pinkfloydpsw's Blog

You work your life, you do it because a somebody or a group of somebodies make the decision that you can create value on their behalf and they are willing to give you tokens that you can then exchange for those items that you need and those things that you desire. Simply, this is the business cycle from the perspective of the consuming worker. It is known as voluntary exchange, where a bargain is struck between two parties where both perceive that they will benefit.

Take into consideration then the circumstance where a person works for less of these tokens than they perceive they deserve. This circumstance may indicate one of many conditions in play, 1) that the market for workers has spare capacity in it and this creates competition and therefore puts downward pressure on wages, 2) they took what was immediately available to them and got comfortable, 3) they have stayed in a role where their remuneration has not kept pace with inflation.

There is another possibility though, let us say that their job is not well paid but fairly paid, and they are lowly qualified also. Let us also say that they could reduce their outgoings by substituting inferior and cheaper items for their usual shopping basket. What if this person also cannot get by though? What would be the reasons? I will speculate that this is pertinent to many people’s situations. Their experience can be one of failing to be able to live beyond need because of the spending and saving habits of another. Many a partner can earn much more yet hide that fact from the other partner, while also making them complicit in their debts. This reduction to relative poverty, no disposable income and reduced spending on need, highlights the problem of a partnership without an equality of status. To make this situation possible one of a list of conditions must be so, 1) it’s was deliberated and contrived in order to reduce the richness of life of the other party, or 2) one partner had believed that the other had no right to the money they earned but did have a duty to share in the responsibilities that come with it, such as credit. But that responsibility did not extend to savings, or 3) a mistake, bad financial management.

I think no3 is quite unlikely, no1 is callous but may be true (they would have to have been very devious though), no2 is the most likely, where they felt that what was theirs was theirs and not the others. The mistake with no2 is that it is not the case that where a person does not reap the benefits of a wage that they retain any responsibility for its economic impact. Though this is not actually true legally. Debts are shared responsibilities upon the dissolution of a marriage whereas the spending that lead to these debts and the items now owned because of that spending is a matter for the parties to decide. One might have paid for many things that the other considers to be their property.

So what of those items? What if they no longer have either monetary or use value? Say it was a plasma TV set in 2010, and it’s 2018 now and plasmas are a thing of the past, you almost couldn’t give them away. Then the debt may remain but the item has no value to either party. What of a bed? Second hand beds are rarely worth a lot of money. The point is that the value is not a value in terms of what it cost in the first place so not really a consideration unless it is to be replaced by either party. The first party wants the bed so the seconds party must buy a new one. Then the value is restored. One will have to replace all items the other takes.

So to the other matters, what of the years of erosion to one party’s finances? They now may be worth zilch other than the value that can be extracted from the house. They may have invested in improvements and watched the house value fall over time. This is not that much of a problem because other properties have fallen in value too. Since one maybe bought the property though, and may not have charged the other to stay in it, they may have lost revenue and the other has gained a period of free accommodation. This is another value that is not considered. One party’s stay here was profitable.

I called this essay impoverished because that is what happens. Many have been, by their own series of bad decisions, impoverished by a person who took advantage financially by getting a free ride. Regardless of what else occurred the financial implication is clear. The burden of provision may be greater but then the higher wage earner, it may be revealed, is the other. Does this not entitle the burdened in some way to be compensated? And the point here is entitlement, courts do not consider the entitlement of the male spouse to be reimbursed for their spend, they merely focus on the entitlement of the female spouse to be able to continue the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to. Paul McCartney had to give Heather Mills a fortune, in what manner did she earn it? Did she perform on stage for an audience of thousands for over forty years? I think not. One party may have lived an impoverished life because they have made sacrifices to another’s lifestyle and spending habits. One party’s ascension into comfort was at the other party’s detriment. One party’s continued lifestyle without repayment to the other first will also be, unless they are forced to make up for the financial security and stability that allowed them to save in their own account then they are getting away with a robbery of sorts. If we say that a house is worth £215k, and one pays half the mortgage, and the other stayed there for 9 years which is 108 months, and if that cost were in the region of £600 per month, then their saving is over £60k. The other party has no legal claim to be compensated for that loss. Why not? If you had a tennent for 9 years that didn’t pay you would go to the courts and you might return with something.

Impoverishment of a spouse to the point where they are penniless other than what meets their needs concerning sustenance and travel to employment should be a crime also. What about the need to socialise or indulge? What is important to recognise here is not the will to socialise but the mere possibility to do so, just because one party may have not wished for a rich social life does not mean that they could not be rightly expected to deserve or merit one. If the other party was able and willing to participate in the social world yet removed that entitlement from the first party then they have done a wrong regardless.

Time is not a commodity, at least it doesn’t seem so. That is until you waste it. What of future hedonism? The future building you do in a partnership is premised on the idea that there will be an ultimate reward, love is fleeting but you build towards companionship and safety. Is the investment into that telos compensatable in any way? True that you cannot get the time back but the financial investment is a clear one. That you give up or share the wealth of today to insure that you will be rewarded tomorrow by the relationship you are investing in. One party may have financially invested toward the security of the other so that there would be this reward but it will now not come. Is that considered? Maybe the other party made no investment but time, and time is easily spent because we cannot be static within it, we cannot bank it and use it later.

What of the matrimonial maintenance spending? The shopping and the bills, has one party effectively kept the other. I would say in many cases that that was true, it may have been one party only who provided transport and covered that cost. It may have been one party only that shopped with their money to provide food, it may have been one party only that covered the cost of incidentals and indulgences. So what of those costs? They are unrecoverable, the parties might have shared only the core bills, gas, electric etc. What I am trying to say is that there is a series of costs that are unconsidered in the final analysis but are still relevant. When you are keeping someone, accommodating them for free and enabling them to save and store value then you are being taken in a con trick of sorts. For one party to allow the other party to expend their wage entirely while they hide money from that party should be a criminal offense.

A marriage is not a financial matter, until it ends, then unfortunately, that’s all it is….

Paul Simon Wilson