Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Where the GIT's are going -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (158140)	1/24/2008 3:34:31 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 225578

you either have a situation where you have two people with incompatible values who probably shouldn't be together, or you have someone who really is shirking work. Right. This is what I was trying to say, but I guess not making myself clear. As for the "these people" I was referring to the people whose homes they showed on tv for the clean ups.

To: TimF who wrote (158140)	1/24/2008 7:34:32 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 225578

A couple of more comments about the whole housework issue --- With respect to housework, errands, and the like, one of the things I had to do early on was make sure she understood that I would not be her unpaid underling. The distinction I made was between taking responsibility and taking direction. I would willingly take responsibility for my share of household tasks (that's only fair), but that meant they were my jobs and I got to decide when and how to do the work. And once I had taken on a job, "Fine! Then I'll just do it myself!" was not an option. Posted by Slocum \| January 23, 2008 10:39 PM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com --- Does Mr Caplan think that "person with the lowest standards wins" should be a general rule for marriage? Can women unilaterally quit their jobs because they're content with a lower standard of living, or spend the retirement fund on shoes because they don't mind spending their golden years in penury? Well, I think Caplan would say that the Golden Rule applies, and you can't freeload off anyone or put in less than half of what you expect to receive. But if a woman wanted to retire because she has sufficient savings, or wants to spend more now and have less in retirement ... aren't those perfectly valid choices? Subject to negotiation, of course. Or to look at it another way, if a woman wanted to work part-time and was happy if her partner did so too, how is that "shirking"? As long as neither person's cleanliness standards are unreasonable or result in things growing in the house, I think part of what Caplan is saying is that one person shouldn't assume his or her standards are better than the other person's. Just different, and subject to "amicable renegotiations" Posted by derek rose \| January 24, 2008 7:00 AM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com