Single life, financially better off?

Sauve · 15-10-2013 4:52pm

iptba wrote: »

Certainly with a house, a lot of money can be spent on decorating/re-decorating more frequently than one might otherwise do it, replacing furniture more frequently than one might otherwise, new kitchens more frequently than one would otherwise, other interior design-type spending, garden, etc. Perhaps less so with an apartment.

I don't get how two people living together would be more likely to do this than one?

The only scenario where this would be feasible to me is when you go from singly renting, to owning as a couple.
You'd be much more likely to make changes to a place that you own rather than renting, and tbh, it'd not make all that much difference whether you owned it alone or as part of a couple.

iptba · 15-10-2013 5:08pm

Sauve wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Certainly with a house, a lot of money can be spent on decorating/re-decorating more frequently than one might otherwise do it, replacing furniture more frequently than one might otherwise, new kitchens more frequently than one would otherwise, other interior design-type spending, garden, etc. Perhaps less so with an apartment.

I don't get how two people living together would be more likely to do this than one?

I'm coming from this from the perspective of a (heterosexual) man. Women seem to want to re-decorate on average more frequently than men, want to replace kitchens more frequently on average than men, want to replace couches and other items more frequently, etc.

The Corinthian · 15-10-2013 5:32pm

iptba wrote: »

People had previously mentioned economies of scale, but nobody had mentioned the otherside of the equation so thought it was worth highlighting.

Perhaps, but as I pointed out, the savings made when sharing costs such as rent or mortgage repayments are often such that it would be difficult to burn through those savings.

Sauve wrote: »

You'd be much more likely to make changes to a place that you own rather than renting, and tbh, it'd not make all that much difference whether you owned it alone or as part of a couple.

I can see where he's coming from though; even if you have increased disposable income, due to economies of scale, many people end up expanding their costs to match their new level of income, and in some cases beyond it; regardless of whether the accommodation is rented or owned.

ciarak7511 · 22-11-2013 5:02pm

Intersting article in the guardian on the price of being single
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/nov/22/price-of-being-single?CMP=twt_gu

Some applicabel only to Britain, but there are some general points too

Pug160 · 22-11-2013 6:06pm

leonidas83 wrote: »

Tbh, thats a strange way for them to be, have they ever heard of condoms or the pill? I would imagine in monetary terms exclusively you have it slightly better off but if your 30 & have little to know experience with women or relationships that could be seen as a serious disadvantage in itself.

Give me a happy relationship or marriage any day over financial wealth & the illusion that your still loving it up in your thirties

I don't think it's any more of a disadvantage than someone who goes through bad relationships though. Some people would argue that bad relationships are still life experience, but it's surely not the sort of life experience most people would choose to have. Admittedly, if someone reaches the age of 30 and has never been in any meaningful relationships, there is a reasonable chance that they have issues to some degree. But it could be argued that such people might have less baggage and eventually end up in healthy relationships. There is still a lot of judging that goes on.

iptba · 22-11-2013 9:09pm

Pug160 wrote: »

I don't think it's any more of a disadvantage than someone who goes through bad relationships though. Some people would argue that bad relationships are still life experience, but it's surely not the sort of life experience most people would choose to have. Admittedly, if someone reaches the age of 30 and has never been in any meaningful relationships, there is a reasonable chance that they have issues to some degree. But it could be argued that such people might have less baggage and eventually end up in healthy relationships. There is still a lot of judging that goes on.

I'm not an expert on the figures, but I recall that failure rates for second and subsequent marriages are much higher than first marriages, which is a bit like what is being discussed.

Dickie10 · 26-11-2013 11:55am

Why would you think it is an "illusion" to be living it up in your 30s, when it probarly is most definitely not.Id say the 30s are the new 20s for most people but probarly men because they don't have the old biological clock ticking. Western society seems to be very much a 30 something playground, I was at the races on sunday and the place was jammed with 27-40 age group spending ike it was going out of fashion, I think perhaps with the last few years economy people are holding off marriage etc until they are financially secure??

Malarkey121 · 26-11-2013 1:09pm

Perhaps financially better off, but I wouldn't swap what I have for anything, lovely home, great kids who are my best buds, perfect girl who is a brilliant mother to my kids and a job that I like doing plus I have plenty of cash left over so I presume its all about what you value, what you think is important - kids are worth more than any amount of money you can have in your back pocket plus a steady relationship is always nice having regular great sex is good for the mind and body...

*there are pros and cons to everything, if you think having extra cash for the weekends is important as opposed to what way I live my life then go for it... its your life.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2013 1:53pm

Why are people presuming that the alternative to 'single' is seemingly 'married with kids'?

iptba · 26-11-2013 9:47pm

Malarkey121 wrote: »

Perhaps financially better off, but I wouldn't swap what I have for anything, lovely home, great kids who are my best buds, perfect girl who is a brilliant mother to my kids and a job that I like doing plus I have plenty of cash left over so I presume its all about what you value, what you think is important - kids are worth more than any amount of money you can have in your back pocket plus a steady relationship is always nice having regular great sex is good for the mind and body...

*there are pros and cons to everything, if you think having extra cash for the weekends is important as opposed to what way I live my life then go for it... its your life.

Your life seems good. However, life isn't always like that.

Dickie10 · 26-11-2013 10:04pm

Why are people presuming that the alternative to 'single' is seemingly 'married with kids'?

good point that! I wonder what the percentage of married people over 45ish who have no children? This age is presuming they have either chose not to or cant conceive, id say if u took out the cant conceive group ,then those who did not have children by choice is quite small, I need evidence though.
Was it once normal that the Catholic Church did not look well on men who did not marry? thought I heard/seen this somewhere, im talkin Ireland 1940s/50s/60s. ps you can have great sex without having a marriage!!

Malarkey121 · 28-11-2013 2:09pm

iptba wrote: »

Your life seems good. However, life isn't always like that.

Of course I know it isn't, but if your life is not what you want go change it!

The Corinthian · 28-11-2013 3:32pm

Dickie10 wrote: »

good point that! I wonder what the percentage of married people over 45ish who have no children? This age is presuming they have either chose not to or cant conceive, id say if u took out the cant conceive group ,then those who did not have children by choice is quite small, I need evidence though.

The presumption that the only alternative to singledom is marriage with kids is probably indicative of the fact that this kind of group think is still alive and well in modern society; and posting on Boards.

Malarkey121 wrote: »

Of course I know it isn't, but if your life is not what you want go change it!

If your life is not what you want, because you took up smoking at 14 and now you've got terminal lung cancer, it's a bit late to change it. If your life is not what you want, because you married the wrong person and now you're financially decimated and living in a bedsit, with little hope of your situation improving, also because all your money goes on lawyers so that you can get access to your children, there's not much you can change there either.

In short, there's plenty of choices in life that are not so easily reversed or changed, I'm afraid. So just because you played Russian Roulette and won, isn't a good reason to recommend to everyone they should play Russian Roulette too.

Malarkey121 · 28-11-2013 3:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So just because you played Russian Roulette and won, isn't a good reason to recommend to everyone they should play Russian Roulette too.

I don't look at life as a game of Russian Roulette tbh, I can understand your point to a certain degree but I look at life what you get out is what you put in.
Cancer is unfortunate but 1 in 2 or 3 smokers will get it but that does not mean you should give up and not be happy in fact if I had cancer in the morning I would go about doing everything I want still to do in this life while I have time left wouldn't you?
Married the wrong person, broke and in a bedsit seems to be a perfect example to stand up dust yourself off and start from the bottom up, prove people wrong... making a start is 2/3rds of the work!
Instead of looking at it like you got dealt a bad deal go and do something about it, you can always take the bullets out of the Roulette gun and change your outlook on life in my opinion.

Dickie10 · 28-11-2013 5:34pm

I find it a bit strange when people say "id rather be married with kids and happy than single and having a lonely , miserable life." Im just trying to think of the amount of older single people I know with a lonely , miserable life and to be honest there very few! most people I know seem to have a ball! social functions 4 nights a week, few holidays a year, casual sex buddies, maybe its just me but they seem to be leading a hedonistic lifestyle and there in 40s early 50s.! does anyone else know of people like this? some have actually got partners but oonly since they were say 45-50, after child birth age, I wondered was this on purpose?

The Corinthian · 29-11-2013 4:27pm

Malarkey121 wrote: »

Cancer is unfortunate but 1 in 2 or 3 smokers will get it but that does not mean you should give up and not be happy in fact if I had cancer in the morning I would go about doing everything I want still to do in this life while I have time left wouldn't you?

So what? You're still a dead man walking.

There's no "picking yourself up" from that, I'm afraid; no matter how 'positive' you are.

Married the wrong person, broke and in a bedsit seems to be a perfect example to stand up dust yourself off and start from the bottom up, prove people wrong... making a start is 2/3rds of the work!

Depends on the circumstances, particularly age. If you find yourself in that sort of situation at 55 or 60, you're pretty much out of time to pick yourself up.

Instead of looking at it like you got dealt a bad deal go and do something about it, you can always take the bullets out of the Roulette gun and change your outlook on life in my opinion.

The bullets in the roulette gun are what they are, you're not in a position to really take bullets out any more than you can make cigarettes less likely to cause cancer.

My point is that simply telling someone that they can pick themselves up implies it's possible to do so, and so it's really selling them very poor advice, because sometimes it simply isn't. There's a real danger you'll not be in a position to "pick yourself up", so suggesting to people that they can is simply false.

And there's a reason why I chose Russian Roulette as an analogy. The chances of losing a game of that, with one bullet, and a marriage ending in divorce in Ireland are about the same. In other countries, such as the UK, there's three bullets in the gun. Food for thought. And caution.

Anyway, this is off topic, because not being single does not mean being married. And whether you're better off financially is more linked to dependants than to your relationship status.

pwurple · 29-11-2013 5:08pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyway, this is off topic, because not being single does not mean being married. And whether you're better off financially is more linked to dependants than to your relationship status.

Or indeed, whether you ARE the dependent one in the relationship.

iptba · 29-11-2013 5:56pm

pwurple wrote: »

Or indeed, whether you ARE the dependent one in the relationship.

For whatever reason, judging by court rulings on separations/divorce/etc, men are nearly always not the dependent one in relationships.

iptba · 29-11-2013 6:00pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anyway, this is off topic, because not being single does not mean being married. And whether you're better off financially is more linked to dependants than to your relationship status.

I don't think exploring common individual non-single scenarios such as marriage is off-topic. Also, with the Civial Partnership and Cohabitation bill, even if one isn't married, rights and responsibilities can arise.

Malarkey121 · 29-11-2013 6:04pm

Yes it is off topic sorry my last post on the matter I don't think it is selling anyone bad advise its positivity and not being negative about so many things, each to their own I suppose.

I actually have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer and given 6 -12 months to live by the experts and advised to get their affairs sorted, will etc... at the time that was 6 years ago and I speak to him regularly when he goes on Skype from where he lives now - he hasn't done so bad at all and is happiest I've ever seen him - just because you got bad news doesn't mean you have to stop and give up, aren't we all dead men / women walking - life is what happens in between that walking.

The Corinthian · 29-11-2013 6:26pm

iptba wrote: »

For whatever reason, judging by court rulings on separations/divorce/etc, men are nearly always not the dependent one in relationships.

I don't think there's any disagreement on the principle reason for this, being that women are still seen as, and expected to be, the primary and dedicated carer, while men are still seen as, and expected to be, the primary and dedicated provider. As a society, we still tend to frown on women who take up that the provider role (once there are children) and especially men who take up the carer role.

This rigid perception means that women will tend to become stay-at-home homemakers and mothers, making them more often often financial dependants, and more likely to profit from a divorce, as well as gain custody of any children in that divorce. Meanwhile, it also means that they'll more likely suffer in their pursuit of any career, including being discriminated against in areas such as job applications.

Likely one will also find ingrained gender based prejudices by people; with many judges favouring women in family law and managers favouring men in businesses.

iptba wrote: »

I don't think exploring common individual non-single scenarios such as marriage is off-topic.

It is once you conclude that relationship status is, in reality, irrelevant.

Also, with the Civial Partnership and Cohabitation bill, even if one isn't married, rights and responsibilities can arise.

That's kind of the point when I said "because not being single does not mean being married".

Malarkey121 wrote: »

Yes it is off topic sorry my last post on the matter I don't think it is selling anyone bad advise its positivity and not being negative about so many things, each to their own I suppose.

Advising someone to be positive is not a bad thing. Advising someone to be naively positive is.

I actually have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer and given 6 -12 months to live by the experts and advised to get their affairs sorted, will etc... at the time that was 6 years ago and I speak to him regularly when he goes on Skype from where he lives now - he hasn't done so bad at all and is happiest I've ever seen him - just because you got bad news doesn't mean you have to stop and give up, aren't we all dead men / women walking - life is what happens in between that walking.

Not the point. I'm not suggesting one should not advise positivity in the face of 'bad news', but that one should not advise naive positivity in the face of risk. Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.

iptba · 29-11-2013 6:57pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

For whatever reason, judging by court rulings on separations/divorce/etc, men are nearly always not the dependent one in relationships.

I don't think there's any disagreement on the principle reason for this, being that women are still seen as, and expected to be, the primary and dedicated carer, while men are still seen as, and expected to be, the primary and dedicated provider. As a society, we still tend to frown on women who take up that the provider role (once there are children) and especially men who take up the carer role.

This rigid perception means that women will tend to become stay-at-home homemakers and mothers, making them more often often financial dependants, and more likely to profit from a divorce, as well as gain custody of any children in that divorce. Meanwhile, it also means that they'll more likely suffer in their pursuit of any career, including being discriminated against in areas such as job applications.

Likely one will also find ingrained gender based prejudices by people; with many judges favouring women in family law and managers favouring men in businesses.

There may be other reasons such as hypergamy i.e. just as women tend, on average, to look for men who are at least a tall if not taller than them, similarly they may commonly choose men who they think will earn as much if not more than them.

iptba · 29-11-2013 6:59pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I don't think exploring common individual non-single scenarios such as marriage is off-topic.

It is once you conclude that relationship status is, in reality, irrelevant.

Possible minuses of entering long-term relationships including marriage seem just as relevant as discussing possible pluses of such relationships.

The Corinthian · 29-11-2013 7:15pm

iptba wrote: »

There may be other reasons such as hypergamy i.e. just as women tend, on average, to look for men who are at least a tall if not taller than them, similarly they may commonly choose men who they think will earn as much if not more than them.

That's just another inevitable consequences of those perceived gender roles; if one expects to become a homemaker/carer, it's perfectly logical to seek a partner who will be best able to facilitate this financially.

It all really boils down to those roles and perceptions not really having been challenged all that much.

iptba wrote: »

Possible minuses of entering long-term relationships including marriage seem just as relevant as discussing possible pluses of such relationships.

Except that both are irrelevant to whether someone is better or worse off financially.

iptba · 29-11-2013 7:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Possible minuses of entering long-term relationships including marriage seem just as relevant as discussing possible pluses of such relationships.

Except that both are irrelevant to whether someone is better or worse off financially.

Being separated/divorced can affect one financially.

And it is far from clear this discussion was restricted to finances exclusively. Many/most of the responses have not interpreted the discussion that way.

The Corinthian · 29-11-2013 7:41pm

iptba wrote: »

Being separated/divorced can affect one financially.

Sure, but it can affect you either way, depending on whether you had or were the 'dependant' in the relationship. The entire discussion, however, is about how the relationship will always affect you in the same way financially.

And it is far from clear this discussion was restricted to finances exclusively. Many/most of the responses have not interpreted the discussion that way.

I thought it was very clear. If many/most of the responses have not interpreted the discussion that way, that's because the discussion has drifted from the original topic.

iptba · 29-11-2013 7:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Being separated/divorced can affect one financially.

Sure, but it can affect you either way, depending on whether you had or were the 'dependant' in the relationship. The entire discussion, however, is about how the relationship will always affect you in the same way financially.

But this is the Gentleman's Club. The probability is that if one is male, one is much less likely to be the dependent so it is relevant to point such things out.

pwurple · 29-11-2013 9:01pm

iptba wrote: »

But this is the Gentleman's Club. The probability is that if one is male, one is much less likely to be the dependent so it is relevant to point such things out.

Construction-based recession. Quite a lot of men lost their jobs in that industry and the related support sectors. Unemployment within males in last CSO stood at 17.5%, female at 10.4%. Now I know that's not a clear picture because more women than men will be 'working in the home' and not on the unemployment register, but it's something to consider.

Even within dual income relationships the split is estimated to have increased from ~10% women outearning their male partner, to 16% in the last few years.

So you are correct, it's less likely. But with 1 in 6 man earning less than his partner when both earn, plus the unemployment curve at the moment... it's not particularly rare.

iptba · 29-11-2013 11:04pm

pwurple wrote: »

iptba wrote:

But this is the Gentleman's Club. The probability is that if one is male, one is much less likely to be the dependent so it is relevant to point such things out.

Construction-based recession. Quite a lot of men lost their jobs in that industry and the related support sectors. Unemployment within males in last CSO stood at 17.5%, female at 10.4%. Now I know that's not a clear picture because more women than men will be 'working in the home' and not on the unemployment register, but it's something to consider.

Even within dual income relationships the split is estimated to have increased from ~10% women outearning their male partner, to 16% in the last few years.

So you are correct, it's less likely. But with 1 in 6 man earning less than his partner when both earn, plus the unemployment curve at the moment... it's not particularly rare.

That reminds me. Research suggests if a man becoming unemployed, it increases the chances of divorce, but not if a woman becomes unemployed
http://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

Sauve · 29-11-2013 11:16pm

iptba wrote: »

That reminds me. Research suggests if a man becoming unemployed, it increases the chances of divorce, but not if a woman becomes unemployed
http://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

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

Single life, financially better off?

Comments