>If he can’t earn close to $150,000/year he won’t be able to pay this order, in which case he will join the roughly 1 in 7 child support payors who are imprisoned at some point for nonpayment (for not paying the court-ordered amount, Massachusetts offers the pilot a felony conviction, which means he won’t have an ATP certificate anymore and therefore won’t be able to work again, plus up to 10 years in prison).
It doesn't help that the United States still has such medieval instruments as debtor's jail.
While more civilized countries have programs in place to help debtor's with counselling, restructuring and suicide prevention, the United States debtor's jail system makes sure you'll never get out of debt, and that you'll die in debt. Never mind that the creditor won't get what they are owed under this system. Never mind whether the creditor even exists: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/02/15/woman-jailed-l...
I have no idea if the USA has a debtors jail or not, but I don't think this is about going to jail for being in debt, it is about going to jail for breaking a court imposed order.
The court order could have been about a restraining order, in which case you go to jail for breaking a restraining order. This does not mean that the USA has a jail specifically for any possible violation of a court imposed order.
The US doesn't have debtor's prison per se. Only certain kinds of obligations, which are already associated with "jailable" offenses can result in something that looks a lot like debtor's prison. In some cases not being able to pay a debt really should carry a jail sentence, for example in case of clearly fraudulent behavior.
John Oliver talks about a particular kind of "debtor's jail" in a recent episode of "Last Week Tonight". It seems though that appeal courts don't look favorably on such jail terms.
Not even that, the author clearly states that being defendant in a certain kind of lawsuit should be grounds for termination. Quoth the article:
> Airlines should be able to automatically fire divorce, custody, or child support lawsuit defendants.
You really want to discriminate against pilots with families? The logical next step would be fire any pilot who gets married or has a child - because obviously the pilot's personal life is from thereon a potential cause of depression and mental problems.
Hell, why not require pilots to be eunuchs while you're at it? That way they couldn't have dangerous relationships.
Talk about slippery slopes and unintended consequences.
EDIT: looks like the post I replied to was deleted while I was composing.
> You'll notice that the child custody/support and alimony system are grotesquely biased against men
This is probably the exact reason why so many of my male American friends in the tech industry seem unhappy and depressed in their marriages. I'm guessing they want to leave, but don't want to get sued by their lower-earning spouse for half of everything they have earned so far.
There really should be a "Do this, not that" guide for people entering marriage in the US to protect their wealth from possible divorce theft by spouses who have "become accustomed to" a certain lifestyle and want to try and coast on your money for as long as possible. (In fact, if people here have gone through such experiences, I would love to hear their suggestions).
That perspective sounds a bit male. Women do give up most of their career perspectives up when deciding to raise children. And part of that even applies to women who don't ever want children, just because employers assume they COULD get pregnant at some point.
At least some bias in favor of mothers should be "fair". And keep in mind, it should not be male singles who decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law...
(1) I didn't criticize the perspective, I merely said it sounds like coming from a man... No judgement there.
(2) So much wrong there, no idea where to start. "Life mostly of leisure" is not what I and many others think of motherhood. How come stay-at-home mothers get burnout then?
(3) I explained why I think that fathers should'nt have financial incentives to walk away from families they promised to take care of. That works out to a bias in favor of mothers. Deal with it.
(4) Marriage is a contract, designed to make sure children can be raised in relative financial security. Relative at least to the situation of one parent vanishing into thin air because he stands to gain, financially. It's a very narrow interpretation to say that men "foot the bill". They married the woman, they are responsible for their children. Now is it fair for men to get a financial reward from walking away from their promises and obligations? I don't think so.
What is "disgusting" about, for example, having the father at home raising the newborn while the mother works?
Nothing. That is a very different notion from the misogynist drivel that I was replying to ("majority of women", "life of leisure", "long-term holiday paid by hubby").
(4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality?
I agree, but that's already the case, since virtually all legislators are men.
According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4.
If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved.
I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.
You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias.
None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.
> I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.
This will not be equitable both ways, since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse. This NPR program (http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wi...) says that the percentage of wives who earn more than husbands is ~38%, which I guess is an encouraging trend though.
> You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%)
I specifically said that they stay in their marriages, (albeit unhappy), which is exactly the point. Low income marriages are easier to dissolve, it's harder when you have half a million in the bank.
A majority of the income disparity is due to choice of field to work in - a personal choice. Primary education pays less than software development. The first is staffed primarily by women, the second men.
There are no laws or practices in place that make these choices mandatory, and men who enter education face as many cultural hurdles as women who enter tech - for the same reasons: their gender.
That said, even within an industry there is still a disparity, between 3-10%. This still needs to be fixed.
Should individuals be punished for income disparity that is a larger function of society?
Imagine this in the context of a business relationship. You put $200k into the business every year, your (female) partner puts in $60k. If for some reason after 10 years the business goes south, will the fairest way to distribute the resulting assets and liabilities be in a 50:50 ratio because there is an income disparity in the broader society?
[Admittedly my analogy is imperfect, but hopefully there's a point in there.]
What you are in effect saying is that when 'only' 1 in 4 men get robbed in divorce court, have their children stolen, have their human rights trampled upon ... it's OK.
In England: There's no such thing as "common law wife" or "common law husband", so marriage gives the spouse important legal rights that are trickier to get if the couple remain unmarried.
> here really should be a "Do this, not that" guide ...
There should be, but this would only be doctoring the symptoms. The real solution is to abolish the ridiculous, sexist/misandric alimony laws. In the past there was some good point to them, but they have all been made obsolete by technological development (contraception, pregnancy loosing its medical dangers, societal changes). The only acceptable (default) rule is no alimony, and 50/50 shared custody of children.
In order for such a long-overdue legal change to happen, men must use their vote. The majority of women will be against such a change since the current legal arrangement benefits them so disproportionally, so men will face stiff opposition.
It's social critique under the guise of comedy. Get used to it. The more the society moves towards authoritarianism, the more subjects will be limited to this form of benign public discourse.
I love how a mentally ill European kills loads of people because the EU didn't mandate proper cockpit control and the top comment is about how bad the US is. As Europe unravels they hold on to their smugness ever tighter, but the thing is, aside from being a drag on the world economy, no one really cares what happens in Europe as long as they keep electing leaders who do the US's bidding.
And I love how you use every chance you get to harp on 'Europe disintegrating' and other bull-shit. The comment was in reference to a segment in the article which related to the situation in the US.
Please don't post comments baiting political opponents (or continents). That isn't what HN is for. When a comment is wrong, either refute it substantively or downvote it and move on.
It doesn't help that the United States still has such medieval instruments as debtor's jail.
While more civilized countries have programs in place to help debtor's with counselling, restructuring and suicide prevention, the United States debtor's jail system makes sure you'll never get out of debt, and that you'll die in debt. Never mind that the creditor won't get what they are owed under this system. Never mind whether the creditor even exists: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/02/15/woman-jailed-l...