Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
User avatar
kpanghmc
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by kpanghmc »

Stupendous wrote:Seems odd to me as I don't see much difference between a never been married versus a was married person.


When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
Stupendous wrote:Technically the was married person should have never gotten married anyways.
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".

A divorce simply indicates that two people no longer wish to be married to each other. It doesn't necessarily make the time they spent together a waste.
Kevin
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21282
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ »

kpanghmc wrote:A divorce simply indicates that two people no longer wish to be married to each other.
It means a little bit more than that.

But I don't judge until you've been divorced 2-3+ times.
yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria »

kpanghmc wrote:When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
America's a pretty big place. That certainly isn't the case in the more educated, enlightened parts of it.

Nick
User avatar
kpanghmc
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by kpanghmc »

yobria wrote:
kpanghmc wrote:When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
America's a pretty big place. That certainly isn't the case in the more educated, enlightened parts of it.

Nick
I disagree. You may see less of this in more "educated, enlightened" parts of America, but it has not disappeared entirely.

Here's a recent study that indicates single women over 25 still feel the "spinster stigma": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110057.htm

And here's a far more subjective article on the stigma of the never married man: http://www.details.com/sex-relationship ... arried-man
Kevin
User avatar
kpanghmc
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by kpanghmc »

rrosenkoetter wrote:
kpanghmc wrote:A divorce simply indicates that two people no longer wish to be married to each other.
It means a little bit more than that.
I'm curious. What else does it mean?
Kevin
yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria »

kpanghmc wrote:
yobria wrote:
kpanghmc wrote:When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
America's a pretty big place. That certainly isn't the case in the more educated, enlightened parts of it.

Nick
kpanghmc wrote:I disagree. You may see less of this in more "educated, enlightened" parts of America, but it has not disappeared entirely.
Oh, I'm sure you can find a person or two anywhere that latches on to this nonsense, just like you can still find racist people in America.

All I can say is, if you live in a place where such views are prevalent, consider moving.

Nick
stoptothink
Posts: 15368
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am

Post by stoptothink »

sschullo wrote:Yes, it is wealth building IF you have similar values of frugality and money values and don't get divorced.
That's a big if . My on-going divorce is literally setting me back 10yrs(we were married a total of 13 months) financially; and our split is 100% about money(her unwillingness to live within our means while she was a full-time student and me the sole provider).
beareconomy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:01 am

Post by beareconomy »

Not if you marry Kim Kardashian. Up front it costs a 2 million dollar ring, especially from a guy who makes 3 million a year.
User avatar
Exige
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:58 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Post by Exige »

Seems like a lot of marriages should not have happened in the first place. People jump into it without living with the other person or really knowing them.

blows my mind after people get married they find out the other person is a spend O holic , or hates kids and they want them etc etc.....

I have friends who have gotten married with there first girlfriend of 3 months at age 25 etc....... I know people say when you know you know but there is no way in hell I would "know" someone after 3 months and without living with them.
User avatar
paddyshack
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:49 pm

Post by paddyshack »

It's been wealth building for me. Before I was married, I spent money I made chasing women and on toys for my free time. Once I got married, we both became much more frugal, endeavoring to build our lives together, saving for children and retirement. So the marriage itself I'm sure will be a net liability, but the mindset change it brought-about in us has been one that has resulted in a significantly increased wealth accumulation rate.

The risk of divorce for anyone is simply a wealth destroyer. I recommend finding someone who believes marriage vows mean something, understand that marriage means sacrificing ones own wants for the good of a family to a large degree, and has the intestinal fortitude to fight through things rather than quite when things get tough. And of course, the same goes for you.
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber »

beareconomy wrote:Not if you marry Kim Kardashian. Up front it costs a 2 million dollar ring, especially from a guy who makes 3 million a year.
Yes, some things in life can be bought (and I don't mean the ring)...
User avatar
kpanghmc
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by kpanghmc »

hsv_climber wrote:
beareconomy wrote:Not if you marry Kim Kardashian. Up front it costs a 2 million dollar ring, especially from a guy who makes 3 million a year.
Yes, some things in life can be bought (and I don't mean the ring)...
Not to get sidetracked, but you both do realize that Kim Kardashian has a higher net worth and makes more money than her fiancee, right? If anyone benefited financially from that engagement, it was the guy. In other words, I don't think the $2 million ring was what got her to say "yes".
Kevin
User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3485
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Post by 3CT_Paddler »

yobria wrote:
kpanghmc wrote:When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
America's a pretty big place. That certainly isn't the case in the more educated, enlightened parts of it.

Nick
No offense, but every group has their hang ups... even the "enlightened" ones.
User avatar
Daffy
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:05 pm

Post by Daffy »

kpanghmc wrote:When people hear that a 40-50 year old has never been married, they often wonder "Why not? What's wrong with him/her that has kept him/her from getting married?". It's not fair, but that's how it is (at least in American culture anyway).
I'm 43, retired, never married, no kids. I spent 20-years in banking after earning my degree in finance and MBA, and now I'm very wealthy because I saved my butt off. No way I'd be retired at 43 if I got married and had kids.

That said, I never married because I never found a woman that would even talk to me in 30 years. Seriously. The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".

I will tell you that staying single was not by choice in my case, and that's probably true for many women and men. No one wants to be lonely their entire adult life.

For me it was meant to be, and I've accepted that as my fate. If people want to consider that weird or creepy or "that there's something wrong with me" then so be it.
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber »

kpanghmc wrote: Not to get sidetracked, but you both do realize that Kim Kardashian has a higher net worth and makes more money than her fiancee, right? If anyone benefited financially from that engagement, it was the guy. In other words, I don't think the $2 million ring was what got her to say "yes".
Is not that the proof that marriage benefits men?
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber »

Daffy wrote:The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".
Take a look at the online dating thread on this forum. There are some good advices there. Also, it is hard for females to see what car you drive during initial contacts on online sites. :wink:
raddle
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:41 pm
Location: West TN

Post by raddle »

Marriage has not been wealth-building for me. Her income is lower and her 'needs' are greater than mine. But thankfully I do not measure my life solely by wealth.
chdavis
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:48 pm

Post by chdavis »

A close friend of my father once said to me, "You can make more money at the alter than you can in a lifetime of working."

As fate would have it, I am engage to marry a beautiful girl whose family's finances are similar to my own.
epilnk
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:05 pm

Post by epilnk »

Daffy wrote:I'm 43, retired, never married, no kids. I spent 20-years in banking after earning my degree in finance and MBA, and now I'm very wealthy because I saved my butt off. No way I'd be retired at 43 if I got married and had kids.

That said, I never married because I never found a woman that would even talk to me in 30 years. Seriously. The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".

I will tell you that staying single was not by choice in my case, and that's probably true for many women and men. No one wants to be lonely their entire adult life.

For me it was meant to be, and I've accepted that as my fate. If people want to consider that weird or creepy or "that there's something wrong with me" then so be it.
Daffy, 43 is far too young to hang it up. There are plenty of people who don't manage to pair off until their 40s for whatever reason. If you're not an average guy you need to find a not average girl, pushing you further out on the probability curve. But your soulmate is probably out there somewhere wondering what on earth she's doing wrong. So get a move on, she's tired of waiting for you. :)

You want to know what you are doing wrong? You've got money - pay someone to tell you. It's not your car, trust me. But maybe you make a poor first impression. I know a guy who would get nervous and tell off color jokes - bad move. But he's a great guy who eventually found a great girl.
chicagobear
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:12 pm

Post by chicagobear »

chdavis wrote:A close friend of my father once said to me, "You can make more money at the alter than you can in a lifetime of working."

As fate would have it, I am engage to marry a beautiful girl whose family's finances are similar to my own.
I've seen some unhappy guys who are dependent on their wives' wealthy families for their standard of living. I can think of several who got divorced. I wouldn't be very happy married to a woman who was mega rich when I wasn't. In the event of divorce, your wife and children would be rich (assuming it is her family money) and you wouldn't be.
User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet »

chicagobear wrote:I've seen some unhappy guys who are dependent on their wives' wealthy families for their standard of living. I can think of several who got divorced. I wouldn't be very happy married to a woman who was mega rich when I wasn't. In the event of divorce, your wife and children would be rich (assuming it is her family money) and you wouldn't be.
My grandmother used to say, "if you marry for money, you'll end up working for it one way or another".

I'd be happy just finding someone who was reasonably levelheaded about money (earn more than you spend, etc). Net worth wouldn't matter to me as much, I don't think. I wouldn't mind if they earned less than I did as long as they didn't have a problem with it. More wouldn't be a probem for me.

-Janet
User avatar
bru
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:32 pm

Post by bru »

Daffy wrote:That said, I never married because I never found a woman that would even talk to me in 30 years. Seriously. The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".

I will tell you that staying single was not by choice in my case, and that's probably true for many women and men. No one wants to be lonely their entire adult life.

For me it was meant to be, and I've accepted that as my fate. If people want to consider that weird or creepy or "that there's something wrong with me" then so be it.
My story was similar until I finally connected with someone at exactly your age. We got married a year later. Hindsight being 20/20 I can honestly say being single wasn't so bad. It certainly was better from a financial standpoint. Companionship is good but you can have a companion without being married. If you want to find someone you will, just think twice about getting married.
yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria »

bru wrote:Companionship is good but you can have a companion without being married. If you want to find someone you will, just think twice about getting married.
Yep, just like you can have a meaningful job without signing a contract stating you're going to spend the rest of your life working there.

Nick
bhmlurker
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:16 pm

Post by bhmlurker »

For those who fear losing wealth after marriage, let me relate what someone once told me: 'You always have to pay with money, time/attention, or a combination of the two".

If the man/woman looks good and dresses well, chances are they spend a good amount of money and/or time to do so, and there's a cost associated with that.

If the person is wealthy because they spend a lot of time at work, then they'll have less time to spend with you.

There's simply no free lunch. My advice would be to go for someone who manages money and spends money as similar to you as possible. Make sure his/her family isn't screwed up, or he/she is willing to back you up to the point of being disowned. Make sure the person wants 0/1/2/3+ children, just like you. Make sure the person feels the same way about spanking/not spanking children. Make sure the person is of the same religion as you, or is accepting of yous. If these important things match, everything else is negotiable.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Post by VictoriaF »

Daffy wrote:That said, I never married because I never found a woman that would even talk to me in 30 years. Seriously. The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".
Not generalizing women would be a good start.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Post by Rodc »

VictoriaF wrote:
Daffy wrote:That said, I never married because I never found a woman that would even talk to me in 30 years. Seriously. The longest I ever dated someone in my life was 2 weeks, and that was probably back in my mid-20's. Was it my looks, my personality, my career choice, my family, the car I drive, how I dress, etc. that turned women off? Did I fail all of the superficial or artificial qualities that females are attracted to? I have no idea. Only they know, but I tried. And foolishly I'm still trying, to no prevail. So yea, obviously there must be "something wrong with me".
Not generalizing women would be a good start.

Victoria
Yes. That jumped right out.

I am an average guy and did not get around to getting married for one reason or the other until age 38, though I had a number of short and long term girl friends.

But for just regular old me, finding women to talk to is as easy walking, turning a decent first date is not much harder. Once you figure out dating relationships just happen.

If after 30 years you have mastered none of this, something really is wrong. You must have crossed paths with thousands of women. If you care, spend some of that money on some therapy.

If you are interested in having relationships, 43 is way too young to give up. In any other aspect of life if we want to learn something we can find someone to teach us, coach us, point us in the right direction.

Best of luck.

To the OP, asking if marriage helps build wealth is to miss the point.

Reminds me of the old joke: An economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
User avatar
OnFire
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:48 pm

Post by OnFire »

I found myself a sugar Momma. One with a doctoral degree. And a very expensive student loan. So while eventually she should be wealth building, her spending habits before we got married and a hefty monthly student loan bill keeps it from being much of a wealth building institution so far.

As as that part of the demographics that seem to be running toward no divorce, I seem to qualify for all of them:

Her:

Post age 25
College degree
Own income
Catholic (and Catholic education for 16 years).
Conservative Morally and politically

Looks like I'm stuck with her (and glad to be :-))
Where are all the customers yachts? | | “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.” -Albert Einstein
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Post by TomatoTomahto »

re-thought post
Last edited by TomatoTomahto on Mon May 30, 2011 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Post by TomatoTomahto »

PS To original question: first marriage, neutral to negative financially, second marriage, positive financially.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

One is enough

Post by VictoriaF »

kpanghmc wrote:A divorce simply indicates that two people no longer wish to be married to each other.
Or one person no longer wishes to be married to the other.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
SGM
Posts: 3341
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by SGM »

Yes if you marry a woman smarter than yourself. :sharebeer
"Let us endeavor, so to live, that when we die, even the undertaker will be sorry." Mark Twain
dewey
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:42 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by dewey »

In terms of statistics, it's hard to gauge the divorce rate of religions (Catholics among them), that won't recognize a divorce automatically. The religious stigma is a disincentive for many who are devout. A related question to this post would be the condition of marriage generally, and then how that might relate to wealth creation. With the divorce rate roughly 1 out of 2, that is up from 1900 when it was roughly 1 of 17. And while there are multiple 'marryers' and 'divorcers' who inflate the data, so do all those who marry but never divorce not because they'd love to--but because they fear being ostracized by their religion (have we included the Amish for example). And there are many others--hard to calculate--in a modern society where women are no longer property--who never married but entered into long term commitments with joint property, children, etc., whose 'divorces' never enter into the data set because they weren't married. Then there are all those marriages that should be extinguished due to dysfunction, but for whatever reasons remain intact, yet they add to the total of marriages that have clearly failed. Unless we abide by a very strict definition of marriage it's difficult to tabulate which ones should be counted in a tabulation of wealth enhancement. But taken as a gross total, the concept would appear to be in dire straits. Which is why it needs increasing 'defending' via laws and constitutional amendments. It's not under threat because gays want to do it too--it's simply reflecting a rapidly changing institution in a rapidly changing social context. The U.S. is not unique in this regard.
“The only freedom that is of enduring importance is freedom of intelligence…” John Dewey
wander
Posts: 4424
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:10 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by wander »

Two above average income sources and no kids: sure!
User avatar
GregLee
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:54 pm
Location: Waimanalo, HI

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by GregLee »

Yes, it worked that way for me. My wife and I had parallel careers and wound up in retirement with similar incomes and resources. So, now we have together twice what either would have had apart.
Greg, retired 8/10.
epilnk
Posts: 2717
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by epilnk »

Perhaps we can agree that marriage can be a wealth modification institution. With the outcome depending of course on how well you do it.
hicabob
Posts: 3796
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: cruz

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by hicabob »

Sometimes divorce can be wealth building too. In my case - I was married but had been laid off after making very good $$$ for decades - so started a biz - first couple years tough - negative income then zero income - other stresses too - The big D happens - I pay an even mill to settle - biz then takes off - sold 8 years later and I'm fat, happy and loaded.
staythecourse
Posts: 6993
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:40 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by staythecourse »

I didn't go through all the posts on this thread, but it disturbs me that some folks on this site see EVERYTHING in life as $$$. Marriage, like many aspects of one life, don't always have to be about the bottom dollar.

If one is asking about marriage in their viewpoint of finances I feel bad for them. Marriage is about love, companionship, and for most rasing a family together. It is about having a purpose in one's life. Basically, investing and making money should be about bettering one's life and marriage and not the other way around.

Like any other decision in your life marriage should be a seriously considered. The problems I have seen is when folks who are getting married have not (I think subconsciously they don't want to) discuss viewpoints on finances, raising kids, what to do with aging parents, etc.. BEFORE deciding on marriage.

Good luck.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” | -Jack Bogle
User avatar
GregLee
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:54 pm
Location: Waimanalo, HI

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by GregLee »

hicabob wrote:The big D happens - I pay an even mill to settle - biz then takes off - sold 8 years later and I'm fat, happy and loaded.
Do you send her "Wish you were here" postcards?
Greg, retired 8/10.
stoptothink
Posts: 15368
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by stoptothink »

staythecourse wrote:I didn't go through all the posts on this thread, but it disturbs me that some folks on this site see EVERYTHING in life as $$$. Marriage, like many aspects of one life, don't always have to be about the bottom dollar.

If one is asking about marriage in their viewpoint of finances I feel bad for them. Marriage is about love, companionship, and for most rasing a family together. It is about having a purpose in one's life. Basically, investing and making money should be about bettering one's life and marriage and not the other way around.

Like any other decision in your life marriage should be a seriously considered. The problems I have seen is when folks who are getting married have not (I think subconsciously they don't want to) discuss viewpoints on finances, raising kids, what to do with aging parents, etc.. BEFORE deciding on marriage.

Good luck.
I never even thought about it, until of course my marriage dissolved...because, to my surprise, once daddy was no longer paying her bills we had completely different viewpoints regarding money. I spent most of my savings putting her through school then lost half of the rest in the divorce, but I'd do it again because I(at the time) would have much rather been poor with her than wealthy without her. From my observations, money is only a consideration when it doesn't work out. I'll give it another go some day, regardless of the possible risks to my net worth.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by VictoriaF »

staythecourse wrote:I didn't go through all the posts on this thread, but it disturbs me that some folks on this site see EVERYTHING in life as $$$. Marriage, like many aspects of one life, don't always have to be about the bottom dollar.

If one is asking about marriage in their viewpoint of finances I feel bad for them. Marriage is about love, companionship, and for most rasing a family together. It is about having a purpose in one's life. Basically, investing and making money should be about bettering one's life and marriage and not the other way around.
The investment risk can be reduced by diversification. In contrast, marriage is a concentrated risk. The wealth-building potential is the risk premium, but the down side plays out at least half the time.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
getRichSlower
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by getRichSlower »

Marriage, if you're in your 20s, is mostly a neutral proposition as far as wealth building, assuming a family where both the husband and wife work full time and that most people tend to marry within their own socio-economic class. Yes, a divorce could halve your wealth, but being dual-income should have allowed you to save almost twice as much as if you were single. Yes, children can be expensive, but unlike the 1950s, it is so common to have children outside of wedlock, so in the average case, your number of children is mostly independent of your decision to get married.
User avatar
momar
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:51 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by momar »

VictoriaF wrote:The investment risk can be reduced by diversification. In contrast, marriage is a concentrated risk. The wealth-building potential is the risk premium, but the down side plays out at least half the time.

Victoria
Are you suggesting the 11th tenet of Bogleheadism ought to be polygamy?
"Index funds have a place in your portfolio, but you'll never beat the index with them." - Words of wisdom from a Fidelity rep
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by VictoriaF »

momar wrote:
VictoriaF wrote:The investment risk can be reduced by diversification. In contrast, marriage is a concentrated risk. The wealth-building potential is the risk premium, but the down side plays out at least half the time.

Victoria
Are you suggesting the 11th tenet of Bogleheadism ought to be polygamy?
I would not suggest anything to disadvantage my male colleagues. :wink:
Wikipedia on Polygamy wrote:David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that does not provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.
Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by hsv_climber »

momar wrote: Are you suggesting the 11th tenet of Bogleheadism ought to be polygamy?
I would not suggest anything to disadvantage my male colleagues. :wink:
It is quite the opposite. David Friedman and Steve Sailer are pretty clear that Polygamy will benefit male bogleheads, since (as polls show) posters on this board are financially within the top 10%.
User avatar
momar
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:51 am

Re: Is marriage a wealth-building institution?

Post by momar »

VictoriaF wrote:
momar wrote:
VictoriaF wrote:The investment risk can be reduced by diversification. In contrast, marriage is a concentrated risk. The wealth-building potential is the risk premium, but the down side plays out at least half the time.

Victoria
Are you suggesting the 11th tenet of Bogleheadism ought to be polygamy?
I would not suggest anything to disadvantage my male colleagues. :wink:
Wikipedia on Polygamy wrote:David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that does not provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.
Victoria
I'm not suggesting only men practice polygamy. These are modern times!
"Index funds have a place in your portfolio, but you'll never beat the index with them." - Words of wisdom from a Fidelity rep
Post Reply