Hacker News Reader

Comment by gilrain | Hacker News Reader

I would marry someone I trusted to death and beyond, compared to which trusting with mere property is trivial. Yes, it's a risk... there's a saying about risk, though, isn't there?

Let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and assume he's marrying for love.

View on HN

The couple may be madly in love today, but human emotions are fickle and people change and grow over time. Sadly, there may come a day when both are more concerned with the future of the FB empire than with each other.

"people change and grow over time"

How true and as anyone who has been through divorce will confirm.

In addition to the potential problem with what would be marrying simply a normal or a successful person I can't even begin to imagine the challenges of a marriage to someone with that much money and job responsibility. And no question marriage will detract from his work life (especially if he decides to have children). That even happened to Bill Gates as anyone who remembers the Gates before marriage will attest to.

How did Gates (or Jobs, or Bezos) change at all until the day he retired?

I would marry someone I trusted to death and beyond

Of course, but as a rational being you ought to understand you are fallible, and may occasionally misplace trust, no?

Prenups really kill the mood. "I love you til death do us part"—but if you turn out to be a bitch I'm totally cutting you off.

Lots of aspects of marriage, and society in general, don't stand up to rational scrutiny. We're not just fallible, we're downright wooey. That doesn't mean these institutions are valueless or predatory—just that the human experience is not primarily about the rational.

I could see this one either way. Maybe if you're a billionaire, the prenup makes it clear you're marrying for love rather than profit. From down here in the sub-sub-sub-billionaire world, it doesn't look that way, but who knows? Lots of things are different "at scale."

Losing half your wealth when things go south also kills the mood. You are right it comes down to rational vs emotional decision.

From what I have seen of the public persona of Mark you would think there would be something there. The guy has carefully crafted deals up to this stage to ensure he keeps maximum control.

Losing half your wealth should have approximately zero effect. Any computer scientist will tell you that "a factor of two is close enough".

I'm joking, but there's a hint of truth here. I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all. A factor of two either way really wouldn't change my life appreciably.

If I worked for years on my business, married a woman, and then she cheated on me and now gets half due to the divorce. It wouldn't really be the money that bothers me. It would be that that this despicable person gets half of my stuff.

If you don't think that this will happen, it does. In the US court systems, the woman pretty much has all of the power. If she cheats on you and has a baby with another guy, you most likely will end up paying child support.

Wouldn't he lose the 50+% majority of voting shares?

I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all.

You sure about that? I think $40k down to $20k could be a pretty jarring transition, especially if you have established expenses like dependents or a mortgage.

The ability to pay expenses is a function of cash flow, not wealth.

Money is, perhaps, replaceable, but losing the family farm that has been in the family for seven generations would be a sad day though. I've seen it happen before.

If you can't talk about a prenup without ruining things, was your relationship stable and mature enough for a marriage?

If you can talk about leaving your partner with nothing, are you in a marriage-caliber relationship?

Strawman. A prenup doesn't mean "leaving your partner with nothing".

Getting a pre-nup is pretty much going through the work of a divorce, but before you get married. He wouldn't leave her with nothing, unless she found her lawyer from the bus station bench.

A pre-nup pretty much protects what assets you had before the marriage in the case of a divorce.

"'Til death do us part" comes from one view on marriage, which not all people share. For one thing, there has been no mention of a religious ceremony of any kind in the reports I've seen.

Trust aside, people who truly love each other and are honest with each other sometimes do get into a relationship ending fight or stop feeling the spark they once did and break up. If two people know each other deeply enough to get married, their communication is hopefully open enough to be able to have a rational discussion about anything, including prenups, without hurting the other by bringing it up. After such discussion, if they come to the decision that the existence of the prenup would psychologically decrease the success rate of their marriage, they are welcome not to enter into such an agreement. But if they don't feel that that's the case, it makes a lot of logical sense to have one.

Disclaimer: I'm not married, and I honestly don't know which camp I'll fall into.

>mere property

Mark's stake in Facebook is a lot of mere property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com