5 ms·

Kind of off topic but I sometimes wonder how many unhappy marriages that should end in divorce for the benefit of both parties don't due to financial hardships.

Kind of off topic but I sometimes wonder how many unhappy marriages that should end in divorce for the benefit of both parties don't due to financial hardships. Which might also explain why the trope of rich men being on their 3rd or 4th wife exist as there is no financial hurdle to them staying in a marriage. They are able to decide that the marriage is not working and just end it and start again.

cookieswumchorr 5y ago
is this really a thing? I mean if you can afford it, go on, but why make the same mistake 3 or 4 times in a row
- gumby 5y ago
  The triumph of hope over experience.
medo-bear 5y ago
or maybe it is not due to financial hardship, but for the sake of their children. while growing up i have seen too many kids being socially disadvantaged due to their parents being divorced
- notch656a 5y ago
  Anecdotally, it's definitely way cheaper to be married with kids. Child support is commonly like 30% of salary after taxes (20% before). As a married couple we definitely don't need to spend anywhere near that to maintain the kid, but the courts after a divorce say you must pay it or go to jail. So the end result would be the one in custody gets to pocket that difference. Very expensive on the parent without custody. If my wife and I ever split, I would much prefer to stay estranged while being half responsible for the kid, to being divorced paying 30% of my salary for no fucking reason beyond that's what some bean counter decided is the cost of the child.
heresie-dabord 5y ago
Rich folks can be as naive as anyone else, and they certainly must attract different predators... Not that I would know. ^_^ > marriages that should end in divorce for the benefit of both parties don't due to financial hardships. The Sunken Cost Fallacy. It's a cruel -- and common -- steady-state among married people. It makes no sense to gamble that ten years from now two people will be the same and want the same things. People change. You might reach the SCF steady-state, but you might also be stuck with a wretch or a lunatic. Having children gives the SCF steady-state even more inertia.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Wouldn't SCF imply the cost has already been born? Divorce is relatively simple without kids. If kids enter the equation, the cost of divorce is the differential between what it ACTUALLY costs to support the kid, and what you'd be paying in mandatory child support (many states like 30% salary after taxes.) That could mean a huge wealth transfer from the one without custody to the one with, with no change in resources spent on the child.

cookieswumchorr 5y ago

is this really a thing? I mean if you can afford it, go on, but why make the same mistake 3 or 4 times in a row

gumby 5y ago
The triumph of hope over experience.

medo-bear 5y ago

or maybe it is not due to financial hardship, but for the sake of their children. while growing up i have seen too many kids being socially disadvantaged due to their parents being divorced

notch656a 5y ago
Anecdotally, it's definitely way cheaper to be married with kids. Child support is commonly like 30% of salary after taxes (20% before). As a married couple we definitely don't need to spend anywhere near that to maintain the kid, but the courts after a divorce say you must pay it or go to jail. So the end result would be the one in custody gets to pocket that difference. Very expensive on the parent without custody. If my wife and I ever split, I would much prefer to stay estranged while being half responsible for the kid, to being divorced paying 30% of my salary for no fucking reason beyond that's what some bean counter decided is the cost of the child.

heresie-dabord 5y ago

Rich folks can be as naive as anyone else, and they certainly must attract different predators... Not that I would know. ^_^ > marriages that should end in divorce for the benefit of both parties don't due to financial hardships. The Sunken Cost Fallacy. It's a cruel -- and common -- steady-state among married people. It makes no sense to gamble that ten years from now two people will be the same and want the same things. People change. You might reach the SCF steady-state, but you might also be stuck with a wretch or a lunatic. Having children gives the SCF steady-state even more inertia.

notch656a 5y ago
Wouldn't SCF imply the cost has already been born? Divorce is relatively simple without kids. If kids enter the equation, the cost of divorce is the differential between what it ACTUALLY costs to support the kid, and what you'd be paying in mandatory child support (many states like 30% salary after taxes.) That could mean a huge wealth transfer from the one without custody to the one with, with no change in resources spent on the child.