Single life, financially better off?

iptba

Sauve wrote: »

That's a short, old, claim, with no links to any 'research' whatsoever.

It does talk about a specific study:

researchers at Ohio State University

the researchers write in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Sociology

The study, which was led by Liana Sayer of Ohio State University, was based on data from more than 3,600 couples that had been collected from three waves of the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households. The survey waves were conducted from 1987-88, 1992-94 and 2001-02.

Here's the study, but I thought some people might find a less academic source easier to read than the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347912/

AJS. 2011 May; 116(6): 1982–2018.

She Left, He Left: How Employment and Satisfaction Affect Men’s and
Women’s Decisions to Leave Marriages

Liana C. Sayer, Paula England, Paul Allison, and Nicole Kangas

Abstract
Most past studies examining determinants of divorce have ignored differences between the factors that elevate wives’ and husbands’ initiation of divorce. We use three waves of the National Survey of Families and Households and a latent class model embedded in a competing-risks event history model to assess distinct predictors of wives and husbands leaving marriages. We assess who left using each ex-spouse’s answer to a question that asked who had wanted the breakup more. We find that when men are not employed, either husbands or wives are more likely to leave. When wives report better than average marital satisfaction, their employment affects neither their nor their husbands’ exits. However, when wives report below average marital satisfaction, their employment makes it more likely that they will leave. We compare findings to predictions from two theories: an institutional perspective that sees divorce to result from a violation of gender-specific norms, and exchange/bargaining theory, which posits that resources allow a spouse to leave if exchange and bargaining fail to provide a satisfactory marriage. To amend the theories to better fit the data, we foreground the asymmetric nature of gender change in recent decades, with women changing more than men.

Sauve

Ah sorry, couldnt see the link to the study when I opened it first.

johnr1

Emme wrote: »

I moved to a rural area some time ago and I notice a trend among farmers and other rural men in their late 30s/40s/early 50s. After years of playing the field/propping up the bar in their local they have a child with a woman in her 20s and she claims all the allowances for a single mother. There are few other career options locally for a woman who doesn't want to travel for work. The men ostensibly live at home with their parents but unofficially live as a married couple with the mother of their child. It seems to be a win:win for all concerned.

Except the taxpayer.

Great to see some things never change on boards anyway....
Cough, Soapbox, Chip,Shoulder Much ??

Carry on.

Sauve

johnr1 wrote: »

Great to see some things never change on boards anyway....
Cough, Soapbox, Chip,Shoulder Much ??

Carry on.

Mod

If you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, then don't post.
The report function is there to be used if you have a problem with a post.

The Corinthian

Sauve wrote: »

I'd put a large percentage of divorce due to male unemployment down to the effect that losing a job has on a mans own self-esteem/morale/self-worth. The strain I've seen this put on relationships is massive, and I've yet to see one break down simply because the woman left due to the man not being the breadwinner any longer.
That article totally discounts the bigger picture.

Or it may ironically embrace the bigger picture.

Wealth, as a factor in choosing a partner, remains far more important for women than men. Hardly a huge surprise, given that the option to become a stay-at-home homemaker/carer is still far more likely to be expected even of women who are not particularly enamoured with the idea and also significantly more socially acceptable of those who are - and so having a partner who can provide for this would seem a logical necessity.

It may not be politically correct to admit this, but people are pretty subconsciously ruthless where it comes to these things; just as men are generally attracted by youthful, attractive women (with fertility and inheritable attractiveness being the aim), women are attracted by wealth and power, for the aforementioned reasons.

As a result, we shouldn't be surprised that a woman may lose interest in her partner when he loses his wealth, just as a man may lose interest in his, when she grows older and loses her youth - even if we'd prefer not to admit this and instead blame, as usual, man's own self-esteem/morale/self-worth.

Bananatop

Sauve wrote: »

That article totally discounts the bigger picture.

Articles with an agenda always discount the bigger picture. They don't make for good reading unfortunately.

iptba

Bananatop wrote: »

Articles with an agenda always discount the bigger picture.

Who said the article had an agenda? It was a piece on a science news website on a piece of research that had just come out.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Who said the article had an agenda?

Clearly any article that suggests that women may have an, even subconsciously, materialistic motivation where it comes to choosing their partners, must have an agenda.

Bananatop

iptba wrote: »

Who said the article had an agenda? It was a piece on a science news website on a piece of research that had just come out.

I did. It's the opinion I have about articles which don't take other areas into consideration.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I did. It's the opinion I have about articles which don't take other areas into consideration.

How do you know? Have you read the study?

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do you know? Have you read the study?

Yes.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

Yes.

Then you've not read it very carefully, I'm afraid, as it does take other areas into consideration; including from past studies.

Indeed, if you read it, it (or the article) doesn't simply argue that men become less attractive when unemployed. It also argues "the stigma some men face for participating in housework and day-to-day childcare... wives’ perception that their husbands aren’t doing enough around the house often ramps up marital dissatisfaction". Nothing about women only being attracted to rich men there.

Indeed, to a great extent, we're all jumping to conclusions as to both the study or article as neither point to any single reason why unemployed men are more likely to be divorced, only that that they are.

But I'm sure you realized this having read them.

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you've not read it very carefully, I'm afraid,

I have.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I have.

Then why did you state something that was untrue?

(Before you choose to respond with another curt denial, I've already pointed out why it's untrue above, so if you don't address that, I'll just presume you're just issuing another, false, denial).

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why did you state something that was untrue?

I don't think it's untrue, it's my opinion.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I don't think it's untrue, it's my opinion.

It's your opinion that you read it carefully, despite getting completely wrong what it was talking about? Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

I'm glad to see that my opinion that the article is unbalanced is accepted.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I'm glad to see that my opinion that the article is unbalanced is accepted.

I said you're entitled to your opinion; I never said you're entitled to have your opinion accepted or even respected.

riveratom

Unlikely to be better off, much more likely the opposite is the case I reckon!!

I had only been thinking about this lately. Basically, when you're single, you pay for everything. In a couple, you split the cost. That sums it up pretty much.

I was on a holiday recently where the cost of the accommodation was €650 for the week. I would have paid €325 if sharing with someone else, so there's €325 extra I'm paying right there.

Mortgage if I had one would be split both ways, I don't know how you'd even get one on one income to begin with. Deposit for a house - a bit easier if you have double the amount you'd have on your own, or thereabouts.

Then everything else - household bills, etc.

Holidays - these are made for couples (as per the above). Single supplements, paying for all meals yourself, etc, etc.

Another point of note which came to be when I was home alone lately is that not only are there more costs, there is more work to be done in general around the house! It takes as much of a mess in the kitchen cooking for one as it does for two, but at least you can split the clean-up 50-50 when one half of a couple!!

Not to mention other household work, paying for a car, etc...

On the flip-side then of course, if you get married and have kids then it's expense-central then isn't it. Childcare, college, food, clothes... So when it comes down to it, probably one way to have some cash in your pocket is to not marry or have kids and maybe have a good job / income and live in a reasonably priced area

daRobot

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed if you want to live longer and you're a bloke, marry a woman much younger than you.. Though as they point out this may be down to the fact that if you can pull a woman 15 years younger than you it's likely because you've got better aging genes in the first place.

Don't necessarily agree with that.

I would think it's most likely down to them having to up their physical game and keep active in order to (upcoming pun) keep up, with their partner. Not wanting appear "old" in their partners eyes, and holding onto them, being the primary motivational factors.

iptba

riveratom wrote: »

Another point of note which came to be when I was home alone lately is that not only are there more costs, there is more work to be done in general around the house! It takes as much of a mess in the kitchen cooking for one as it does for two, but at least you can split the clean-up 50-50 when one half of a couple!!

Not to mention other household work, paying for a car, etc...

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

Vitaliorange

iptba wrote: »

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

A very good point. If one partner likes the house to have a standard of cleanliness on a par with a microchip lab should the other partner really be expected to meet those standards.

Dickie10

I think we have found the common denominator-KIDS/CHILDREN..... when I started this thread it was a kind of throwaway comment of "single", I think I meant that marriage usually though not always but I suspect around 90% usally is implicated with having children. or children first then marriage later. either way it seems that the s**t hits the fan when you start having sprogs! just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22? looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

zephyro

Dickie10 wrote: »

just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22?

~€250k apparently: http://www.lv.com/assets/pdfs/other/coac-10-report.pdf

Dickie10 wrote: »

looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

Well fwiw it's my reaction too, but we do appear to be in a very small minority!

Dickie10

come again fwiw??! I have a basic theory that the reason I as a 30 yr old shudder at the thought of children/settling down, is that I have loads of stuff to do yet kinda bucket list if you will. During the downturn meself and friends were say 24 -25 and money got scarce very quickly so it kind of clipped our wings , so that now people aged 30 have endured 5 or 6 lost years where most hadn't the money to do the once in a lifetime stuff like travelling etc. I hate the thought of getting a loan to travel id rather save and go off my own back so to speak, im just like that I hate having loans! maybe this is why peple aged 30 ish are running a mile from settling down, with all the horror stories of people dying young through cancer, heart disease etc . people want to live out their lives when the economy gets going again and not be saddled with children, that's what I plan on doing anyway.

pwurple

Well, if you want to have children at some point in the future, but are putting it off just for now, bear in mind that leaving it late to start trying can often hit the very costly infertility situation as well.

ICSI treatment (That's IVF level 2, where the sperm is low quality and needs to be injected into the egg) costs about 5,000 euro per cycle, with several cycles usually being needed. Plus all the investigative tests beforehand. None of it covered by any health insurer in this country.

Not that children are required by any means, but in case people assume it's just as straightforward to have them older in life.

byronbay2

Dickie10 wrote: »

I think we have found the common denominator-KIDS/CHILDREN..... when I started this thread it was a kind of throwaway comment of "single", I think I meant that marriage usually though not always but I suspect around 90% usally is implicated with having children. or children first then marriage later. either way it seems that the s**t hits the fan when you start having sprogs! just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22? looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

Yeah, it's certainly children that put a crimp in your (financial) style. Being late 20s or early thirties with a good income and no major debt is the best time financially of your life - even better if you have a partner in the same situation to share the expenses. Children are expensive and also often lead to a house purchase and one of the couple (usually the woman) reducing their working hours or else having crippling childcare costs.

Your disposable income nosedives and, as well as that, young children are tiring, which means that most couples in this situation would rather chill out at home with a glass of vino than hit the clubs until 3am!

riveratom

iptba wrote: »

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

True, but I was talking in more basic terms, literally in relation to cooking a meal for yourself and having to clean everything up afterwards, as opposed to two people sharing the work involved.

Pawwed Rig

byronbay2 wrote: »

Your disposable income nosedives and, as well as that, young children are tiring, which means that most couples in this situation would rather chill out at home with a glass of vino than hit the clubs until 3am!

I can assure you that children are not the only reason clubs are not full of 30 and 40 year olds at 3am in the morning.

On your other point I would argue that the best time financially of a persons life is more likely to be retirement than in their 20's.

drumswan

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

On your other point I would argue that the best time financially of a persons life is more likely to be retirement than in their 20's.

Not much point in being rich if you are decrepit or dead. Life is for living when you are young.