Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/anal... (U.S. Marriage Rates Hit New Recorded Low)

Between the above post, and this post, not good if you read why this is occurring (economic security).

"Meanwhile, America’s so-called “marriage divide” is only widening. College-educated and economically better off Americans are more likely to marry and stay married, but working-class and poor Americans face more family instability and higher levels of singleness. For Americans in the top third income bracket, 64% are in an intact marriage, meaning they have only married once and are still in their first marriage. In contrast, only 24% of Americans in the lower-third income bracket are in an intact marriage, according to my analysis of the 2018 Census data."

View on HN

but working-class and poor Americans face more family instability and higher levels of singleness.

As a very poor divorced single mom, I will suggest this is not entirely bad news. Poor people used to marry as their only hope of surviving and this often left them stuck in dysfunctional and unhappy relationships.

I would rather be single than forced into a miserable and possibly abusive relationship as my only hope of survival.

The upper classes have something of a tendency to view all details of lower class life like every single bit of it is terrible and more bad news. There is a tendency to never see any stats in any kind of positive light. If you are poor, well it must suck to be you and you must be a victim every step of the way.

I think that is problematic as a framing. I think discussions of issues impacting poor people really need more nuance than that.

> The upper classes have something of a tendency to view all details of lower class life like every single bit of it is terrible and more bad news. There is a tendency to never see any stats in any kind of positive light. If you are poor, well it must suck to be you and you must be a victim every step of the way.

I mean it's the general fault in all the communication of politicians and media since the late 70s that depict receivers of social security as beggars and undeserving and everybody who is poor is responsible for it themselves. I know this varies a bit from country to country, but even in Germany where we have a "strong" social security system (although it was weakened in the early 00s), the general public's opinion is receivers of social benefits are freeloaders, even among poor people.

Although studies show time and again that even if you are able to become a higher-earner, it still won't make you rich. The strongest indication for wealth is inheritance. And the top percent (owners, not earners) also pay less tax per wealth. So why are they not depicted as freeloaders?

So why are they not depicted as freeloaders?

Probably in part because hanging on to wealth involves some degree of stewardship. Inheriting wealth is the best way to get rich, but you can inherit wealth, run through your inheritance and end up a pauper in short order.

Of course, that's abusable because "he who has the gold makes the rules." People from wealthy families tend to be in a better position than poor people to influence the laws that get written and this tends to foster a situation where "them that has, gets."

This is something we need to guard against. In order to have a healthy society, we need to actively work at making sure that being born into the lower classes (or falling into them) isn't a trap because of wealthy people actively sabotaging the efforts of poor people to build something of value and accrue value to themselves legitimately.

I'm not for UBI because it breaks that connection between wealth and the creation of value. It actively encourages people to forget how to be productive in a way that is plugged into the larger system (I'm a former homemaker -- I assure you, knowing how to be productive in a way that is good for your own life doesn't automatically teach you how to be productive in a way that plugs you into the world of paid work).

In order for human society to continue to have wealth, there must be incentives for all humans to find ways to add value to the system. One of the ways to add value to the system is with good stewardship.

It may not seem obviously like a skill, but I spent some time reading every article and watching every TV show I could about what happens to lottery winners and two-thirds are bankrupt within five years. So simply being handed a whole lot of money doesn't, per se, tell you how to keep it.

The concept of UBI is a concept of wealth as a giant pile of gold somewhere that we can just tap into. It's a broken mental model.

Societal wealth is an abundance of goods and services and it takes human wisdom and human effort and human self restraint to make sure societal wealth lives on and doesn't disappear suddenly. Once it's gone, it's a lot harder to recreate than it is to maintain the existence of.

I think UBI is a recipe for killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs. Our challenge currently in the world is to figure out where to go from here without doing that.

Stewardship (without being an abusive classist asshole crapping all over the lower classes and treating them as your de facto slaves) is a valid part of finding those solutions so we can foster a golden age instead of stumbling into a dark age as our next stage.

UBI is a kind of ransom. Rich countries have no other choice but to pay up to raise the poor(who are the 1% of the world and compared to a Syrian refugee, they are not suffering) at this point.

IMO, it’s worth it because we can’t halt progress because of socio-economic road blocks.

The amount of productivity and time lost fighting over piddling sums of money in a country that has trillion dollar budgets is not worth it.

Better to institute UBI if that will reduce noise. I used to be against UBI, but once that seed of free money has been planted, it’s going to be difficult to eradicate that weed seed bank. Thanks to start ups( hello, YC!) who experimented with giving out free money. Time to pay up and move on.

The basic foundations on which first world economies are built are actually broken. There is barely any consumer inflation which means there is no demand for low income workers. Asset inflation on the other hand is growing steadily which means high income workers and capitalists see their incomes rise rapidly.

Inflation is merely the rise in price when demand exceeds supply. Since consumer inflation is dead it follows that there is an abundance of goods, primarily because companies have access to a lot of capital but they don't have to deploy that capital in the USA or Europe and actually employ workers there. They can simply deploy it in countries with low labor costs. In principle that is perfectly fine because countries like India and China deserve to grow but in practice it means that a lot of the money printing is completely misguided. It's like taking the wrong medicine. It won't cure you but you will still suffer from side effects. The end result is a lot of overalued stocks without any of the economic performance to justify their market cap.

Instead of a UBI it would make sense to have jobs programs that invest into public infrastructure like road maintenance or into the power grid. Those jobs cannot be shipped away to another country and they are the type of "busywork" that is actually useful without directly competing with private industry.

I don't think the economies of first world countries are necessarily broken. I think our economy is changing such that we don't really understand what is going on currently, so we don't know what metrics we even need to be using to make sure we are keeping things healthy.

A previous comment by me:

I'm trying to say something like: When your caterpillar morphs into a butterfly, harping on how your butterfly is "failing to thrive according to standard, well-established caterpillar metrics used globally for the past thousand years and certified as super duper accurate for caterpillars by many respected institutions." is basically gibberish that says damn near nothing about the state of the butterfly's actual health for which we have zero established metrics, having never seen one before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22028732

I'm trying to figure out how to write more about that and mostly failing.

Though I do like your idea of investing in infrastructure. I'm trying to figure out how to provide planning and economic development resources and services to small communities and I really appreciate your observation as food for thought for that effort.

I don't believe the economies themselves are broken either. That's a weird hypothesis and no facts to back it up with. The person might be conflating "economies" with some form of "capitalism".

Nevertheless, I do think we know (for the most part) what is going on. It's just that we reached feudal times again (never left them?), where decisions are made by our rulers and as long as the great ruler of america and the great ruler of china are friends, then there is no war. And everything else is waged on the backs of 'The People'. Or something.

On a more serious note, the above comment mentions a job guarantee. That is part of Kelton's MMT proposal. There are two things I don't like about it:

1. MMT is called a theory, but it's actually a descriptive model, and it has shown in the last 3 decades, that it is quite the acurate model. 2. Kelton conflates what MMT teaches us about monetary politics and fiat currencies with her own agenda, namely the job guarantee. And it's hard to argue against the latter, when you acknowledge the first. And that is only possible, because MMT is called a 'theory'.

Nevertheless, I believe you are right DoreenMichele, that we as humans should never stand still. I don't think I could 'not work'. As such a universal job guarantee or public programs are scary to me, because although I like work and won't stop anytime soon, I feel like this will be abused by politicians to cement long working hours. And while I do like work, I think less working hours per person is what we should thrive for. This is a conflict in my head.

I am a fan of UBI, because I don't see myself stopping to work anytime soon, and it would have just relieved me of a lot of stress when I grew up with basically nothing. At the same time, I can see that there are jobs people might not pick up if they had sufficient UBI. Thus these jobs need MUCH higher pay. Because the people doing them (mostly) do them out of passion.

Where does it lead us? Unfortunately where we have always been: the very classical class fight. It's not a grand conspiracy theory, there is no one controlling entity with one mind, but in general laws and law making are skewed towards "havers". Which you might as well just call our new feudal lords.

And until we put up some sorts of guards against (too much) abuse of power, dismantling of democracy, opaque deal-making and abusement of the planet's resources (especially without pay or even subsidized) I don't see it ending anytime soon.

> them stuck in dysfunctional and unhappy relationships.

I see this a lot in India where a young woman quickly gets out of a bad relationship and then prefers to be alone than in a bad relationship as she has more economic independence now.

also a lot more important not a current state of wealth, but a continuous trends for an average individual born being poor/medium/rich, if people tend to get richer poorer than their parents were, it means wealth is not that important in your society.

The suggestion here is that the divorce rate is dropping because fewer people are getting married, so those that do get married are more likely to "stick it out", so to speak?

Not the best term for folks who are content in their relationship, but yes. Once your relationship has made it past the climb phase, economically speaking, you have a lot of altitude to deal with issues once you're at cruise altitude. "Growing apart" and financial reasons are the top causes of divorce [1] (infidelity and addiction are still substantial but minority causes). Divorce is one of the most financially devastating events that can occur in your life (besides unexpected medical expenses), so there are incentives once you're married and financially successful to remain married [2].

Commitment and "sticking it out" is a topic onto itself. Love is sacrifice and marriage is a (hopefully rewarding) job (personal opinion, YMMV, this paragraph comes from several years of counseling and ~15 years of marriage). You want a cofounder who is going to work on the relationship and and stick it out with you, not one who is going to bounce whenever life gets hard. Marriage is just enough friction to not leave on a whim, but not so much friction you can't dissolve the partnership when necessary.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/ (Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education)

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/divorce-d... (Divorce Destroys Finances of Americans Over 50, Studies Show)

> Divorce is one of the most financially devastating events that can occur in your life (besides unexpected medical expenses)

I agree with your overall comment. It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum. So if it is financially devastating for one party, it tends to be a financial windfall for the other. Divorces can be equitable, or they can be lopsided, but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

> It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum.

What? No. After a divorce, total costs across both parties go up because resources can no longer be shared: one party needs new housing, possibly a new car, possibly needs to get their own health insurance rather than being on the other's plan, etc. Not to mention both parties have to buy anew whatever goods (cookware, television, etc.) the other person got.

Even completely amicable divorce destroys a tremendous amount of wealth.

Which actually extends to multi-generation families (and roommate situations), and sometimes explains how they survive at all.

Cramming 4 working adults into a two bedroom house is a big efficiency increase. So the first thing a newly single person should be doing is looking for a roommate to share a tv and washing machine and 1/2 the cost of housing.

That said, I can't think of a single case where anyone I knew in their 30-50's who got divorced did anything but go out and buy their own personal house to live in by themselves.

> but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

I see this more often than one would expect. Most recently (older, but not senior, couple married for decades), one party did not agree with the other (amicable party offered 50/50, other party was spiteful), and ~$200k in value was destroyed through legal fees...to arrive at a 50/50 split.

Divorces can be amicable, but the frequency of this happening is not insignificant. Without a prenuptial agreement, you're rolling the dice. Do you feel lucky?

This is absolutely not true for middle class people. Having to divide up households is extremely expensive and even when no money changes hands it can destroy peoples' standard of living. I watched this happen in my own extended family in just the last few years.

> You want a cofounder who is going to work on the relationship and and stick it out with you, not one who is going to bounce whenever life gets hard.

AMEN! I could not agree with this statement more. If people had a firm grasp of this concept, the divorce rate will be even lower or maybe some might even decide not to marry in the first place cos they are too self-centered for that level of sacrifice.

The need to "stick it out" is strongly influenced by parenthood.

Without children, marriage is ephemeral.

The need to formalise a relationship with a marriage ceremony is traditionally linked to religion.

Without religion, children or a stable income, why would a person need or want to get married?

Signalling commitment. My wife and I got married in our mid 30s. If you're a strait guy with a good career, keeping yourself fit, reasonably good looking, no kids, and without religious/cultural reasons to get married, the main advantage of marriage is to reduce relationship anxiety in your partner. A lot of single guys in my position in their mid-late 30s, some of them friends of mine, tend to date women in their mid 20s. Women in their mid 30s know there's a big risk of losing reasonably successful and fit partners to younger women, and their anxiety puts strain on the relationship. Entering into a bond of mutually assured financial and social destruction with my partner made her feel much more secure and thereby greatly reduces stress in the relationship.

When I was in my late 20s, I also had good chemistry with a female friend who was 32 or 33. She hinted pretty strongly on several occasions that she thought we'd make a good couple. Unfortunately, she had a poor relationship with her father which is a no-go for me due to past bad experiences. I remember she confided in me that she felt like she needed to start looking to date guys in their late 40s/early 50s. She was good looking and a graduate student at Columbia University at the time. A lot of women in their mid 30s who should have very good dating prospects have a lot of stress about being passed over for younger women, and unfortunately they're often not wrong to worry.

If you can't imagine leaving your partner for someone else, and they're worried about being left because they're seeing their friends getting left, words are cheap and your partner will know it. If you can't imagine leaving your partner, then there aren't many downsides to getting married, and your partner will also know this.

Of course, there are others in different situations, but that's the experience of me, my wife, some of my wife's single female friends, and some of my single female friends in their mid-30s. Several of them very pleasant good looking women with graduate degrees from Ivy League schools and good careers.

So, for me, I had gotten a bit tired of the dating scene, really liked my partner, couldn't imagine breaking up, and knew my parter was getting anxious. For us, it was a good move, and has made our relationship much stronger.

> Unfortunately, she had a poor relationship with her father which is a no-go for me due to past bad experiences.

Genuinely curious why this was (for you) a leading indicator of a bad relationship?

The father-daughter relationship is critical. It can affect how a woman will relate to men for the rest of her life. There are no perfect parents, but there are bad ones. Therapy can help.

Exactly. Growing up, we all subconsciously build mental models of the minds of others that help us interpret the motivations behind the actions of others and anticipate future actions. For many women, their fathers play a dominant part in their modelling of the minds of men that help them sort out situations where there's conflicting information. This is clearly a generalization, but my experiences are close enough to what I've read.

I've had one girlfriend who was essentially abandoned by her father and another whose father was essentially indifferent to her emotional well being or success in life. It was pretty obvious that at least for both of them, they always had a nagging feeling that I seemed to love and support them, but maybe it was just a charade. After noticing the connection, I actively sought out women with supportive fathers who clearly cared for their daughters.

My father-in-law is strict, but unquestionably supportive of my wife. My wife talks to her dad on the phone at least 5 times per week. When we were first dating, I consciously asked my wife about her father and watched her body language and listened to the way she talked about him.

Even early in our dating, my wife was far more likely to have a charitable interpretation of my actions/motivations vs. my ex-girlfriends whose fathers showed little evidence of caring. On the other hand, my wife still calls me 2-3 times per day at work, but it's a small price to pay for her subconsciously believing I genuinely have an altruistic interest in her well being.

Ugh. Get one aspect right and compromise on another :-) I know nothing but what you said in that comment, but she sounds a little something (needy? Dependent?). Calling dad 5 times a week and you 3 times a day seems a bit off. We all have issues ;-)

There are no perfect people. We've all got a few things wrong with us. Find someone with weirdness you don't really mind, help them grow, but don't try to change them. If talking to you too much (edit: asking you what you want to eat and when) is the worst thing about your partner, your life is pretty sweet.

Edit: there's also a heavy dose of cultural and personal context here. Her calling isn't being needy, but feeling culturally duty-bound. In her home country, as the only daughter, it's considered her responsibility to take care of her parents. Her brother lives 5 minutes from the parents, and he makes sure they're taken care of, but my wife feels a bit guilty living in another country and wants to make sure her parents don't feel abandoned. One of her father's sisters married an American, moved to the U.S., and slowly lost touch with the rest of the family, so she wants to ease any anxiety her parents have around that. Also, as much as I remind her that it's not her job to cook, as soon as she finishes lunch (at her place of work), she feels like a bad wife if she doesn't consult with me about what she should cook for dinner and what time she should start cooking to have dinner perfectly timed for my return from work. I've tried a bit to get her to stop asking what I want for dinner, but you can't change a person, and it is very sweet, other than it makes me feel a bit awkward. She cooks and I clean, and she finds cooking a good way to de-stress after work, but I still feel a bit bad that she feels like it's her duty to cook. She also talks with her brother's kids one or two times a week to help get them practice with their English. She's really trying to help out her whole family and keep everyone connected across the miles. Thailand: land of spicy food and sweet people.

I would love in the future if my girls wanted to talk with me that much.

In many places privacy laws prevent unmarried partners from being automatically notified in medical situations, from making medical decisions, and misc other medical situations you might expect your committed partner to be involved. This probably doesn't matter as long as you are conscious, but if you've involved in an accident or become incapacitated, you'd need a living will on file to have your partner participate in some of these.

This is why I carry a digital documentation describing what to do with me if I am in that situation. My phone's lockscreen has a note on how to check it.

I wonder if there is any standard place I can put the information on what to do if I am on brink of death somewhere so hospitals know to check for it.

I have a friend whose girlfriend and him felt that way until a recent experience.

They were applying for jobs in the same place, same people interviewing them etc. People didnt know they were dating.

When they found out he was partnered, they treated it very seriously, as if they were in a committed relationship, deserving of protection etc. When they found out she was partnered, it was different, he was just a boyfriend of who knows what status etc.

They decided to get married after that experience.

As others have noted, the purpose of marriage is to protect the relationship, but what that really means is protecting each other. In some cases this means ensuring equity of treatment.

Similar cases have shown up with COVID. Every couple of months this year I've listened to news stories about couples dealing with cross border restrictions on being able to see each other. The last one included a couple who had been together for years and were despairing about the fact that protections of border crossing only extended to married couples. I'm not suggesting judgement should be cast on them for not being married, as that's between them, but it's another example of how representing the significance of the relationship to the state can have consequences.

It's traditionally linked to religion, but not exclusive to it. Outside of the legal status, getting married is still a way to formalize and celebrate your commitment to someone.

This reminds me somewhat of the 'Pont des Arts' in Paris - where couples often affix padlocks to the railing and throw the key into the water as a symbol of commitment. The number of combination locks on there was quite notable last time I saw it!

The weight of the locks was damaging the bridge, so they removed them in 2015. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/paris-love-locks-bridges-...

Fair enough. That's a nice thought - two people with unstable income and a modest support network joining together for love, and making it last. Thanks for that, ssully!

Reiterating what KMag wrote below:

For some, publicly declaring your commitment to one another can have a powerful affect on the relationship. It can communicate a shared vision and commitment for a lifetime. It is not requisite for that commitment, but it leverages cultural support structures that can help keep a relationship healthy.

For me personally, I believe marriage provides a couple with an important concept that they are part of something greater than themselves. This is not an exclusively religious idea (I consider myself an atheist). When times are difficult (and they will be over the course of a lifetime), this bond can help a relationship survive when otherwise the pressure to give up can be significant.

No it is not. Our society is build around people living together are married. You get more rights (inheritance, euthanasia, etc) and benefits (pooling your taxes).

It is that way because it was the default for a long time. Now it is shifting and it will take time for society to adjust to this new reality.

RE: taxes

Look into the marriage tax penalty, in some situations you will pay more (both high income earners)

> Without religion, children or a stable income, why would a person need or want to get married?

I suppose there are legal reasons to get married.

There are Tax benefits in some countries.

Why do oxygen atoms pair up? For many, there's considerably more stability in the situation for a lot of reasons. Obviously not always, but even if 'someone doesn't have children' - we're still mostly designed to behave in a social context where there are children. So a 'childless' marriage is one-step removed from the classical state, it's still pretty close.

Taxes?

A mixed bag depending on your incomes. There used to be a marriage penalty for similar-income dual-earner households, but that was mostly erased with TCAJ (2017). (There's still a marriage penalty for very high dual-earner households.)

I don't think most people get married for tax reasons.

The Sunken Cost Fallacy applies to unhappy marriages. It is often a better monetary wager to "persist" despite obvious misery. But it's a terrible choice in the psychological cost. And... you only live once.

The financial devastation of divorce in a period of economic uncertainty makes marriage a very poor long-term value proposition. You can't really protect yourself from a predatory divorce in any way that will withstand a legal challenge.

Younger adults seeking independence should be very wary of "marriage". Love and relationship can exist in a healthier way outside of the sunken-cost fallacy.

An economic union only makes sense if the terms of rupture are clear and fair. A romantic union only makes sense if there is love. To confuse these two types of union is a huge mistake.

Or the other way around: those getting married have actually thought it through, rather than feeling peer or family pressure? Who knows.

I just really don't understand the point of marriage at all. It's typically an expensive ceremony that acts as a front to officially registering your relationship with the government and possibly a religious group.

Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

Parental laws already don't require marriage as factor.

If two people are going to stay together, a piece if paper telling them they're officially together.doesn't make any difference and if two people are going to separate, some paper's likely not going to stop it.

> If two people are going to stay together, a piece if paper telling them they're officially together.doesn't make any difference and if two people are going to separate, some paper's likely not going to stop it

"Marriage is a contract" isn't just a catchphrase, it's literally a contract and serves exactly the same purpose as a business contract.

See how this statement sounds: "If 2 businesses are going to keep doing business together, a piece of paper telling them officially doing business together doesn't make any difference and if 2 business are going to break their engagements, some paper's likely not going to stop it"

In a sense everything above is true, but yet, a businesses wouldn't enter an important business deal without a contract.

Marriage can be seen similarly, when you sign the contract you are doing so with expectations : "this person makes me happy, I'm ok combining forces to go further"/"this business partnership makes me increase my profits, I'm ok doing this deal with them"

Both marriages and business deal can go sour. People change, business constraints change. Getting the right provisions in a contract makes sense in both cases.

Both people getting married and businesses striking a deal don't enter the contract with the hope that they will have to break the contract.

Both know they can break the contract if needed, with effect somewhat known.

While I agree with the overall sentiment here, it's worth noting that businesses use contracts because trust between two parties can never be assumed—both businesses are purely acting in their own self-interest. On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement. Whether and how that plays out in practice is another story, but IME, very few people enter into marriage prepared for the case in which it ends. This is why prenuptial agreements can sometimes be a touchy subject, since it breaks that assumption of complete trust.

One of the functions of a marriage contract is to protect your partner from other people.

This is why gays have fought for the right. They got tired of co-mingling their finances, buying a house together and then having one partner thrown out into the street with little more than the clothes on their back when one of them died and the parents (or nearest blood relative) inherited the house.

> On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement.

This is a lot less obvious in practice than it seems. Fair-weather 'partnership' isn't really rare. Unless it has been tested at times of adversity it is hard to predict how people would react. A piece of paper does not ensure that the relationship will be anything but of the fair-weather variety, with one ready to jump ship at first signs of bad times, it does give one an opportunity to reflect on the gravity of the promise and vows and the public nature of the promise gives it some air of barrier to dissolution.

> On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement. Whether and how that plays out in practice is another story, but IME, very few people enter into marriage prepared for the case in which it ends.

Sounds to me you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as it specifies the default set of conditions and requirements that are applied to both parties, and also the rights and obligations of both parties in case of a contract resolution and even breach of contract.

> This is why prenuptial agreements can sometimes be a touchy subject, since it breaks that assumption of complete trust.

Again, it sounds like you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as its the original (and baseline) prenuptial agreement.

Prenups aren't valid in every country.

I'm not sure how that's relevant?

The fundamental difference between a business contract and a marriage is (at least in most western countries) a breach of a business contract results in the breaching party paying compensation to the non-breaching party. Contemporary marriage and its "no fault divorce" system means no sanctions for breach, change of mind, cannot be bothered anymore etc.

Seriously? Breach of a marriage contract (aka divorce) is probably one of the most costly transactions a person will ever encounter in their lifetime. Half the assets, alimony, and child support is a pretty high price.

Just ask Jeff Besos!

Ask Dr Dré

Several states have or have had laws against allowing unmarried partners or friends from making medical decisions. This was a huge deal for the legalization of gay marriage - before that you were in rough shape if your unmarried partner even wanted to visit you if you were incapacitated in the hospital.

In my case, we found that getting married changed the way that we view our relationship.

We had already been together for over 10 years, but getting married was a commitment to each other that we'll try our hardest to make things work. It adds another layer of stability which is important for planning kids, careers, finances, and so forth. We can make choices as though our relationship will still exist X years down the line -- this isn't necessarily true, of course, but in the medium-term it becomes a reasonable assumption.

It also brought us closer. Mutually agreeing to be each other's life partners is a big step. I don't have to worry that my partner is going to choose their career over me or vice-versa. We've both decided to put our relationship first, which causes a subtle-but-important shift in your relationship.

If we go back 50 years:

- DNA tests did not exist. a guy could get a woman pregnant, not recognize the child and have no legal obligation to pay for child support. A woman could also trick a man to support a kid that is not his, but that's another story.

- Many women were housewives, and a separation would leave them, and potentially their kids, with nothing.

- The wedding ring serves the purpose of telling everyone around you that you are not single. People did not have an online presence that could help you infer this.

Weddings serve many purposes, it is not only a celebration, it is also informational, and wedding gifts can be considered an early form of crowdfunding.

Marriage guarantees legitimacy of children under the law and financially protects people. They are also great for historic purposes.

Many cultures have converged towards the same thing for a reason.

"It's typically an expensive ceremony"

A 'marriage' is not a 'ceremony' or a 'piece of paper'.

It's not 'typical' for a ceremony be 'expensive' - that's a very modern construct. My grandparents went to the Church, got married, there was a banquet at the hall, people brought food. That's it.

But how hard is it to understand that people want to honour their commitment in some way?

"Why do we have big awards ceremonies for those people (artists, citizens, soldiers), it's so expensive!"

Some (most?) people would want to honour that commitment. Many people who don't, just don't find themselves in the right conditions, but would otherwise.

But beyond the ceremony, marriage is a social institution, not a 'piece of paper'.

(Personally, I have a hard time grasping why people struggle with this)

A marriage is something 'that is built', the ceremony is just part of that, it takes time, effort, input to build a relationship, it's not just 'something that happens'.

1. I think you're mistaking marriage for a wedding. The wedding is the expensive ceremony (and studies show the more expensive, the less stable the marriage!)

2. A marriage contractually binds you together in a lot of ways that are subtle but powerful. You share debts, you share risk, you share counsel. Your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you. While few people will ever encounter this scenario, the idea is powerful. Legally speaking, your spouse and you are a unit that cannot be turned against each other.

If marriage has no point, why has it lasted so long and is so widespread? The reasons are there if you look for them.

Stability for children; emotional, physical, and financial.

Do not underestimate the value to children in knowing/feeling that their situation has personal, familial and societal permanence, even if that permanence is somewhat illusory.

That is not to say there isn't value to childless people in marriage. But the value of it truly became meaningful to me once we had children. Conflicts with the spouse that could potentially lead to severance of the relationship tend to be diminished when the perspective of the children is taken into account.

Marriage is more of a social or cultural construct; regardless if people see a point in doing it, the US government provides a wealth of monetary support to couples and families who do it (e.g. married couples can have substantially lower tax filings compared to being single.)

Funny, I've heard from multiple married friends of the "marriage tax" and how it knocks their finances all out of whack tax-wise. Some have seen the tax burden go up, and then again when getting divorced a few years later. But as for "why get married?" It's a way that people show commitment to each other.

The marriage tax seems like a way for the government to get it's cut of joint filings if couples are maximizing their income relative to their inherently lower tax bracket. I'm just a kid so don't quote me but I'd be willing to wager that the IRS has figured out all sorts of ways to prevent couples from abusing their tax leverage versus when they were single. Why people get married is very different than

> Why does my relationship need to be officially registered

There could be many reasons why couples get married, and many reasons why couples get divorced.

Interestingly. In Australia there is 0 tax difference between being married or having been in a relationship for 6 months. It’s considered the same.

Otherwise people would never get married :)

The tax reforms during the Trump administration largely eliminated the marriage tax penalty, expect for couples earning more than $600k/year. Prior to those changes, married couples would generally pay more tax in their combined income then if they filed separately. The big exception to that was there was a big difference in earnings between the partners, in which case they’d pay less overall

I think it makes most sense if you see it from the perspective of your child. Having family and friends "witness" your marriage ceremony (especially your vows) has a strong cultural pull toward monogamy to the benefit of raising your children in a two parent household. Apparently the government saw this commitment so valuable they tied into it legislatively.

Our child witnessed us getting married. He liked it so much that he asked if we could get married again a week later.

It's a different thing once you are married. Speaking as a man, anyway, it changes the way you think about the relationship that may be hard to understand until you go through the experience. The ceremony of it, particularly if you are primarily married in the religious context, with the state being an afterthought formality, is important. Purely on a legal basis with the state though, there is more overhead to severing the relationship, so it would function to encourage reconciliation. Fundamentally, society has an interest in stable nuclear families because reasons, and marriage supports that interest.

This is a good time to consult Chesterton's fence [1]. If you go up to something that's existed for thousands of years, and find it tempting to declare it pointless cruft that should be swept away in the march of progress, maybe there's something you're missing. I don't have time to make an extended argument but one idea is that the most important part of marriage isn't for the happiness/benefit/pleasure/romance of the couples, but for the benefit of children. Studies demonstrate that children of single-mothers have worse outcomes, such as worse mental health outcomes. A marriage is supposed to be difficult to get out of, to disincentivize broken families. Not that this is anywhere close to a full answer; cultural evolution [2] means we may never get to a full understanding of whether/why the customs we have are beneficial, simply because societal dynamics are extremely complicated and still beyond our understanding.

[1] https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...

How you hold yourself out to others matters.

People disrespecting your relationship with your partner because they don't believe its serious is a source of low level obnoxiousness.

Even with a signed power of attorney, it's the norm the medical people will ignore the input of a non-married partner. Yes, you can fight them at the level of bureaucracy and eventually win, but in critical moments you'll be ignored.

Your relationship doesn't need bot be registered but there can be many advantages of doing so, both formal (estate/inheritance/tax/liability) and informal (respect).

Well, for one thing, the marriage party can be a lot of fun (but I agree that many people spend way too much thing). I think the event (because it is a point in time) can bring some sort of "closure" to the parents, though this is mostly more significant in younger marriages, which are less common.

I really have know idea why we do the official registration bit. Presumably it makes life easier for the bureaucrates, which I don't particularly mind. If you had a mariage cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without actually doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

> If you had a maraige cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the few remaining places in the world where common-law marriage is still allowed, you can do precisely this. You essentially cohabitate for some amount of time (in my jurisdiction there is actually no set minimum time though I imagine the longer you live together the more legal water it holds) and then just tell people in public that you are married. No paperwork necessary.

I managed to make it four years under such an agreement with my partner doing things such as buying a house, relocating internationally, sharing taxes, finances and medical insurance, without actually needing paperwork. Relocating internationally was the trickiest, but after explanation to the new country of the law they were willing to accept the document that showed we bought a house together as evidence of our marriage.

Eventually this year we finally had to get some paperwork, forced to by, believe it or not, government bureaucrats who would absolutely not allow me to be placed under my partner’s medical insurance (government employee) without marriage documents. Fortunately our jurisdiction allows you to get a piece of paper that just says something like “We decided we were married on this date and the county affirms it”. The paper is stamped by the county and filed like typical marriage paperwork, takes about 5 minutes and does not require a judge.

Overall if someone wants the benefits of marriage without all of the pomp and circumstance and happens to be lucky enough to live in one of the jurisdictions where common law marriage is allowed, I can recommend it.

I had no idea that such places existed. I looked it up, and one of them for example is Ontario:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Ontario

> I really have know idea why we do the official registration bit. Presumably it makes life easier for the bureaucrates, which I don't particularly mind. If you had a mariage cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without actually doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

The registration bit is the most important part, it’s not bureaucratic. For the same reason that you need to have documents drawn up to form a business partnership, it’s for when things go sideways. The registration is the proof that both parties entered into a contract, enforceable by the government.

It's so important a lot of people (like me) just skip the party and just go straight to the registration part.

With $x0,000 you can have a hell of a party regardless...

It is more about intent. Being married is an explicit commitment to one another for life (nominally). That provides a foundation where a bad day, month, or year is okay because you are committed, and that is a place of security for children who know their parents are similarly committed to them. Cohabitating couples are less likely to stay together even if they eventually marry. There's something about commitment to marriage that leads to better outcomes in relationships. The feeling of permanence for the future improves the experience of the now.

Marriage is an economic contract between two families throughout most of human history across all cultures. The idea that love is part of it is fairly recent.

It doesn't have to have any point for any individual. I think it binds people up into nice social units for societal control. By societal convention, you have to marry, just not by law (probably because you or your family historically chose a partner, and it would look quite obviously compulsory if the government mandated a date and a partner.) The government only nudges you that way with things like joint tax filing options.

The laws have gotten less strict, and the social stigma lessened, but the state tries to keep it together as well. You mentioned that a piece of paper won't keep them together, but in most US states, "fault" for a marriage breaking up still comes into play in things like deciding how a court will divide assets, etc., and historically, sometimes you couldn't even get a divorce without someone getting assigned fault.

> Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

If you don't want to, don't. It's not like this is a mandatory process for doing anything in 21st century.

What the official registering does affect is finance: tax, shared properties, healthcare plans, etc.

There's more to it than that. "Oh, hey, your partner was in a bad car accident. No, you can't go to see them because you're not family."

Also, international couples.

Marriage doesn't always let you live in your spouse's country (some countries have income thresholds, which must suck when both spouses have countries that won't let the other in), but it significantly increases the chance of being allowed to live together for many people.

Indeed, healthcare proxy is a big factor.

Could one have some kind of "registry of approved visitors"? You can have lifelong friends you would trust as much as a spouse, or family members you don't trust. For a hospital clerk to verify that someone is a family member (or a spouse), if the last name on their physical ID doesn't match, would require some kind of database lookup in any case.

It'd probably get complex. Like is person X allowed to visit you, person Y is allowed to approve certain non-invasive procedures for you, and person Z is allowed to make life-altering decisions.

As a paramedic, if you're conscious you'll typically get asked upon admission, "If anyone calls are we allowed to tell them you're here, and do you have any specific desires about visitors?".

If you're unconscious or unable to elucidate these things (which often correlate to the more serious end of the spectrum), not so much.

When I was hospitalized a long time ago we found that my partner was unable to see me and practically unable to act as my proxy (because they wouldn't let her into the hospital beyond the front office), even with a power of attorney (and her being my attorney, too).

Her telling them that she was my husband instantly resolved the problem, no questions asked. It's not like they have any immediate way to check.

Did you mean to comment on the main thread? This has nothing to do with the parent comment.

It always goes back to property & inheritance. That’s why marriage was created in the first place (as a contractual institution; long term committed partners have existed for longer), and that’s why it remains today.

There are a lot of financial benefits to being married: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/why-marriag...

Maybe it's different down there. Up here your benefits are basically being moved to a tax bracket based on your combined income. Which in our case would just push our taxes up without any benefits.

In the US, the tax brackets double for married couples vs singles. Two single persons earning $150k per year would be taxed at the same rate as a married couple earning a combined $300k a year, all else being equal of course.

Is that not the same where you live?

The tax rates on a single combined income are higher than the tax rates for the two uncombined incomes.

Tax rates aren't the same for all tax brackets. So by not being married, despite having the same actual combined income, taxes are lower because it's taxed as two lower income brackets rather than the combined higher one with a higher tax rate.

That isn't exactly true... married filed jointly rates are exactly twice as much as filing separately in the United States, unless your combined income is more than $622,050.. so you are only correct if you make more than that.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Also, it sounds like you might be confused about how income tax brackets work. Your income is not taxed at one rate... each amount is taxed at the rate for that bracket. This means that EVERYONE pays 10% on the first $9,875 they make, no matter how much they make in total. This is how marginal taxes work:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marginaltaxrate.asp

I don't live in the united states.

The comment you were replying to was stating how it works in the US, and your reply made it sound like you were talking about the US still.

I get now that it was part of the conversation about the differences between the US and Canada.

Where's "up here?"

Canada, I am guessing?

Yup that country north of america until you hit Russia.

I think for us it was more about defining our relationship to other people. If you say "I have a partner" people can't understand without further explanation what that means. Also marriage doesn't have to be expensive.

A marriage contract is binding on both sides for their respective rights and responsibilities to each other as well as to potential offspring.

interesting argument because I thought you were just going to point out that the ceremony is unnecessary and the paper is all you need

had me in the first half

anyway there are a lot of state-sponsored benefits when you have the paper, as well as some ease theoretically in medical emergencies

you can skip the expensive ceremony, a lot of people do, others skip it and have one later, and of course yeah many don't get married

>Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

Because most humans are moronic enough, to value bit and pieces of paper that officially sanctify a relationship.

> What’s worse, all signs point to a continuing downward trend for new marriages.

I greatly disagree with the phrasing.

It puts too much emphasis on marriage as a desired state when clearly some non-negligible subset of the data is signaling something else that the author is not considering at all.

The article makes passing mention of a list of reasons people aren't getting married, taking a look at that study[1] shows

"Not ready for the commitment"

and

"Haven't found the right person"

accounting for 70% of all reasons, equivalently across both sexes.

did they factor in "not interested and don't really think about it except when people keep bringing it up for me" with the implication that of course the sentiment can change if someone made that connection or found such an arrangement interesting with another person?

I think the entire framing around this needs to match what people actually think, and I think it neglects a very common sentiment which would become more common as more people become aware that others think this way. Good news, then the divorce rate drops much closer to 0 or perhaps the financial repercussions around divorce are modernized and made more pragmatic.

[1]https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/final2-ifs-single-... , page 11

To add to this, I know many "married" people, myself included, who are permanently separated with no intention of reconciliation, but who are not legally divorced. My ex and I did not have an acrimonious "divorce" and money was never an issue between us, but the mess and expense of divorce don't seem worth it to us as long as we both trust each other (which we do).

I'm sure we'll eventually get divorced once one of us gets a long term partner, but I do think the trend for avoiding the legal system as long as possible is here to stay. I know one couple (or ex-couple, rather) that has been separated for over 5 years now.

If there are no issues money wise, and you have a good understanding between you two, what is the mess and expense of divorce?

I am someone who always assumed that divorce proceedings were expensive when there were conflicts in alimony, possessions and kids. ( and all this information is mostly from movies )

A cheap, non-acrimonious divorce will probably still cost you about $10k in legal fees. That's not the biggest expense though. I won't get into the details of my specific situation, but I stand to lose about $10k-20k in taxes every year if I get divorced, instead I just split that money with my ex. You definitely have to trust your ex for stuff like this, because being legally married you can get really screwed (she could go crazy on a credit card and I would be liable for half of it).

It will cost nothing like $10k if you are actually willing to cooperate.

It can be done for around $1000 if you use a document prepare rather than an attorney.

It doesn't necessarily have to be that expensive. I have a friend who recently went through a very friendly divorce. Both parties had agreed on who would get what. In Washington State there's a process for these types of amicable divorces where a judge doesn't have to make any of these determinations. They had to pay the ~$500 filing fee, wait 90 days and that was it.

I'm sure it varies quite a bit from state to state though.

People I know on the east coast, two couples divorced in two states - same thing, maybe a few hundred in filing fees, that's it. Everyone was in agreement beforehand, judge just made sure the agreements were fair and signed off.

I'm not your lawyer, but you should look into how this would affect your will/estate, etc. It's common for state law to allow a wife to take 33-50% of your estate, even if you purposely exclude her. And if you have no will, she'll probably get everything.

I would think you'd want to formalize the divorce at some point, to avoid the akward 'I can't marry you right now, cause I'm sort of already married' stuff, especially if you and your legal spouse move away from each other and fall out of touch.

But, if you're in the US and you're otherwise happy to be legally married but separated, you may want to consider waiting to legally divorce until you've been legally married 10 years. That way, either can use the other's social security record to claim as a spouse if unmarried (at no cost to the other ex-spouse).

Came here to leave this comment, with a slight variation. I was so exhausted from 2 years of legal separation that I just decided not to bother with a divorce. It has practically no advantage, and it's easier to stay technically married wrt issues related to kids.

Try this on: Isn't this is the OPTIMAL time to get divorced - while you are on good terms with no disagreement or anticipated battle over money. If you wait, the divorce could be messier in the future if the relationship degrades over time.

Wonder how age factors into it. Poor Americans are probably more likely to marry in the early 20s, vs career-minded professionals in large metros who wait till their 30s.

> Poor Americans are probably more likely to marry in the early 20s vs career-minded

Poor vs career-minded? Aren't the poor more likely to be career-minded in order to improve their situation? These don't seem mutually-exclusive at all. I don't see why being poor makes it more likely for one to marry earlier, either.

Semantics: "career-minded" implies plans for advanced education and longer term professional career goals which would correlate to delayed marriage and family.

neither of which seem to be excluded by the word "poor".

My perception of poverty is that it's a transitional state, where people are interested in leaving it.

Depending on how poor they are, the transition may be slow, and to a rich person, they may only seem to be moving between different tiers of poverty, but that doesn't mean they aren't career-minded.

In particular, I would think that the poor vs the not-poor feel more need to delay marriage and family until they feel they can better afford it after having achieved long-term educational and career goals.

There will be a lot of variation among individuals, but as a demographic generalization, those from more blue-collar communities seem to start sooner with marriage and family, and probably even have tax and other financial incentives to do so. Being rich gives you options and the confidence of upward mobility; being poor usually doesn't.

The poor don't have careers, they work jobs. But there is a lot of debate about how many of the middle class who claim to have careers really do. The economy cannot support an unlimited amount of fulfilling work with a full lifetime set of levels to advance through

Not in the same way. The poor see a job without a next step. They don't see themselves becoming foreman, or any higher paid position of more responsibility. The career-minded are looking to see how they can get a better position. Maybe eventually the career minded will decide that something is far enough - they stop at senior engineer don't make me management or architect (there are more paths than these). This is something you need some experience to get to and it is intentional.

The poor tend to stick to labor jobs that you can train any healthy person to do in a few weeks on the job.

A subset of the poor, perhaps. Aren't you generalizing too much? I think you're assuming too many behaviors from a word that simply means current lack of money. I would think that some portion of the poor if not most would be interested in long-term solutions to their problem.

Fresh college grads generally are poor but the term in this context is never used to describe their social class. We'd instead describe them as broke, as we expect they'll soon improve their lot. Poor hence obviously indicates the class for whom the probability of doing this is below average if not terrible. It's a probability on a collective not any rule applied to an individual

‘poor vs career-minded’ is a subconscious dog whistle. A sign of a cosmopolitan elite who consider the poor as being poor because they aren’t career-minded enough. Interesting phenomenon.

No they don’t. Most people in the US are getting married between 25-30 and there’s an entire community of women out there finding it difficult to find a man because social and economic trends have pushed the norm outwards and young men don’t want to marry hyper-selective women.

Have you spoken to anyone who dates these days? All the young men hate it. Women have all the leverage until they hit 28.

It would be interesting to get a percentage that are "happily" married vs. married (or stay married) for the tax benefits.

Until just a couple years ago, there was a tax penalty for married couples who earned similar amounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

> If the incomes of the two persons are similar, then at the lower end of the tax schedule there is no difference between filing as singles and filing as a married couple (ignoring the question of deductions, see below). But at the higher end of the tax schedule, there is a penalty for a married couple whose incomes are similar, compared to what they would pay as singles.

The penalty still exists and my taxes and my wife's went up because we are both relatively high earners (huge student loan debts and our annual incomes only became larger than $20-30K in our 30s since college/grad school took a long time). I am not sure what the rationale for marriage affecting taxes in the US was originally, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Presumably if one's spouse didn't work they could have just been claimed as an additional dependent.

Nowadays, the penalty only exists if you have incomes of $500k+ and/or if you have more than $24k in deductions and need to itemize.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/11/15/the-irs-marriage-penal...

As far as I know at least.

> I am not sure what the rationale for marriage affecting taxes in the US was originally, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

I assume it’s because at the time the tax brackets which penalized dual high income earning households were decided, they weren’t politically powerful (or numerous) enough to push back on them. Nowadays, dual high income earning households are more common and they had the ability to get the brackets changed.

In the 1950s women didn't hold a job outside of the house (raising their own kids is a hard job). This isn't completely unheard of today, but it is very rare (also not sexist - I personally know as many men as women who don't have a job outside the home). In this model it is useful to claim a deduction for your spouse.

The statistics for 1950 actually have 44% of women between 16-24 having some kind of job, 34% of women between 24-34 and 39% of women between 34-44.

What you describe was middle class white femalehood ideal - what was supposedly happiest setup. But that setup was impossible for quite a lot of families, plus some families choose different setup. And some women were single or their husbands die.

But the actual labor participation was much higher then what the ideal suggests.

But they were paid a lot less than men at the time.

Yes and jobs were also much different. And completely different ratio of these is going to be part vs full time. I am not saying 1950 was feminists utopia or something.

But it is interesting how around 40% women working morphed into women were not working which morphed into idea that working woman would be rare.

I want to point out that as the originator of this line of thought in the discussion I fully endorse your last paragraph.

> married for the tax benefits

Does this offset the risk of divorce?

>Between the above post, and this post, not good if you read why this is occurring (economic security).

I don't see why this is problematic. The characteristics that will lead to economic success like long term planning, sticking to goals, not being a shit head, etc. seem to directly translate to a successful marriage.

If you're not a member of the professional class, there's not a lot of options where long-term planning and sticking to goals at your gas station job get you ahead in life.

The issue is that the ladder for those values to get you ahead has basically disappeared unless you hop on before you're done with high school.

And who's likely to hop on that ladder in high school? People that are good at long term planning, sticking to goals, not being shitheads, etc.

And even if you work a shitty gas station job opportunities you can learn the gas station business, impress the owner, and get them to invest in opening your own. Or you can learn a trade in your spare time.

You don't think environmental factors might play in to the type of choices a 16yo gets to make?

They very much do. Which is why so many don't get out of the rut of their background. Despite teachers and all school pep talks telling them they should go to college most who don't have that in their family background don't do it.

You can give up and lose or you can try again and maybe even win. If your environment sucks that's just one more reason to improve it.

> And even if you work a shitty gas station job opportunities you can learn the gas station business, impress the owner, and get them to invest in opening your own. Or you can learn a trade in your spare time.

You most likely will be used to the extreme and thrown away. Lot of places don't care about who is working in low paid skilled jobs. They are as replaceable as ever. Amazon warehouses have machines doing the firing. Soon it will be your gas station. The machine doesn't get impressed unless you break your back.

And conflating poor people with being shit heads is interesting.

No wonder many worker class people feel the ire to hate big tech and workers increasingly.

Millions of poor immigrants would beg to differ

Poor immigrants generally work the shitty jobs I'm referencing and try to make sure their kids are on the professional ladder before finishing high school.

There's still no ladder for them, personally.

There is a ladder for poor first generation immigrants: starting a small business. Look around you. Who owns many of the restaurants, convenience stores, dry cleaners, landscaping services, etc.?

That's a really good point, although those jobs still don't pay great from a $/hr perspective.

I think first generation immigrants cut across the conscientiousness/income relationship that's being presented in this thread. It's a self-selecting group.

>It's a self-selecting group.

That only proves the rule. If your environment is awful but you have the right mindset/personality then you can still be successful.

'Conscientiousness' is the 'Big 5' personality trait here. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

Seems like you’ve reversed causality there. Poverty is a social context that shapes many of the attributes you’ve described. It’s not as if you took a kid from a rich family and put him in with poor one, his genetic virtues would somehow make him come out on top.

The causality is reversed, but not in the way you are inciting. Regardless of background, married men tend to make more more and act more responsibly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04...

Please keep this garbage out of HN.

The downvotes are very telling...

There’s a lot of hard data which actually suggests otherwise. From the classic paper “Why G Matters”: https://images.app.goo.gl/X4wAFYFC6xQrSU259

Poverty was a reason to get married in the past. Lots of civil war brides.

Marriage is correlated with economic security, but economic security does not necessarily cause more marriage. I think it's more likely the reverse. Those who get married have a better shot at earning more.

There are a lot of benefits to marriage, especially if you have a dual income marriage. For example, if one of you loses their job, you go to 50% of your normal income, rather than 0%. This gives you more time to wait for a higher paying job, rather than taking the first thing that comes along.

The benefits of support and encouragement from a spouse are also real.

>There are a lot of benefits to marriage, especially if you have a dual income marriage. For example, if one of you loses their job, you go to 50% of your normal income, rather than 0%.

>The benefits of support and encouragement from a spouse are also real.

Neither of those are exclusive to marriage. Unmarried couples typically operate in a similar manner.

In a marriage, you can go to court and force your partner to hand over a portion of their income / savings. Unmarried couples can’t do that. Life is easy and no one needs to make things official when everything is hunky dory, otherwise you need contracts.

There's also the simple fact that marriage usually improves upward economic mobility and even outright creates wealth in some cases:

* If you're both employed, the higher earner could potentially be pulled down into a lower tax bracket

* If at least one spouse is salaried, the employer's insurance can often be shared at a reduced cost

* If both are salaried, the market of insurance policies you have to choose from essentially doubles

* If you're renting, you can essentially halve the cost of living (assuming dual income of some kind)

* If you're looking for a car or home, you can usually qualify for better loans (assuming neither spouse is a credit disaster)

> For Americans in the top third income bracket, 64% are in an intact marriage, meaning they have only married once and are still in their first marriage. In contrast, only 24% of Americans in the lower-third income bracket are in an intact marriage

Is this age corrected, because people tend to be in a low income segment earlier in their careers, and I don't think that “people are more likely to have gotten married the older they are” is surprising.

> "Meanwhile, America’s so-called “marriage divide” is only widening. College-educated and economically better off Americans are more likely to marry and stay married, but working-class and poor Americans face more family instability and higher levels of singleness. For Americans in the top third income bracket, 64% are in an intact marriage, meaning they have only married once and are still in their first marriage. In contrast, only 24% of Americans in the lower-third income bracket are in an intact marriage, according to my analysis of the 2018 Census data."

I think looking at it in terms of education mistakes the symptoms for the disease. Most people obviously had intact marriages back when few people went to college. A college education isn't a prerequisite for stable marriages. The delta is caused by something else that's correlated with both.

This is the thing that turned me away from liberalism after I got married and had kids. In Asian culture, we strongly believe that marriage and families are the purpose of life. Not only that, we believe that society has a responsibility to establish and reinforce norms that encourage people to get married and support their marriages. In my culture, elders get involved pretty intensively in e.g. mediating disputes between young couples to help establish healthy relationships. When I hear "elite" social conservatives lament about the breakdown of norms and social support around marriages, it strikes me as very much in line with how my culture perceives the same issues. And I can't help but agree with them when they complain that social elites won't preach what they practice when it comes to these norms.

This would be great if it came without the levels of coercion towards the women in relationships.

I agree, but there are layers to that. Most women will get married at some point. Presumably they want those marriages to last. And about half of those who have never married want to marry someday. Women on average want 2.6 kids. Even in 2019, almost half of women would prefer to stay at home and be homemakers (including a plurality of women with children under 18): https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer....

Herein lies a fundamental difference in worldview. A liberal would say: well, let people who want to get married and have kids do that, and people who don't want to get married and have kids can do that. No need for coercive social norms. In a vacuum, that sounds true. But a conservative would say: how can you be so sure that those social norms aren't helping people who ultimately want to get married to do so and stay married? The idea that societal happiness is maximized by maximum personal freedom and the total absence of social coercion is not obviously true.

There are life happiness benefits to older people helping younger people know what to look for in a spouse, and setting expectations about marriage and life in general. There are benefits and efficiencies that come from people of a similar age having kids at the same time. There are benefits that accrue from people being involved in supporting each others' marriages. My wife and I got married and had kids in our mid 20s--average for Americans in general but pretty early among our demographic (college-educated coastal urbanites). We didn't realize it at the time, but living in DC/NYC we were pretty miserable. Nobody our age had kids and it was very isolating. We were so much happier after we moved to a more socially traditional exurban place where other people our age also had kids, peoples' parents were actively involved in helping them raise their children, etc.

> working-class and poor Americans face more family instability and higher levels of singleness

"singleness" is an interesting term here. Are the authors implying that being single is inherently a bad thing? It seems as though they're using it to have a negative connotation.

Not necessarily from this context. It could be read as ‘if singleness were a natural decision and evenly distributed across demographic groups, then finding groups where there were higher levels of singleness would point to some type of involuntary singleness.’

The fact that involuntary singleness correlates with higher family instability is not a surprise.

Spot on. Unsurprisingly, the author is ignoring the number of lifelong unmarried couples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com