5 ms·

Do not get married!

by throwaway72873 7y ago

Do not get married!

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Having kids is bad for your financial health as well but not all rewards in life are financial.
- throwaway72873 7y ago
  One can have kids without a marriage.
- dragandj 7y ago
  To be fair to the OP, they didn't mention (having or not having) kids at all.
- chii 7y ago
  > financial health financial health is not a goal, but a means to an end. Getting good financial health is a means to having kids (ie, you will give your kids the best advantage they could if you're more financially capable).
- conductr 7y ago
  Even financially. If they help you at all when you’re old, it’s worth the investment. The cost of in home care, independent living, etc is insane
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    At least in the west, many of us don’t want to be a burden to our kids like that.
    - conductr 7y ago
      I get what you mean. I’m American. Grandparents have extended their independence in their home by 20 years, on land an hour outside of city, because their kids go over every 1-2 weeks to count out their meds, meal prep, and help out with a few other household things. They have done a few periods of livein care while they recovered from surgeries or falls. They’re in their mid90s and it’s getting pretty hard now because there’s some dementia and other issues setting in. They’d have much more help if my stubborn grandfather moved to the city near other family members (we could casually drop off groceries while we’re doing our own errands, etc). Every case is different, but I don’t think you have to be under one roof to significantly help some people keep their independence and avoid spending money on caregivers that are very expensive especially
Bostonian 7y ago
Why do you say this? Married couples have much higher net worth than unmarried couples do on average. Married people have a joint interest in increasing their wealth. Each member of an unmarried couple has an incentive to spend the other person's money.
- lazypenguin 7y ago
  Not only incentives but it just makes sense logically as long as we can assume that both partners are financial savvy, have the same objectives and "contribute" to the relationship equally in some fashion (e.g. money, time, chores, etc.). Two working couples: - Two incomes - Shared health plan (more expensive but less than 2x single?) - Shared apartment (more expensive to support two occupants but less than 2x single?) - Opportunities to reduce duplicated expenses when possible: e.g. single set of furniture, single car, joint loans (e.g. mortgage + closing costs), repairs, etc. If one of the partners is not working I believe there are still advantages but they might be harder to quantify. Even if it means cutting out one of the incomes, having a time-available partner can be advantageous in other ways. Time to cook vs. eat out (more cost effective), organize bills, find discounts and deals (e.g. credit card churning for saving ~1k-2k a year on flights), organizing activities to maintain health, arrange doctor visits for preventative care, etc. Obviously, this equation changes when one is a dependent but if both are independent and work together I feel that the math would favor couples.
- cabraca 7y ago
  I think OP refers to unjust divorce laws. With over 50% marriages ending in divorce, headlines like [0] make marriage sound like a really bad deal. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-after-break-up-dale-vince https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right...
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Sadly (for justice), she received a mid-6 figure award eventually: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tyco...
michaelwda 7y ago
Getting married was the best thing I ever did. - double income - motivation and accountability - kids - delegation of responsibilities. You don't have to do everything yourself.
- std_throwaway 7y ago
  50% chance of being totally destroyed financially. But it surely doesn't hit you because you are special.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Elaborate.
  - akavi 7y ago
    The divorce rate hasn’t been 50% for all marriages in a long time, and that was always inflated by second, third, Nth marriages. The current divorce rate for first marriages where both partners have a bachelors is around 10%.
    - conductr 7y ago
      I suspect it has little to do with education. It’s more about not doing the “traditional“ marrying a high school crush to get laid/because you got knocked up, taking time to learn who you are, and dating around to find the right partner. The thing I don’t think these statistics always reflect is the societal changes over the decades. Why people marry, when they marry, ease of divorce, the effects of widespread divorce on upcoming generations, it’s all changed enormously over time.
- conductr 7y ago
  I agree with all of this and had similar marital benefits. It’s still a risky proposition. I dated for 7 years before proposing and we had lived together for a few years and I was in my thirties by then. Not saying this is the best recipe. But I think it’s just not something that should be rushed. When I hear about people meeting and being engaged a year later I just can’t fathom that working (I know it can and does, but I think it introduces a ton of risk).
std_throwaway 7y ago
This advice is 50% wrong. You should marry very rich or never get a divorce. For many people marriage works very well as they will tell you proudly. On the other hand this advice is 50% right if you ever do get a divorce. Those things are so expensive and leave a huge hole behind. If you were the primary money earner you are likely to pay for years.

Do not get married!

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Having kids is bad for your financial health as well but not all rewards in life are financial.

throwaway72873 7y ago
One can have kids without a marriage.
dragandj 7y ago
To be fair to the OP, they didn't mention (having or not having) kids at all.
chii 7y ago
> financial health financial health is not a goal, but a means to an end. Getting good financial health is a means to having kids (ie, you will give your kids the best advantage they could if you're more financially capable).
conductr 7y ago
Even financially. If they help you at all when you’re old, it’s worth the investment. The cost of in home care, independent living, etc is insane
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  At least in the west, many of us don’t want to be a burden to our kids like that.
  - conductr 7y ago
    I get what you mean. I’m American. Grandparents have extended their independence in their home by 20 years, on land an hour outside of city, because their kids go over every 1-2 weeks to count out their meds, meal prep, and help out with a few other household things. They have done a few periods of livein care while they recovered from surgeries or falls. They’re in their mid90s and it’s getting pretty hard now because there’s some dementia and other issues setting in. They’d have much more help if my stubborn grandfather moved to the city near other family members (we could casually drop off groceries while we’re doing our own errands, etc). Every case is different, but I don’t think you have to be under one roof to significantly help some people keep their independence and avoid spending money on caregivers that are very expensive especially

Bostonian 7y ago

Why do you say this? Married couples have much higher net worth than unmarried couples do on average. Married people have a joint interest in increasing their wealth. Each member of an unmarried couple has an incentive to spend the other person's money.

lazypenguin 7y ago
Not only incentives but it just makes sense logically as long as we can assume that both partners are financial savvy, have the same objectives and "contribute" to the relationship equally in some fashion (e.g. money, time, chores, etc.). Two working couples: - Two incomes - Shared health plan (more expensive but less than 2x single?) - Shared apartment (more expensive to support two occupants but less than 2x single?) - Opportunities to reduce duplicated expenses when possible: e.g. single set of furniture, single car, joint loans (e.g. mortgage + closing costs), repairs, etc. If one of the partners is not working I believe there are still advantages but they might be harder to quantify. Even if it means cutting out one of the incomes, having a time-available partner can be advantageous in other ways. Time to cook vs. eat out (more cost effective), organize bills, find discounts and deals (e.g. credit card churning for saving ~1k-2k a year on flights), organizing activities to maintain health, arrange doctor visits for preventative care, etc. Obviously, this equation changes when one is a dependent but if both are independent and work together I feel that the math would favor couples.
cabraca 7y ago
I think OP refers to unjust divorce laws. With over 50% marriages ending in divorce, headlines like [0] make marriage sound like a really bad deal. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-after-break-up-dale-vince https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right...
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Sadly (for justice), she received a mid-6 figure award eventually: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tyco...

michaelwda 7y ago

Getting married was the best thing I ever did. - double income - motivation and accountability - kids - delegation of responsibilities. You don't have to do everything yourself.

std_throwaway 7y ago
50% chance of being totally destroyed financially. But it surely doesn't hit you because you are special.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Elaborate.
- akavi 7y ago
  The divorce rate hasn’t been 50% for all marriages in a long time, and that was always inflated by second, third, Nth marriages. The current divorce rate for first marriages where both partners have a bachelors is around 10%.
  - conductr 7y ago
    I suspect it has little to do with education. It’s more about not doing the “traditional“ marrying a high school crush to get laid/because you got knocked up, taking time to learn who you are, and dating around to find the right partner. The thing I don’t think these statistics always reflect is the societal changes over the decades. Why people marry, when they marry, ease of divorce, the effects of widespread divorce on upcoming generations, it’s all changed enormously over time.
conductr 7y ago
I agree with all of this and had similar marital benefits. It’s still a risky proposition. I dated for 7 years before proposing and we had lived together for a few years and I was in my thirties by then. Not saying this is the best recipe. But I think it’s just not something that should be rushed. When I hear about people meeting and being engaged a year later I just can’t fathom that working (I know it can and does, but I think it introduces a ton of risk).

std_throwaway 7y ago

This advice is 50% wrong. You should marry very rich or never get a divorce. For many people marriage works very well as they will tell you proudly. On the other hand this advice is 50% right if you ever do get a divorce. Those things are so expensive and leave a huge hole behind. If you were the primary money earner you are likely to pay for years.