as much as it used to be? Invested that would net you 40 million dollars a year... There is basically nothing you can't buy with that money. Your yearly earnings outpaces pretty much the most expensive homes you could ever buy. Even if she got 40% of that she is pretty set...

slugline

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Houston, TX USA
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2015, 02:02:06 PM »
That amount could endow more than a few Mustachian-level 'Staches.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2015, 02:10:17 PM »
Not as much as it used to be? Invested that would net you 40 million dollars a year... There is basically nothing you can't buy with that money. Your yearly earnings outpaces pretty much the most expensive homes you could ever buy. Even if she got 40% of that she is pretty set...

I meant that sarcastically.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2015, 02:10:37 PM »
I think it has to do with "fairness" not, wow that's a lot of money! They were married for a long time, she was involved in the business, and he is supposedly worth 7 billion. Him writing that check, and her refusing it, each did it out of what they feel is in their best business interest. He felt he could get off "cheaper" doing this than going through with lawyers, and she is gambling she can get more if they go through a court.

An interesting dilemma to have. Even if financially I knew it wasn't optimal, It would be hard for me to turn that down, especially not having to deal with protracted lawsuits, etc. 


Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2015, 02:23:08 PM »
I won't debate what's fair because I don't care but I will say this.  If someone told me I could have a billion today or fight a court battle for who knows how long and maybe get 4 billion, I'd cash that billion dollar check today and head to a tropical island tomorrow. 

Beaker

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2015, 02:28:31 PM »
Check #1004? Guy sure doesn't use his checkbook that much. I wonder if the previous check was $4.55 for a gallon of milk.

Seems funny seeing that on a regular personal check, anyway. I'd think the bank could front you a giant novelty check for that sort of thing.

Static Void

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Silicon Valley Beach
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2015, 02:45:48 PM »
hard for me to turn that down, especially not having to deal with protracted lawsuits, etc.

In their world, dealing with protracted lawsuits is an interesting diversion, ever so much more engaging than the usual private jetting about hither and yon. Enough to feel, momentarily, alive! And sure to provide intriguing and amusing anecdotes at the next gathering and such.


Escaping the software industry in 2015, so I have more time to write software

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2015, 03:11:25 PM »
hard for me to turn that down, especially not having to deal with protracted lawsuits, etc.

In their world, dealing with protracted lawsuits is an interesting diversion, ever so much more engaging than the usual private jetting about hither and yon. Enough to feel, momentarily, alive! And sure to provide intriguing and amusing anecdotes at the next gathering and such.

Indeed. This is not about $1B vs. $4B; this is about power and not getting embarrassed in front of one's peers.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2015, 03:17:26 PM »
so it seems like everyone's reasoning is if its a big enough number i dont care if i get actually what i am owed?

 lawyers arent that expensive for divorce as the movies would love for us to believe. and honestly its very easy to look at his assets and determine what she is owed. especially if they are in one of those states that believe she gets half.

she it isnt a maybe she will get more money. she will get more money

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2958
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2015, 03:33:21 PM »
I won't debate what's fair because I don't care but I will say this.  If someone told me I could have a billion today or fight a court battle for who knows how long and maybe get 4 billion, I'd cash that billion dollar check today and head to a tropical island tomorrow.

...unless it was your cunt of an ex wife and you want as much as possible just for spite.

Oh my, my --

I just read a tad about this but it appears the old man is in the oil business and in a bit of bind with prices dropping like crazy.  It seems he is out of money and had to borrow against the biz in order to pay off then ex.   It might just be that this guy ends up bankrupt before all is said an done.

I have experience with divorce and exs so I know that emotion often trumps rationality. 

Bottom line --

Why are divorces so expensive??   Because they're worth it!
Better living through math.

MountainBeard

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2015, 04:10:23 PM »
I didn't know you were allowed to go to a second line writing out the amount long hand - nice he didn't have to waste a second check.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2015, 07:08:48 PM »
so it seems like everyone's reasoning is if its a big enough number i dont care if i get actually what i am owed?

 lawyers arent that expensive for divorce as the movies would love for us to believe. and honestly its very easy to look at his assets and determine what she is owed. especially if they are in one of those states that believe she gets half.

she it isnt a maybe she will get more money. she will get more money

There's a lot more to what she is owed, if anything, than what his assets are. Did she play a role in running the business and earning that money? If so what was that role and why was she not drawing a salary and compensation for that role? If she played no role in earning that money then $1B (including previous gifts during separation of a $14M property and $20M cash) is an extremely generous gift, 15% of his alleged assets if you want to look at it that way. If she had a role in earning the money, then that should be quantifiable. If she did not work to earn that money then it's absurd for her to claim ownership of any of it. She should be happy that she and her entirely extended family, friends, and acquaintances and their families too are set for their own lives and the lives of their heirs for generations and that this guy is offering it as a easy out settlement without further government involvement and a long unpleasant legal battle.

YoungInvestor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2015, 10:58:52 PM »
I don't care about the topic all that much, but that is one overcrowded amount line if I've seen one.

To think that I recently had troubles fitting an amount in the thousands (4 digits)...

I'd love to see the face of whoever is gonna cash that in.

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4814
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2015, 11:55:13 PM »
Assuming she is now single....

What's her phone number?

I will gladly subject myself to whatever her personality can inflict on me, in the hope of an inevitable divorce payout in kind.


vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2015, 08:50:54 AM »
so it seems like everyone's reasoning is if its a big enough number i dont care if i get actually what i am owed?

 lawyers arent that expensive for divorce as the movies would love for us to believe. and honestly its very easy to look at his assets and determine what she is owed. especially if they are in one of those states that believe she gets half.

she it isnt a maybe she will get more money. she will get more money

There's a lot more to what she is owed, if anything, than what his assets are. Did she play a role in running the business and earning that money? If so what was that role and why was she not drawing a salary and compensation for that role? If she played no role in earning that money then $1B (including previous gifts during separation of a $14M property and $20M cash) is an extremely generous gift, 15% of his alleged assets if you want to look at it that way. If she had a role in earning the money, then that should be quantifiable. If she did not work to earn that money then it's absurd for her to claim ownership of any of it. She should be happy that she and her entirely extended family, friends, and acquaintances and their families too are set for their own lives and the lives of their heirs for generations and that this guy is offering it as a easy out settlement without further government involvement and a long unpleasant legal battle.

her role was wife. she was one half of a unit, a married unit.   you dont have to show the role you play beyond that. the world doesnt ask how much of a a member of a  unit unit each spouse earned. it is 'their' money, not his.

im not saying this is my personal opinion this is how marriage works.

should have got a pre nup.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2015, 08:59:15 AM »
so it seems like everyone's reasoning is if its a big enough number i dont care if i get actually what i am owed?

 lawyers arent that expensive for divorce as the movies would love for us to believe. and honestly its very easy to look at his assets and determine what she is owed. especially if they are in one of those states that believe she gets half.

she it isnt a maybe she will get more money. she will get more money

There's a lot more to what she is owed, if anything, than what his assets are. Did she play a role in running the business and earning that money? If so what was that role and why was she not drawing a salary and compensation for that role? If she played no role in earning that money then $1B (including previous gifts during separation of a $14M property and $20M cash) is an extremely generous gift, 15% of his alleged assets if you want to look at it that way. If she had a role in earning the money, then that should be quantifiable. If she did not work to earn that money then it's absurd for her to claim ownership of any of it. She should be happy that she and her entirely extended family, friends, and acquaintances and their families too are set for their own lives and the lives of their heirs for generations and that this guy is offering it as a easy out settlement without further government involvement and a long unpleasant legal battle.

her role was wife. she was one half of a unit, a married unit.   you dont have to show the role you play beyond that. the world doesnt ask how much of a a member of a  unit unit each spouse earned. it is 'their' money, not his.

im not saying this is my personal opinion this is how marriage works.

should have got a pre nup.

Except it's not how it works everywhere.  Some places consider premarital assets, retirement accounts and businesses different than marital assets. 

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2015, 09:10:17 AM »
So what exactly did she do in her role as "wife" to earn $7 billion, or rather $3.5 billion? If it entailed laundry and cooking and so forth a fair compensation would be to take a market rate for a full time live in maid/housekeeper/nanny/etc. and multiply that by years of marriage, he can pay that. Then figure what the man brought to the table in his role as husband and subtract that from her calculated earnings. I'd wager she'd be a net negative from all the free things she got and actually owe him money.

But no, relationships don't really work like that. Unless she had some business role in earning that money, she should be glad she got to enjoy a ridiculously luxurious and easy life for 24 years. If that is the case her role, her job, was wife. She filed for divorce, she quit her job. If that makes her morally and ethically entitled to half of her employer's assets, then if I quit my job I should then be entitled to some ridiculously large settlement or alimony? Perhaps if she intended to quit her job as wife she should have done the Mustachian thing and saved enough to live off of before quitting. If you don't ask these questions or bring up the moral and ethical issues then the corrupt sexist system will continue.

Yes, prenuptial agreements are a great idea but in many states the corrupt government will not recognize it as a legally binding contract and will fleece the man regardless of contract or circumstance.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9118
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2015, 10:14:15 AM »
Most maids/housekeepers/nannys will not let you put your penis in them, so the comparison to a wife is somewhat invalid.

CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Location: Central Texas (but not cool enough for Austin)
  • Can I FIRE yet?
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2015, 10:18:51 AM »
Most maids/housekeepers/nannys will not let you put your penis in them, so the comparison to a wife is somewhat invalid.

And now the coffee is coming out of my nose...damn straight!

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2015, 10:33:36 AM »
Most maids/housekeepers/nannys will not let you put your penis in them, so the comparison to a wife is somewhat invalid.

I estimate a full time prostitute goes for $73k ($200 for one hour of service a day).  After a quarter century the premium for sexual services is $1,825,000.  About 20% of the check.

caliq

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2015, 10:40:13 AM »
So what exactly did she do in her role as "wife" to earn $7 billion, or rather $3.5 billion? If it entailed laundry and cooking and so forth a fair compensation would be to take a market rate for a full time live in maid/housekeeper/nanny/etc. and multiply that by years of marriage, he can pay that. Then figure what the man brought to the table in his role as husband and subtract that from her calculated earnings. I'd wager she'd be a net negative from all the free things she got and actually owe him money.

But no, relationships don't really work like that. Unless she had some business role in earning that money, she should be glad she got to enjoy a ridiculously luxurious and easy life for 24 years. If that is the case her role, her job, was wife. She filed for divorce, she quit her job. If that makes her morally and ethically entitled to half of her employer's assets, then if I quit my job I should then be entitled to some ridiculously large settlement or alimony? Perhaps if she intended to quit her job as wife she should have done the Mustachian thing and saved enough to live off of before quitting. If you don't ask these questions or bring up the moral and ethical issues then the corrupt sexist system will continue.

Yes, prenuptial agreements are a great idea but in many states the corrupt government will not recognize it as a legally binding contract and will fleece the man regardless of contract or circumstance.

I am fairly certain that the woman in question did in fact work at the family business.   At the time the initial court decision happened, the guy was worth $18 billion (prior to oil prices dropping). 

Quote from Wikipedia page on Harold Hamm:

"In April 1988, Hamm married Sue Ann Hamm (née Arnall) with whom he has two grown daughters, Jane and Hillary.[3] Sue Ann is an economist and lawyer.[23] She has had executive roles at Continental Resources. She filed for divorce on May 19, 2012,[3][24] while Harold has said that he separated from Sue Ann in 2005."

She is highly educated and worked as an executive at the company.  He quit his job as husband by separating from her. 

I think you need to examine your own sexism -- just because Sue Ann Arnall is a woman and a wife does not mean that she did not contribute significantly to their financial success as a couple.

I would also argue that she is deserving of significantly more than whatever he would have paid a nanny/cook/maid for 24 years, even if those were her only 'official' roles (and actually given their net worth I doubt she did any of that).  Throughout history, wives of powerful/successful men have done a lot more behind the scenes than they are given credit for.  See Edith Wilson as an example.  She was acting President of the US for two years.  I guarantee you she did not serve faithfully as maid/cook/nanny for the entirety of her marriage, then wake up the day her husband had a stroke and suddenly have the ability to act as President.  She was involved behind the scenes for a long time. 


vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2015, 10:44:06 AM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2015, 10:53:03 AM »
Most maids/housekeepers/nannys will not let you put your penis in them, so the comparison to a wife is somewhat invalid.

You're hiring the wrong maids/housekeepers/nannys then.  They probably put out more than the wife. 

The level of crazy feminists in this thread that can't understand sarcasm, jokes and their role is ridiculous. 

[Mod Note:  They aren't crazy.  We ask that all parties avoid gendered insults.  After significant research, it turns out that they aren't very funny and never were.]
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 06:06:49 PM by FrugalToque »

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2015, 10:55:34 AM »
I think this topic should be locked. I agree that this has gone WAY over the top, and to answer someone else's post, this has nothing to do with "sarcasm, jokes, and their role" and the "crazy feminists," are not being "ridiculous."

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2015, 11:09:59 AM »
so it seems like everyone's reasoning is if its a big enough number i dont care if i get actually what i am owed?

+1

This is a tangent, but one of the arguments used against pay equity is that women don't negotiate as hard as men do when it comes to salary. Based on many of the comments I've read about this case (not just here, but online), it's kinda hard to see why. If the situation were reversed, I suspect that many of the commentators would be silent or would be applauding the guy for fighting for what's his. Instead, there are too many comments about her morals, or comparing her to various things. At this point, to me (a male, I should add), this goes beyond 'joking,' and is a demonstration at the crap many women put up with. All too often a women is considered the b-word, when had she been born a man, she would be applauded for her 'directness.'

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2015, 12:08:47 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole. 

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2015, 12:51:28 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole.

I'm assuming some sort of typo but I can't figure it out. 

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2015, 12:59:25 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole.

I'm assuming some sort of typo but I can't figure it out.

I don't see any typos.

Statements have been made in this thread that are assholish. Saying "But they're sarcasm and jokes and crazy feminists just don't get it" does not make those statements any less assholish.

caliq

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2015, 01:00:55 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole.

I'm assuming some sort of typo but I can't figure it out.

Pretty sure they're saying that you can't compare the "value" of a wife to the going rate of pay for prostitutes/maids/nannies and then use the 'crazy feminist' argument when you get called out on it without being an asshole, regardless of what 'tone of voice' you use.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2820
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2015, 01:16:44 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole.

I'm assuming some sort of typo but I can't figure it out.

couching = express something in a specific style (this particular case being sarcasm)

couching is not frequently used and I had to look it up because the sentence confused me too initially.  I don't think i've ever heard that expression before now.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2015, 01:17:21 PM »
what is kinda funny to me about this whole thread is the fact that people believe that the ex-wife should stop asking for more because  that will just lead to

A)  a court battle
B)a drawn out time line  until a decision is reached
C) diminished returns due to lawyers fees
D) a bitter power struggle in an attempt to keep face

and finally:
E) its such a huge amount she could live a crazy balling life style with that amount.
F) as the wife, she couldn't possible be a major part of his success. it was assumed she 'only' cooked and cleaned and couldnt provide more than that.


All but the last argument should also be used as a reason for why the ex husband should also just hand over more money.

but the 'bitter, evil, money hoarding, ex-wife' fairy tale makes everyone feel more comfortable.

so the OP is correct, its not about the money.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2015, 01:22:38 PM »
I am fairly certain that the woman in question did in fact work at the family business.   At the time the initial court decision happened, the guy was worth $18 billion (prior to oil prices dropping). 

Quote from Wikipedia page on Harold Hamm:
"In April 1988, Hamm married Sue Ann Hamm (née Arnall) with whom he has two grown daughters, Jane and Hillary.[3] Sue Ann is an economist and lawyer.[23] She has had executive roles at Continental Resources. She filed for divorce on May 19, 2012,[3][24] while Harold has said that he separated from Sue Ann in 2005."

She is highly educated and worked as an executive at the company.  He quit his job as husband by separating from her.

This is the first I've read in this thread or a few articles about this of her having any role in the business. So she was an executive, good. It should be pretty easy to determine an approximate number that is her money which she earned. Take her compensation each year of the marriage and subtract half of their annual expenses, and without specific records of what was done with her money assume her percentage was allocated equally into the investments his was (I assume much of it was company stock given the significant loss of net worth). This is all assuming joint accounts for pretty much everything and hence the difficulty determining what is his and what is hers. Simple solution is only use joint accounts for paying joint expenses.

If he separated from her some time ago and she took the steps for formalize it legally, then it would be like a company firing an employee. At will employment, you make your choices and take your risks. Or since she is an executive, maybe like her firing him. Regardless of who was employing who it's an at will arrangement. If I quit or am fired, I am not entitled to any of my employers assets. They may generously offer a separation package and I may generally accept, or they may not and we go out separate ways.

I would also argue that she is deserving of significantly more than whatever he would have paid a nanny/cook/maid for 24 years, even if those were her only 'official' roles (and actually given their net worth I doubt she did any of that).

It could also be argued that he was deserving of a lot more than what she would have paid a man is a husbandly role.  She was an executive, which generally comes with obscenely high levels of compensation. Your role as a wife argument is null and void.

so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

We are not ignoring that, as couples make those sacrifices and give support to each other, approximately equally. If she chose to give up some number of years of working to have two children then she has to live with the consequences. She at least made a good choice of a stable man earning a good income to be the provider during those years in which she was not working. Presumably she supported his desire for children (and her own) and he supported that mutual desire by providing income and obscene levels of luxury and comfort during those years of early childhood while she unable to work in any sort of full time executive role. That is the biological arrangement, not just in humans. It is mutually beneficial, I think you are choosing to ignore the mutual part.

This is a tangent, but one of the arguments used against pay equity is that women don't negotiate as hard as men do when it comes to salary. Based on many of the comments I've read about this case (not just here, but online), it's kinda hard to see why.

I don't see any huge inequity in compensation between men and women. The large disparities the mainstream media claims are just averages of all men and all women. There are no other factors considered such as field, specific job, age, marital status, etc. Many women make a choice to have children, that choice has costs and consequences. Men aren't born with the equipment to carry and feed babies. If you look only at compensation of women that never married (presumably most of them never had children) there is no huge disparity. A woman sacrificing her earning potential to have children is no different than a man sacrificing his earning potential to devote time to hobbies, sailing around the world, hiking the Appalachian trail, or other interests. The result is the same for the employer so far as availability,work output, and return on investment. I would think this group should understand and accept the choices and consequences of choosing other interests over maximizing income and career opportunities.

See here for more a more detailed analysis:
http://ftrhuman.blogspot.com/2014/11/feminism-part-1-gender-pay-gap.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRfERVPq2VE

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2015, 02:01:31 PM »
so we are ignoring the emotional support,  any child rearing, as well as as any sacrifices that a typical couple makes for each other?

 the level of sexism in this thread is ridiculous.   if you dont believe that your spouse should get half of everything generated in the marriage , do not get married. but marriage makes one person, two.

people have in this thread compared a wife to a prostitute, a maid and house keeper. i hope you have shared your views with your significant others so they know what they are dealing with.

Well said.  Couching being an asshole in 'sarcasm and joking' doesn't mean a person isn't being an asshole.

I'm assuming some sort of typo but I can't figure it out.

Pretty sure they're saying that you can't compare the "value" of a wife to the going rate of pay for prostitutes/maids/nannies and then use the 'crazy feminist' argument when you get called out on it without being an asshole, regardless of what 'tone of voice' you use.

Thanks for the clarification.  Never heard that phrase prior.

You guys girls people fellow humans might want to relax a bit.  All of this was obviously said in jest.  If you are so easily offended the internet may not be the best place for you. 

In response to what someone said earlier.  Yes, my wife knows exactly how I feel.  We joke all the time about things that would obviously have some of you riled up.  Life is way easier if you don't take everything so seriously. 

The court already ruled on a "fair" distribution of the marital assets.  Hence the reason that he had written a check settling the total amount owed.  He was the CEO way before she came in to the picture.  I believe that played heavily in to determining the value that she contributed to the marriage and therefore the settlement. 

I said this earlier but I'll repeat.  If I've got a billion dollars in the bank, you won't catch me putting on a suit and heading to court.  The law of diminishing returns applies here.  How much happier would you be with an extra billion dollars after you already have a billion?  Is it worth a long drawn out court battle?  Maybe to some but certainly not to me. 

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2015, 02:12:51 PM »

You guys girls people fellow humans might want to relax a bit.  All of this was obviously said in jest.  If you are so easily offended the internet may not be the best place for you. 

No, this isn't obvious to anyone but yourself. If you think referring to a female as a whore or making jokes that her worth in a divorce settlement should be calculated as such, that crosses a line to me. You and other people may disagree, but to brush off concerns by stating something along the lines of, "Can't you take a joke," is bullshit.


The court already ruled on a "fair" distribution of the marital assets.  Hence the reason that he had written a check settling the total amount owed.  He was the CEO way before she came in to the picture.  I believe that played heavily in to determining the value that she contributed to the marriage and therefore the settlement. 

Yes the court ruled, but both parties disagree and hence they are going to appeal the decision. The lady is saying that she believes she should get a higher amount, and the man is stating that his assets are diminished and therefore shouldn't need to contribute more. Courts aren't perfect and it is entirely possible that judges in the court of appeals might feel differently.

I said this earlier but I'll repeat.  If I've got a billion dollars in the bank, you won't catch me putting on a suit and heading to court.  The law of diminishing returns applies here.  How much happier would you be with an extra billion dollars after you already have a billion?  Is it worth a long drawn out court battle?  Maybe to some but certainly not to me.

I respectfully disagree with you on this, but I can understand your perspective.

caliq

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2015, 02:32:38 PM »
We are not ignoring that, as couples make those sacrifices and give support to each other, approximately equally. If she chose to give up some number of years of working to have two children then she has to live with the consequences. She at least made a good choice of a stable man earning a good income to be the provider during those years in which she was not working. Presumably she supported his desire for children (and her own) and he supported that mutual desire by providing income and obscene levels of luxury and comfort during those years of early childhood while she unable to work in any sort of full time executive role. That is the biological arrangement, not just in humans. It is mutually beneficial, I think you are choosing to ignore the mutual part.

I don't know why you're assuming she took any more time off work than he did to have or raise children.   In fact, the Wikipedia page I linked does not mention any mutual children from this marriage, while it does mention the husband's three children with his previous wife.  You've assumed that this woman took a substantial amount of time off work to have and raise children that it does not appear even exist. 

Further, say she did have children -- Why does being the mother of a young child automatically make a woman "unable to work in any sort of full time executive role"?  You clearly do not believe fathers of young children cannot "work in any sort of full time executive role."  That assumption is incredibly sexist, not to mention discriminatory against mothers in particular. 

Hence the argument that gender-based pay inequality continues to exist in the US.  How many men (and women for that matter) in hiring/firing/promoting positions do you think share your grossly inaccurate assumptions? 

Why is the mutual part not considered for both parties?  What makes you automatically value his contribution to their marital finances more than hers?  For all you know, he's a bumbling idiot and she had to chase him around to stop him from buying 600k Lamborghini's every weekend.  But you do not assume this; instead you assume that she, the woman, must automatically be at fault and be of less value to the partnership than the man. 

Timmmy, I don't expect you to understand this, but being told to 'calm down' or 'relax' about these sorts of things is yet another form of devaluing a woman's opinion; it capitalizes on the historic assumption that women are irrational and prone to hysterics.  I'm not (and I don't think others here are either) offended by GuitarStv's comment about how maids don't allow penile insertion; that's the only statement in this thread that I can absolutely identify as a joke. I AM offended by the misogynistic assumption that the wife brought less to the relationship (and resulting business partnership) than the man did. 

Perhaps this is hitting a little close to home for me.  I recently visited with my husband's conservative Midwestern family over the holidays; he's a disabled veteran and might never work again.  Frankly, I'll be happy if he ends up functional enough to be a SAHD.  I was told, verbatim, that "it's not natural nor biblical for a man not to support his family."  That notion is incredibly offensive to him as a person, and me as a woman -- we always knew I would make at least double his annual income.  And I always made it clear that there was absolutely no way that I needed a "stable man earning a good income to be the provider," or that I had any intention of taking extended time off of work to be a SAHM.  These assumptions about the role/capabilities of a woman are alive and well in our society today, and they do have significant impact on many people, male and female.  There is plenty to be offended about.


Back on topic:

This couple did not have a pre-nup, and were married for a significant amount of time.  This article estimates that nearly 17.6 billion dollars could be considered marital assets:

Quote
The document, a trial exhibit marked "confidential business information," is a 122-page report compiled by Button, a PhD economist. Haralson released the report after determining it isn’t subject to the protective order he has placed in the case.

Button's report contends that up to $15 billion of the growth in Continental's market capitalization during the period he studied is "active" marital capital, or subject to division between the spouses. Button crunched data from the years between the couple’s 1988 wedding and February 2014.

Since then, Continental's value has grown by nearly $4 billion more, adding to the wealth the court may divide, Button said in court last week. About $2.6 billion of that appreciation would accrue to Harold through his 68 percent stake in Continental.

All told, Button's analysis suggests that the marital capital subject to division could add up to some $17.6 billion.

That takes their pre-marriage assets into consideration -- takes into account his position as CEO before the marriage and any company capital or personal assets acquired by either party before the marriage would, I assume, also be reassigned to their original owners according to state laws.  So again, why is the wife not entitled to half of the assets acquired during the marriage, as the state law suggests?

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2015, 03:10:13 PM »
Perhaps this is hitting a little close to home for me.  I recently visited with my husband's conservative Midwestern family over the holidays; he's a disabled veteran and might never work again.  Frankly, I'll be happy if he ends up functional enough to be a SAHD.  I was told, verbatim, that "it's not natural nor biblical for a man not to support his family."  That notion is incredibly offensive to him as a person, and me as a woman -- we always knew I would make at least double his annual income.  And I always made it clear that there was absolutely no way that I needed a "stable man earning a good income to be the provider," or that I had any intention of taking extended time off of work to be a SAHM.  These assumptions about the role/capabilities of a woman are alive and well in our society today, and they do have significant impact on many people, male and female.  There is plenty to be offended about.

Yikes, I'm sorry to hear this. There are way too many people that feel this way.

I know a guy who's family bashes him behind his back because his wife makes more money than he does. This guy isn't a light-weight either, I know members of his family and to my knowledge he earns far more than his brother does.

caliq

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2015, 04:45:39 PM »
Perhaps this is hitting a little close to home for me.  I recently visited with my husband's conservative Midwestern family over the holidays; he's a disabled veteran and might never work again.  Frankly, I'll be happy if he ends up functional enough to be a SAHD.  I was told, verbatim, that "it's not natural nor biblical for a man not to support his family."  That notion is incredibly offensive to him as a person, and me as a woman -- we always knew I would make at least double his annual income.  And I always made it clear that there was absolutely no way that I needed a "stable man earning a good income to be the provider," or that I had any intention of taking extended time off of work to be a SAHM.  These assumptions about the role/capabilities of a woman are alive and well in our society today, and they do have significant impact on many people, male and female.  There is plenty to be offended about.

Yikes, I'm sorry to hear this. There are way too many people that feel this way.

I know a guy who's family bashes him behind his back because his wife makes more money than he does. This guy isn't a light-weight either, I know members of his family and to my knowledge he earns far more than his brother does.

Thanks.  People are shitty.  I am trying very hard not to be way more open and angry about the situation than is appropriate on a public forum and I probably said even too much already.  This is not the only ridiculously misguided view that was expressed.  Yay for marriage and mother in laws. 


Also, I realized that I was wrong about the Hamms' kids (they did have two together).  Reading fail on my part.  However, my argument about certain people's assumptions of the wife's role in childcare and ability to work while being a mother are still completely valid. 

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3443
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2015, 04:57:41 PM »

Also, I realized that I was wrong about the Hamms' kids (they did have two together).  Reading fail on my part.  However, my argument about certain people's assumptions of the wife's role in childcare and ability to work while being a mother are still completely valid.

Agreed, I am working on getting better about assumptions.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2015, 05:56:15 PM »

You guys girls people fellow humans might want to relax a bit.  All of this was obviously said in jest.  If you are so easily offended the internet may not be the best place for you. 

No, this isn't obvious to anyone but yourself. If you think referring to a female as a whore or making jokes that her worth in a divorce settlement should be calculated as such, that crosses a line to me. You and other people may disagree, but to brush off concerns by stating something along the lines of, "Can't you take a joke," is bullshit.

Word.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26153
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: When $1 billion is not enough
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2015, 08:27:00 PM »
MOD NOTE: Multiple posts had to be removed or edited.  Quite a disappointing level of discourse.  Please read forum rule #1.  Locking thread.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."