4 ms·

I remember hearing from those in my parents' (boomer) generation about marriages that just didn't work out. Divorce wasn't widely "accepted," but it was more co

by kory 6y ago

I remember hearing from those in my parents' (boomer) generation about marriages that just didn't work out. Divorce wasn't widely "accepted," but it was more common than one might think. Perhaps this was because of a culture of encouraging marriage to make fulfilling needs (sexual, relationships) "acceptable", and boomers had financial freedom to take the risk that it wouldn't work out. Marriage is a success multiplier. Successful people generally marry other successful people. Your monetary, behavioral, and intellectual capital double just by signing a piece of paper, given you find the right person. Plus you get significant tax benefits (on ~$300k combined income, you can save $20k-$30k per year). But there's a huge downside, too. If you get divorced, you (give or take) lose half your assets on top of attorney & emotional costs. Younger generations are getting married later because they weren't given the stability that Boomers had, and therefore can't take the same risk their parents did. A divorce didn't mean a financial end for many boomers (or, at least, they probably weren't aware that's what could happen). With the rise of the internet, young people are aware of the risks and how susceptible they are to those risks. Since younger generations also no longer feel the same level of stigma for fulfilling sexual and emotional needs from partners outside of marriage, it follows that marriage rates would fall. It also makes sense that divorce rates would fall. Older generations' marriages that have lasted this long will probably last until death. Younger generations that choose to marry will likely have found and married another successful, responsible person. My guess is these marriages are (on average) more stable than those of previous generations.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Younger generations are getting married later because they weren't given the stability that Boomers had And their situation isn't crap enough to put up with less than ideal marriages for the financial security as was the case for the generations prior to the boomers.
sjg007 6y ago
There wasn't much stability in boomer or even older generations either. I think that is a red herring. There was probably more social pressure to marry in the absence of going to college.
- watwut 6y ago
  Today, there is much more social pressure to be stable before marriage and kids. You are supposed to have good jobs and savings and be secure. In previous generation, at least based what older relatives told about, there was pressure to marry, full stop. Also, in even older generation, marriage was needed for financial security of the woman - the pay gap was large even when she worked and had good job for a woman. So women were under financial pressure to marry in addition to social one. Plus, unmarried males were seen as immature or irresponsible. A guy was more likely to get pay raise or promotion explicitly with the "he needs money to feed family" thinking. So guys were motivate to marry because of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination.
watwut 6y ago
Your financial analysis is attributing shared property in marriage to one partner only. But it is shared property of two persons. Plus, in marriage case, doubling happen only if both partners earn the same and have same amount of money. In divorce case, the "lose half your assets" happen only if you perceive all common money as yours only, which makes somewhat sense only if you are single earner.
- kory 6y ago
  > Plus, in marriage case, doubling happen only if both partners earn the same and have same amount of money This is why I said this is the case if you find the right person. > Your financial analysis is attributing shared property in marriage to one partner only. Marriage is pretty close to becoming a single person. Your partner's assets become "yours". You get to live like you were making more money, because costs will not scale to equal 2 incomes. In fact, many costs can half, and other savings are significant too, like taxes. 2 people making $200k are taxed much less than one making $400k. If you combine finances, you're also investing more for retirement and will see a larger compounding effect over time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
caturopath 6y ago
> boomers had financial freedom to take the risk that it wouldn't work out I think this isn't really all that fair. Especially for early boomers (people ~75yo now), women were very economically vulnerable. There were limited career opportunities for women overall and discrimination against divorced women was common. (Marital status discrimination was and in much of the US still is legal -- the discrimination didn't need to be subtle at the time.)

by kory 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Younger generations are getting married later because they weren't given the stability that Boomers had And their situation isn't crap enough to put up with less than ideal marriages for the financial security as was the case for the generations prior to the boomers.

sjg007 6y ago

There wasn't much stability in boomer or even older generations either. I think that is a red herring. There was probably more social pressure to marry in the absence of going to college.

watwut 6y ago
Today, there is much more social pressure to be stable before marriage and kids. You are supposed to have good jobs and savings and be secure. In previous generation, at least based what older relatives told about, there was pressure to marry, full stop. Also, in even older generation, marriage was needed for financial security of the woman - the pay gap was large even when she worked and had good job for a woman. So women were under financial pressure to marry in addition to social one. Plus, unmarried males were seen as immature or irresponsible. A guy was more likely to get pay raise or promotion explicitly with the "he needs money to feed family" thinking. So guys were motivate to marry because of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination.

watwut 6y ago

Your financial analysis is attributing shared property in marriage to one partner only. But it is shared property of two persons. Plus, in marriage case, doubling happen only if both partners earn the same and have same amount of money. In divorce case, the "lose half your assets" happen only if you perceive all common money as yours only, which makes somewhat sense only if you are single earner.

kory 6y ago
> Plus, in marriage case, doubling happen only if both partners earn the same and have same amount of money This is why I said this is the case if you find the right person. > Your financial analysis is attributing shared property in marriage to one partner only. Marriage is pretty close to becoming a single person. Your partner's assets become "yours". You get to live like you were making more money, because costs will not scale to equal 2 incomes. In fact, many costs can half, and other savings are significant too, like taxes. 2 people making $200k are taxed much less than one making $400k. If you combine finances, you're also investing more for retirement and will see a larger compounding effect over time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

caturopath 6y ago

> boomers had financial freedom to take the risk that it wouldn't work out I think this isn't really all that fair. Especially for early boomers (people ~75yo now), women were very economically vulnerable. There were limited career opportunities for women overall and discrimination against divorced women was common. (Marital status discrimination was and in much of the US still is legal -- the discrimination didn't need to be subtle at the time.)