Opportunity cost: Difference between revisions

This article is in grave danger of descending into a grumpy middle-aged tract, but starts with the news, in August 2021, that [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/research/one-in-five-weddings-now-start-with-a-prenup/ one in five weddings now involves a prenuptial agreement]. Now the JC has no particular axe to grind about marriage — by all means, get married or don’t; see if I care — but more to the ''concept'' of what marriage is meant to be, at the outset: a ''permanent'' [[merger]] of social and economic interests. It may be that, along life’s rocky road, things don’t work out, but the aspiration to permanence must at least justify some meaningful commitment: the combination of resources for the intended betterment of all. That one or other party is disproportionately wealthy, or poor, one should deal with in one’s [[due dilly]] — [[aka]] “courtship” in the old days — ''before'' making the decision to marry. That decision is not meant to be one taken lightly. It is meant to be a life commitment — or sentence, depending on how you look at it.

To look at it this way is the regard a prenuptial agreement as a desire ''to have one’s cake and eat it too''. It is to refrain from putting your [[skin in the game]].<ref>Rather, in this regard, like appointing a [[process agent]]: most metaphors don’t bear close examination.</ref> to refrain from drilling the holes in your longboats to stop your men running away.<ref>As, allegedly, did William the Conqueror upon making landfall at Pevensey. This knowledge has been with me since I was about five, and my authority for it is the Ladybird book about William the Conqueror, and as a result it might be entirely false. But it is a good metaphor. </ref>

You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?