4 ms·
That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i
by ginko 10y ago
That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480
- DanBC 10y agoNothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage. I'm only saying that if your marriage lasts for 10 years, which about 66% of them do, it's weird to complain about the cost of a ring when there will be very many more expensive and equally bullshit things to spend or not spend on.
- user5994461 10y agoThe divorce rate is increasing every day. One shouldn't based a decision on outdated marriage statistics from 10 years ago. Just sayin'
- lotharbot 10y agothe divorce rate has actually been falling steadily since about 1980.
- delecti 10y agoThat paper doesn't attempt to make a causal link. It's possible that being broke during the courtship process (when the ring is purchased) is what leads to a lasting marriage. I also can't find any discussion of the cost of the ring to the cost that could have been afforded. Is there a comparable outcome from someone who could easily afford a $10k ring but instead spends $1k vs someone who can only barely afford the $1k ring in the first place?