> The only discernible effect on female winners is that wealth increases their short-run (but not long-run) divorce risk.
Women still divorce their sucky husbands. It just takes longer. This could result in fewer kids, or it could result in kids whose homes are broken during later childhood or adolescence.
Reading the actual paper, this is, in fact, the conclusion the authors come to: "In contrast, the only exception to the pattern of null results for female winners is that lottery wealth almost doubles their short-run probability of divorce. One interpretation of the absence of a discernible long-run increase in divorce risk among these women is that wealth accelerates the dissolution of marriages that were already underway."
> We also report results which suggest that when married men win the lottery, the windfall has a tendency to stabilize their existing marriages
Winning a lottery helps men feel secure enough that they aren't as sucky to their spouse.
> lottery wins cause the largest increase in marriage rates and the biggest reduction in divorce rates among unmarried men with low incomes.
So if you want stable marriages that have children the best thing to do is make people wealthier, especially those of lower income. Make men wealthier and they'll get married more and have more children. Make women wealthier and the men they stick with will be ones they like sticking with. I can't see this latter leading to fewer children, on average. I'd expect it would lead to more.
Where'd you get your idea from?
Contrary what OP wrote, typical result is that women becomes poorer after divorce and men had more money. (And no, alimony are nit given out like candies).
It is not only reason, but practically not having money and risking poverty or homelessness means you need to plan divorce very carefully.
It's become the standard in some companies to bitch about men and presume they're suckers and abusers is any situation that involves both sexes. Let's keep in mind that it's not science saying this, but woke ideology.
> the best thing to do is make people wealthier
Far-fetched. Winning a lottery makes you much wealthier relative to other people, it puts you in maybe 10-20% richest people of your country. You can't fit everyone in those 20%.
Look at something like Uzbekistan. Country is miserably poor compared to Sweden and they still reproduce like they win lotteries all the time.
One would hope these are fringe groups, but as an example my wife is on a few that bridge into breastfeeding groups, where the women actively malign their husbands who provide their living, and do most household chores, but are still considered inept.
Even in the seemingly equal marriage, it would seem the battle for equality rages on.
Lets call it for what it really is - battle for power and "freedom" to dominante others (those being husbands, wifes, coworkers - other humans in general). There seems to exists this general urge in some to search by all means necessary to make others an extension of their minds and not free and equal human beings.
Just my 2 cents of intuition acquired by observing some members of my closest family :(
> Winning a lottery makes you much wealthier relative to other people, it puts you in maybe 10-20% richest people of your country. You can't fit everyone in those 20%.
The average lottery winnings this paper is looking at is equal to ~$140,000 USD. According to wikipedia, Credit Suisse says the median net worth of individuals in Sweden is $95k USD. And the paper says the wealth effect on Swedish males is greatest among unmarried men with low incomes.
This is a one-off gain. It is not the continuous gain of a high-paying job. So this lottery win can provide immediate stability and opportunity, but it cannot, in itself, provide longevity of income gains.
You are making the claim that gains relative to population are most important. While I can see this as being important in supply-limited countries, I am not sure that Sweden is such a country.
> Country is miserably poor compared to Sweden and they still reproduce like they win lotteries all the time.
Which is why you control for experimental factors. If you want to see what factors boost marriage rates, marriage stability, and reproduction in Uzbekistan, you want to study Uzbekistan. This study was about Sweden.
If you're pulling in divorces from the future, shouldn't the long term rate go down? Sounds like the total divorce rate goes up.
> sucky husbands
That's odd framing.
> > the absence of a discernible long-run increase in divorce risk among these women
> > > the absence of a discernible long-run increase in divorce risk among these women
> If you're pulling in divorces from the future, shouldn't the long term rate go down?
If it was the men who were, on average, disproportionately divorcing their wives the framing could be reversed. As divorce has costs, the act of divorcing someone indicates that they are worse as a spouse than the alternative.
I had remembered reading that women tend to be less happy in marriages than men, but this appears to be wrong. Still:
> happiness increases when low-quality marriages dissolve—again, that’s true for both men and women.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_marriage_re...
However, that is besides the point? I find your question in very poor taste and not conducive to discussing the article.
Another is that some men are uncomfortable with a wealthier partner. I know a few like this who say it plainly, but it showed up recently in "Crazy Rich Asians" with the tech CEO husband.
He who is being left usually has walked away first.
If a similar system of incentives were created that strongly benefitted fathers in ways that fathers would respond to, we would probably see similar dysfunctional behavior from fathers.
1) It doesn't seem to follow from the paper. Which states that the wealthier partner tends to retain most of the married wealth.
> While the richer spouse redistributes some assets to the poorer spouse in the typical settlement, the amount of redistribution is smaller than the amount required to ensure an equal split of the assets. This empirical finding suggests that the <lottery winning> spouses in our samples may anticipate retaining a larger share of the prize money in the event of divorce
2) If the only thing keeping a marriage together is the lack of wealth necessary for one party (the woman) to adequately survive after the divorce, then this is not a stable marriage.
You seem to have come into this with an already formed opinion. Which is fine, but the opinion seems to be about circumstances not addressed by this study.
Intimacy matters to people.
Noone cared about alimony until women started having to pay and now there's suddenly a movement to remove it.