Submit feels like a dirty word!

Or... you talk it out and come to an agreement which fits both parties' needs. This idea that someone has to lose really bothers me. There is such a thing as making sure everyone has their own interests taken into account and a mutually acceptable agreement reached. We've moved on from absolute monarchy in politics, isn't it a gpod idea not to allow absolute monarchy in our homes.

Sure. Compromise is preferred. But can't you see at least a couple of instances where you just will not come to an agreement or a compromise? I guess I need to think of an example. If so (and I will think of a decent conundrum) who yields? I would think it would depend on the strengths of that person.

Here we go:
Totally a hypothetical:

We have a disagreement about what classes our daughter will take in high school. She has a propensity for math and science.

Husband is a math/science guy, working in those fields. I am in History/English field. We disagree on which classes she should take as electives.

He wants to load her up with more math and science to further her future or career and I want her to take an arts class to lighten her load (focusing her time and attention to her already heavy load) and let her enjoy her time in high school and be creative.

She has no opinion in this example.

Both husband and wife are equal in their feelings that they are doing best for the child and not budging.

Who wins?

I would say it would depend on the pre-communicated roles. Which one has the ultimate end-all say in that area?

Argument over.

I'm sure there are situations where someone has to give more than the other. Like moving for one person's job yet the other has to leave theirs behind. Or someone skipping an opportunity for a move for a job to stay because of someone else's job.

I acknowledge there are situations where compromise isn't so much an option (although it can be if desired, there are commuter marriages, I had one for a time).

I feel like you're saying that the party with the great job offer that they have to move and disrupt the other's career gets to unilaterally impose that and feel good about it. I'm saying let the decision be bilateral and acknowledge what the other is sacrificing and that it would be fair to make an agreement that in return for her sacrifice moving to an area where she can't get a job in her field, she gets to go back for more training to improve her career prospects in the new place instead of being expected to suck it up and slave away at the substandard options at first available to her theough no fault of her own. In return, now the one who got to move is sacrificing to deal without her income while she retrains so she can still have a career at the level she wants.

Why does the kid have no opinion? That seems the most important factor here. It's the kid's life, in this case all decision making should rest with the kid after guidance from her parents. I don't think inflexible roles are needed, just critical thinking and communication skills.

Which is why, at the end of the day, the decision must fall to one person.  And not necessarily the same person for all areas of the relationship.  We can be politically correct and call them the "tie breaker", but at the bottom line they own the decision.

That person will not always be right.  But their decision needs to be supported, and they should not abuse their authority.  (i.e., internally, we will argue, but externally our front is united.)

I worked for a company once that was running out of cash; we'd missed our window of opportunity to IPO by a scant 2 weeks.  The president made the tough call to turn down a buyout offer, believing a better one would come through.  Everyone in leadership was stunned.  A few weeks later, that decision cost 600 people their jobs when we closed the doors.  We could have debated it endlessly as a group; ultimately, the responsibility rested on him regardless, and he made the call.