As a very poor divorced single mom, I will suggest this is not entirely bad news. Poor people used to marry as their only hope of surviving and this often left them stuck in dysfunctional and unhappy relationships.

I would rather be single than forced into a miserable and possibly abusive relationship as my only hope of survival.

The upper classes have something of a tendency to view all details of lower class life like every single bit of it is terrible and more bad news. There is a tendency to never see any stats in any kind of positive light. If you are poor, well it must suck to be you and you must be a victim every step of the way.

I think that is problematic as a framing. I think discussions of issues impacting poor people really need more nuance than that.

I mean it's the general fault in all the communication of politicians and media since the late 70s that depict receivers of social security as beggars and undeserving and everybody who is poor is responsible for it themselves. I know this varies a bit from country to country, but even in Germany where we have a "strong" social security system (although it was weakened in the early 00s), the general public's opinion is receivers of social benefits are freeloaders, even among poor people.

Although studies show time and again that even if you are able to become a higher-earner, it still won't make you rich. The strongest indication for wealth is inheritance. And the top percent (owners, not earners) also pay less tax per wealth. So why are they not depicted as freeloaders?

Probably in part because hanging on to wealth involves some degree of stewardship. Inheriting wealth is the best way to get rich, but you can inherit wealth, run through your inheritance and end up a pauper in short order.

Of course, that's abusable because "he who has the gold makes the rules." People from wealthy families tend to be in a better position than poor people to influence the laws that get written and this tends to foster a situation where "them that has, gets."

This is something we need to guard against. In order to have a healthy society, we need to actively work at making sure that being born into the lower classes (or falling into them) isn't a trap because of wealthy people actively sabotaging the efforts of poor people to build something of value and accrue value to themselves legitimately.

I'm not for UBI because it breaks that connection between wealth and the creation of value. It actively encourages people to forget how to be productive in a way that is plugged into the larger system (I'm a former homemaker -- I assure you, knowing how to be productive in a way that is good for your own life doesn't automatically teach you how to be productive in a way that plugs you into the world of paid work).

In order for human society to continue to have wealth, there must be incentives for all humans to find ways to add value to the system. One of the ways to add value to the system is with good stewardship.

It may not seem obviously like a skill, but I spent some time reading every article and watching every TV show I could about what happens to lottery winners and two-thirds are bankrupt within five years. So simply being handed a whole lot of money doesn't, per se, tell you how to keep it.

The concept of UBI is a concept of wealth as a giant pile of gold somewhere that we can just tap into. It's a broken mental model.

Societal wealth is an abundance of goods and services and it takes human wisdom and human effort and human self restraint to make sure societal wealth lives on and doesn't disappear suddenly. Once it's gone, it's a lot harder to recreate than it is to maintain the existence of.

I think UBI is a recipe for killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs. Our challenge currently in the world is to figure out where to go from here without doing that.

Stewardship (without being an abusive classist asshole crapping all over the lower classes and treating them as your de facto slaves) is a valid part of finding those solutions so we can foster a golden age instead of stumbling into a dark age as our next stage.

IMO, it’s worth it because we can’t halt progress because of socio-economic road blocks.

The amount of productivity and time lost fighting over piddling sums of money in a country that has trillion dollar budgets is not worth it.

Better to institute UBI if that will reduce noise. I used to be against UBI, but once that seed of free money has been planted, it’s going to be difficult to eradicate that weed seed bank. Thanks to start ups( hello, YC!) who experimented with giving out free money. Time to pay up and move on.

Inflation is merely the rise in price when demand exceeds supply. Since consumer inflation is dead it follows that there is an abundance of goods, primarily because companies have access to a lot of capital but they don't have to deploy that capital in the USA or Europe and actually employ workers there. They can simply deploy it in countries with low labor costs. In principle that is perfectly fine because countries like India and China deserve to grow but in practice it means that a lot of the money printing is completely misguided. It's like taking the wrong medicine. It won't cure you but you will still suffer from side effects. The end result is a lot of overalued stocks without any of the economic performance to justify their market cap.

Instead of a UBI it would make sense to have jobs programs that invest into public infrastructure like road maintenance or into the power grid. Those jobs cannot be shipped away to another country and they are the type of "busywork" that is actually useful without directly competing with private industry.

A previous comment by me:

I'm trying to say something like: When your caterpillar morphs into a butterfly, harping on how your butterfly is "failing to thrive according to standard, well-established caterpillar metrics used globally for the past thousand years and certified as super duper accurate for caterpillars by many respected institutions." is basically gibberish that says damn near nothing about the state of the butterfly's actual health for which we have zero established metrics, having never seen one before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22028732

I'm trying to figure out how to write more about that and mostly failing.

Though I do like your idea of investing in infrastructure. I'm trying to figure out how to provide planning and economic development resources and services to small communities and I really appreciate your observation as food for thought for that effort.

Nevertheless, I do think we know (for the most part) what is going on. It's just that we reached feudal times again (never left them?), where decisions are made by our rulers and as long as the great ruler of america and the great ruler of china are friends, then there is no war. And everything else is waged on the backs of 'The People'. Or something.

On a more serious note, the above comment mentions a job guarantee. That is part of Kelton's MMT proposal. There are two things I don't like about it:

1. MMT is called a theory, but it's actually a descriptive model, and it has shown in the last 3 decades, that it is quite the acurate model. 2. Kelton conflates what MMT teaches us about monetary politics and fiat currencies with her own agenda, namely the job guarantee. And it's hard to argue against the latter, when you acknowledge the first. And that is only possible, because MMT is called a 'theory'.

Nevertheless, I believe you are right DoreenMichele, that we as humans should never stand still. I don't think I could 'not work'. As such a universal job guarantee or public programs are scary to me, because although I like work and won't stop anytime soon, I feel like this will be abused by politicians to cement long working hours. And while I do like work, I think less working hours per person is what we should thrive for. This is a conflict in my head.

I am a fan of UBI, because I don't see myself stopping to work anytime soon, and it would have just relieved me of a lot of stress when I grew up with basically nothing. At the same time, I can see that there are jobs people might not pick up if they had sufficient UBI. Thus these jobs need MUCH higher pay. Because the people doing them (mostly) do them out of passion.

Where does it lead us? Unfortunately where we have always been: the very classical class fight. It's not a grand conspiracy theory, there is no one controlling entity with one mind, but in general laws and law making are skewed towards "havers". Which you might as well just call our new feudal lords.

And until we put up some sorts of guards against (too much) abuse of power, dismantling of democracy, opaque deal-making and abusement of the planet's resources (especially without pay or even subsidized) I don't see it ending anytime soon.

I see this a lot in India where a young woman quickly gets out of a bad relationship and then prefers to be alone than in a bad relationship as she has more economic independence now.

Commitment and "sticking it out" is a topic onto itself. Love is sacrifice and marriage is a (hopefully rewarding) job (personal opinion, YMMV, this paragraph comes from several years of counseling and ~15 years of marriage). You want a cofounder who is going to work on the relationship and and stick it out with you, not one who is going to bounce whenever life gets hard. Marriage is just enough friction to not leave on a whim, but not so much friction you can't dissolve the partnership when necessary.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/ (Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education)

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/divorce-d... (Divorce Destroys Finances of Americans Over 50, Studies Show)

I agree with your overall comment. It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum. So if it is financially devastating for one party, it tends to be a financial windfall for the other. Divorces can be equitable, or they can be lopsided, but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

What? No. After a divorce, total costs across both parties go up because resources can no longer be shared: one party needs new housing, possibly a new car, possibly needs to get their own health insurance rather than being on the other's plan, etc. Not to mention both parties have to buy anew whatever goods (cookware, television, etc.) the other person got.

Even completely amicable divorce destroys a tremendous amount of wealth.

Cramming 4 working adults into a two bedroom house is a big efficiency increase. So the first thing a newly single person should be doing is looking for a roommate to share a tv and washing machine and 1/2 the cost of housing.

That said, I can't think of a single case where anyone I knew in their 30-50's who got divorced did anything but go out and buy their own personal house to live in by themselves.

I see this more often than one would expect. Most recently (older, but not senior, couple married for decades), one party did not agree with the other (amicable party offered 50/50, other party was spiteful), and ~$200k in value was destroyed through legal fees...to arrive at a 50/50 split.

Divorces can be amicable, but the frequency of this happening is not insignificant. Without a prenuptial agreement, you're rolling the dice. Do you feel lucky?

AMEN! I could not agree with this statement more. If people had a firm grasp of this concept, the divorce rate will be even lower or maybe some might even decide not to marry in the first place cos they are too self-centered for that level of sacrifice.

Without children, marriage is ephemeral.

The need to formalise a relationship with a marriage ceremony is traditionally linked to religion.

Without religion, children or a stable income, why would a person need or want to get married?

When I was in my late 20s, I also had good chemistry with a female friend who was 32 or 33. She hinted pretty strongly on several occasions that she thought we'd make a good couple. Unfortunately, she had a poor relationship with her father which is a no-go for me due to past bad experiences. I remember she confided in me that she felt like she needed to start looking to date guys in their late 40s/early 50s. She was good looking and a graduate student at Columbia University at the time. A lot of women in their mid 30s who should have very good dating prospects have a lot of stress about being passed over for younger women, and unfortunately they're often not wrong to worry.

If you can't imagine leaving your partner for someone else, and they're worried about being left because they're seeing their friends getting left, words are cheap and your partner will know it. If you can't imagine leaving your partner, then there aren't many downsides to getting married, and your partner will also know this.

Of course, there are others in different situations, but that's the experience of me, my wife, some of my wife's single female friends, and some of my single female friends in their mid-30s. Several of them very pleasant good looking women with graduate degrees from Ivy League schools and good careers.

So, for me, I had gotten a bit tired of the dating scene, really liked my partner, couldn't imagine breaking up, and knew my parter was getting anxious. For us, it was a good move, and has made our relationship much stronger.

Genuinely curious why this was (for you) a leading indicator of a bad relationship?

I've had one girlfriend who was essentially abandoned by her father and another whose father was essentially indifferent to her emotional well being or success in life. It was pretty obvious that at least for both of them, they always had a nagging feeling that I seemed to love and support them, but maybe it was just a charade. After noticing the connection, I actively sought out women with supportive fathers who clearly cared for their daughters.

My father-in-law is strict, but unquestionably supportive of my wife. My wife talks to her dad on the phone at least 5 times per week. When we were first dating, I consciously asked my wife about her father and watched her body language and listened to the way she talked about him.

Even early in our dating, my wife was far more likely to have a charitable interpretation of my actions/motivations vs. my ex-girlfriends whose fathers showed little evidence of caring. On the other hand, my wife still calls me 2-3 times per day at work, but it's a small price to pay for her subconsciously believing I genuinely have an altruistic interest in her well being.

Edit: there's also a heavy dose of cultural and personal context here. Her calling isn't being needy, but feeling culturally duty-bound. In her home country, as the only daughter, it's considered her responsibility to take care of her parents. Her brother lives 5 minutes from the parents, and he makes sure they're taken care of, but my wife feels a bit guilty living in another country and wants to make sure her parents don't feel abandoned. One of her father's sisters married an American, moved to the U.S., and slowly lost touch with the rest of the family, so she wants to ease any anxiety her parents have around that. Also, as much as I remind her that it's not her job to cook, as soon as she finishes lunch (at her place of work), she feels like a bad wife if she doesn't consult with me about what she should cook for dinner and what time she should start cooking to have dinner perfectly timed for my return from work. I've tried a bit to get her to stop asking what I want for dinner, but you can't change a person, and it is very sweet, other than it makes me feel a bit awkward. She cooks and I clean, and she finds cooking a good way to de-stress after work, but I still feel a bit bad that she feels like it's her duty to cook. She also talks with her brother's kids one or two times a week to help get them practice with their English. She's really trying to help out her whole family and keep everyone connected across the miles. Thailand: land of spicy food and sweet people.

I wonder if there is any standard place I can put the information on what to do if I am on brink of death somewhere so hospitals know to check for it.

They were applying for jobs in the same place, same people interviewing them etc. People didnt know they were dating.

When they found out he was partnered, they treated it very seriously, as if they were in a committed relationship, deserving of protection etc. When they found out she was partnered, it was different, he was just a boyfriend of who knows what status etc.

They decided to get married after that experience.

As others have noted, the purpose of marriage is to protect the relationship, but what that really means is protecting each other. In some cases this means ensuring equity of treatment.

Similar cases have shown up with COVID. Every couple of months this year I've listened to news stories about couples dealing with cross border restrictions on being able to see each other. The last one included a couple who had been together for years and were despairing about the fact that protections of border crossing only extended to married couples. I'm not suggesting judgement should be cast on them for not being married, as that's between them, but it's another example of how representing the significance of the relationship to the state can have consequences.

For some, publicly declaring your commitment to one another can have a powerful affect on the relationship. It can communicate a shared vision and commitment for a lifetime. It is not requisite for that commitment, but it leverages cultural support structures that can help keep a relationship healthy.

For me personally, I believe marriage provides a couple with an important concept that they are part of something greater than themselves. This is not an exclusively religious idea (I consider myself an atheist). When times are difficult (and they will be over the course of a lifetime), this bond can help a relationship survive when otherwise the pressure to give up can be significant.

It is that way because it was the default for a long time. Now it is shifting and it will take time for society to adjust to this new reality.

Look into the marriage tax penalty, in some situations you will pay more (both high income earners)

I suppose there are legal reasons to get married.

I don't think most people get married for tax reasons.

The financial devastation of divorce in a period of economic uncertainty makes marriage a very poor long-term value proposition. You can't really protect yourself from a predatory divorce in any way that will withstand a legal challenge.

Younger adults seeking independence should be very wary of "marriage". Love and relationship can exist in a healthier way outside of the sunken-cost fallacy.

An economic union only makes sense if the terms of rupture are clear and fair. A romantic union only makes sense if there is love. To confuse these two types of union is a huge mistake.

Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

Parental laws already don't require marriage as factor.

If two people are going to stay together, a piece if paper telling them they're officially together.doesn't make any difference and if two people are going to separate, some paper's likely not going to stop it.

"Marriage is a contract" isn't just a catchphrase, it's literally a contract and serves exactly the same purpose as a business contract.

See how this statement sounds: "If 2 businesses are going to keep doing business together, a piece of paper telling them officially doing business together doesn't make any difference and if 2 business are going to break their engagements, some paper's likely not going to stop it"

In a sense everything above is true, but yet, a businesses wouldn't enter an important business deal without a contract.

Marriage can be seen similarly, when you sign the contract you are doing so with expectations : "this person makes me happy, I'm ok combining forces to go further"/"this business partnership makes me increase my profits, I'm ok doing this deal with them"

Both marriages and business deal can go sour. People change, business constraints change. Getting the right provisions in a contract makes sense in both cases.

Both people getting married and businesses striking a deal don't enter the contract with the hope that they will have to break the contract.

Both know they can break the contract if needed, with effect somewhat known.

This is why gays have fought for the right. They got tired of co-mingling their finances, buying a house together and then having one partner thrown out into the street with little more than the clothes on their back when one of them died and the parents (or nearest blood relative) inherited the house.

This is a lot less obvious in practice than it seems. Fair-weather 'partnership' isn't really rare. Unless it has been tested at times of adversity it is hard to predict how people would react. A piece of paper does not ensure that the relationship will be anything but of the fair-weather variety, with one ready to jump ship at first signs of bad times, it does give one an opportunity to reflect on the gravity of the promise and vows and the public nature of the promise gives it some air of barrier to dissolution.

Sounds to me you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as it specifies the default set of conditions and requirements that are applied to both parties, and also the rights and obligations of both parties in case of a contract resolution and even breach of contract.

> This is why prenuptial agreements can sometimes be a touchy subject, since it breaks that assumption of complete trust.

Again, it sounds like you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as its the original (and baseline) prenuptial agreement.

Just ask Jeff Besos!

We had already been together for over 10 years, but getting married was a commitment to each other that we'll try our hardest to make things work. It adds another layer of stability which is important for planning kids, careers, finances, and so forth. We can make choices as though our relationship will still exist X years down the line -- this isn't necessarily true, of course, but in the medium-term it becomes a reasonable assumption.

It also brought us closer. Mutually agreeing to be each other's life partners is a big step. I don't have to worry that my partner is going to choose their career over me or vice-versa. We've both decided to put our relationship first, which causes a subtle-but-important shift in your relationship.

- DNA tests did not exist. a guy could get a woman pregnant, not recognize the child and have no legal obligation to pay for child support. A woman could also trick a man to support a kid that is not his, but that's another story.

- Many women were housewives, and a separation would leave them, and potentially their kids, with nothing.

- The wedding ring serves the purpose of telling everyone around you that you are not single. People did not have an online presence that could help you infer this.

Weddings serve many purposes, it is not only a celebration, it is also informational, and wedding gifts can be considered an early form of crowdfunding.

Marriage guarantees legitimacy of children under the law and financially protects people. They are also great for historic purposes.

Many cultures have converged towards the same thing for a reason.

A 'marriage' is not a 'ceremony' or a 'piece of paper'.

It's not 'typical' for a ceremony be 'expensive' - that's a very modern construct. My grandparents went to the Church, got married, there was a banquet at the hall, people brought food. That's it.

But how hard is it to understand that people want to honour their commitment in some way?

"Why do we have big awards ceremonies for those people (artists, citizens, soldiers), it's so expensive!"

Some (most?) people would want to honour that commitment. Many people who don't, just don't find themselves in the right conditions, but would otherwise.

But beyond the ceremony, marriage is a social institution, not a 'piece of paper'.

(Personally, I have a hard time grasping why people struggle with this)

A marriage is something 'that is built', the ceremony is just part of that, it takes time, effort, input to build a relationship, it's not just 'something that happens'.

2. A marriage contractually binds you together in a lot of ways that are subtle but powerful. You share debts, you share risk, you share counsel. Your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you. While few people will ever encounter this scenario, the idea is powerful. Legally speaking, your spouse and you are a unit that cannot be turned against each other.

If marriage has no point, why has it lasted so long and is so widespread? The reasons are there if you look for them.

Do not underestimate the value to children in knowing/feeling that their situation has personal, familial and societal permanence, even if that permanence is somewhat illusory.

That is not to say there isn't value to childless people in marriage. But the value of it truly became meaningful to me once we had children. Conflicts with the spouse that could potentially lead to severance of the relationship tend to be diminished when the perspective of the children is taken into account.

> Why does my relationship need to be officially registered

There could be many reasons why couples get married, and many reasons why couples get divorced.

Otherwise people would never get married :)

[1] https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...

People disrespecting your relationship with your partner because they don't believe its serious is a source of low level obnoxiousness.

Even with a signed power of attorney, it's the norm the medical people will ignore the input of a non-married partner. Yes, you can fight them at the level of bureaucracy and eventually win, but in critical moments you'll be ignored.

Your relationship doesn't need bot be registered but there can be many advantages of doing so, both formal (estate/inheritance/tax/liability) and informal (respect).

I really have know idea why we do the official registration bit. Presumably it makes life easier for the bureaucrates, which I don't particularly mind. If you had a mariage cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without actually doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the few remaining places in the world where common-law marriage is still allowed, you can do precisely this. You essentially cohabitate for some amount of time (in my jurisdiction there is actually no set minimum time though I imagine the longer you live together the more legal water it holds) and then just tell people in public that you are married. No paperwork necessary.

I managed to make it four years under such an agreement with my partner doing things such as buying a house, relocating internationally, sharing taxes, finances and medical insurance, without actually needing paperwork. Relocating internationally was the trickiest, but after explanation to the new country of the law they were willing to accept the document that showed we bought a house together as evidence of our marriage.

Eventually this year we finally had to get some paperwork, forced to by, believe it or not, government bureaucrats who would absolutely not allow me to be placed under my partner’s medical insurance (government employee) without marriage documents. Fortunately our jurisdiction allows you to get a piece of paper that just says something like “We decided we were married on this date and the county affirms it”. The paper is stamped by the county and filed like typical marriage paperwork, takes about 5 minutes and does not require a judge.

Overall if someone wants the benefits of marriage without all of the pomp and circumstance and happens to be lucky enough to live in one of the jurisdictions where common law marriage is allowed, I can recommend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Ontario

The registration bit is the most important part, it’s not bureaucratic. For the same reason that you need to have documents drawn up to form a business partnership, it’s for when things go sideways. The registration is the proof that both parties entered into a contract, enforceable by the government.

The laws have gotten less strict, and the social stigma lessened, but the state tries to keep it together as well. You mentioned that a piece of paper won't keep them together, but in most US states, "fault" for a marriage breaking up still comes into play in things like deciding how a court will divide assets, etc., and historically, sometimes you couldn't even get a divorce without someone getting assigned fault.

If you don't want to, don't. It's not like this is a mandatory process for doing anything in 21st century.

What the official registering does affect is finance: tax, shared properties, healthcare plans, etc.

Marriage doesn't always let you live in your spouse's country (some countries have income thresholds, which must suck when both spouses have countries that won't let the other in), but it significantly increases the chance of being allowed to live together for many people.

As a paramedic, if you're conscious you'll typically get asked upon admission, "If anyone calls are we allowed to tell them you're here, and do you have any specific desires about visitors?".

If you're unconscious or unable to elucidate these things (which often correlate to the more serious end of the spectrum), not so much.

Her telling them that she was my husband instantly resolved the problem, no questions asked. It's not like they have any immediate way to check.

Is that not the same where you live?

Tax rates aren't the same for all tax brackets. So by not being married, despite having the same actual combined income, taxes are lower because it's taxed as two lower income brackets rather than the combined higher one with a higher tax rate.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Also, it sounds like you might be confused about how income tax brackets work. Your income is not taxed at one rate... each amount is taxed at the rate for that bracket. This means that EVERYONE pays 10% on the first $9,875 they make, no matter how much they make in total. This is how marginal taxes work:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marginaltaxrate.asp

I get now that it was part of the conversation about the differences between the US and Canada.

had me in the first half

anyway there are a lot of state-sponsored benefits when you have the paper, as well as some ease theoretically in medical emergencies

you can skip the expensive ceremony, a lot of people do, others skip it and have one later, and of course yeah many don't get married

Because most humans are moronic enough, to value bit and pieces of paper that officially sanctify a relationship.

I greatly disagree with the phrasing.

It puts too much emphasis on marriage as a desired state when clearly some non-negligible subset of the data is signaling something else that the author is not considering at all.

The article makes passing mention of a list of reasons people aren't getting married, taking a look at that study[1] shows

"Not ready for the commitment"

and

"Haven't found the right person"

accounting for 70% of all reasons, equivalently across both sexes.

did they factor in "not interested and don't really think about it except when people keep bringing it up for me" with the implication that of course the sentiment can change if someone made that connection or found such an arrangement interesting with another person?

I think the entire framing around this needs to match what people actually think, and I think it neglects a very common sentiment which would become more common as more people become aware that others think this way. Good news, then the divorce rate drops much closer to 0 or perhaps the financial repercussions around divorce are modernized and made more pragmatic.

[1]https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/final2-ifs-single-... , page 11

I'm sure we'll eventually get divorced once one of us gets a long term partner, but I do think the trend for avoiding the legal system as long as possible is here to stay. I know one couple (or ex-couple, rather) that has been separated for over 5 years now.

I am someone who always assumed that divorce proceedings were expensive when there were conflicts in alimony, possessions and kids. ( and all this information is mostly from movies )

It can be done for around $1000 if you use a document prepare rather than an attorney.

I'm sure it varies quite a bit from state to state though.

But, if you're in the US and you're otherwise happy to be legally married but separated, you may want to consider waiting to legally divorce until you've been legally married 10 years. That way, either can use the other's social security record to claim as a spouse if unmarried (at no cost to the other ex-spouse).

Poor vs career-minded? Aren't the poor more likely to be career-minded in order to improve their situation? These don't seem mutually-exclusive at all. I don't see why being poor makes it more likely for one to marry earlier, either.

My perception of poverty is that it's a transitional state, where people are interested in leaving it.

Depending on how poor they are, the transition may be slow, and to a rich person, they may only seem to be moving between different tiers of poverty, but that doesn't mean they aren't career-minded.

In particular, I would think that the poor vs the not-poor feel more need to delay marriage and family until they feel they can better afford it after having achieved long-term educational and career goals.

The poor tend to stick to labor jobs that you can train any healthy person to do in a few weeks on the job.

Have you spoken to anyone who dates these days? All the young men hate it. Women have all the leverage until they hit 28.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

> If the incomes of the two persons are similar, then at the lower end of the tax schedule there is no difference between filing as singles and filing as a married couple (ignoring the question of deductions, see below). But at the higher end of the tax schedule, there is a penalty for a married couple whose incomes are similar, compared to what they would pay as singles.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/11/15/the-irs-marriage-penal...

As far as I know at least.

> I am not sure what the rationale for marriage affecting taxes in the US was originally, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

I assume it’s because at the time the tax brackets which penalized dual high income earning households were decided, they weren’t politically powerful (or numerous) enough to push back on them. Nowadays, dual high income earning households are more common and they had the ability to get the brackets changed.

What you describe was middle class white femalehood ideal - what was supposedly happiest setup. But that setup was impossible for quite a lot of families, plus some families choose different setup. And some women were single or their husbands die.

But the actual labor participation was much higher then what the ideal suggests.

But it is interesting how around 40% women working morphed into women were not working which morphed into idea that working woman would be rare.

Does this offset the risk of divorce?

I don't see why this is problematic. The characteristics that will lead to economic success like long term planning, sticking to goals, not being a shit head, etc. seem to directly translate to a successful marriage.

The issue is that the ladder for those values to get you ahead has basically disappeared unless you hop on before you're done with high school.

And even if you work a shitty gas station job opportunities you can learn the gas station business, impress the owner, and get them to invest in opening your own. Or you can learn a trade in your spare time.

You most likely will be used to the extreme and thrown away. Lot of places don't care about who is working in low paid skilled jobs. They are as replaceable as ever. Amazon warehouses have machines doing the firing. Soon it will be your gas station. The machine doesn't get impressed unless you break your back.

And conflating poor people with being shit heads is interesting.

No wonder many worker class people feel the ire to hate big tech and workers increasingly.

There's still no ladder for them, personally.

I think first generation immigrants cut across the conscientiousness/income relationship that's being presented in this thread. It's a self-selecting group.

That only proves the rule. If your environment is awful but you have the right mindset/personality then you can still be successful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04...

There are a lot of benefits to marriage, especially if you have a dual income marriage. For example, if one of you loses their job, you go to 50% of your normal income, rather than 0%. This gives you more time to wait for a higher paying job, rather than taking the first thing that comes along.

The benefits of support and encouragement from a spouse are also real.

>The benefits of support and encouragement from a spouse are also real.

Neither of those are exclusive to marriage. Unmarried couples typically operate in a similar manner.

* If you're both employed, the higher earner could potentially be pulled down into a lower tax bracket

* If at least one spouse is salaried, the employer's insurance can often be shared at a reduced cost

* If both are salaried, the market of insurance policies you have to choose from essentially doubles

* If you're renting, you can essentially halve the cost of living (assuming dual income of some kind)

* If you're looking for a car or home, you can usually qualify for better loans (assuming neither spouse is a credit disaster)

Is this age corrected, because people tend to be in a low income segment earlier in their careers, and I don't think that “people are more likely to have gotten married the older they are” is surprising.

I think looking at it in terms of education mistakes the symptoms for the disease. Most people obviously had intact marriages back when few people went to college. A college education isn't a prerequisite for stable marriages. The delta is caused by something else that's correlated with both.

This is the thing that turned me away from liberalism after I got married and had kids. In Asian culture, we strongly believe that marriage and families are the purpose of life. Not only that, we believe that society has a responsibility to establish and reinforce norms that encourage people to get married and support their marriages. In my culture, elders get involved pretty intensively in e.g. mediating disputes between young couples to help establish healthy relationships. When I hear "elite" social conservatives lament about the breakdown of norms and social support around marriages, it strikes me as very much in line with how my culture perceives the same issues. And I can't help but agree with them when they complain that social elites won't preach what they practice when it comes to these norms.

Herein lies a fundamental difference in worldview. A liberal would say: well, let people who want to get married and have kids do that, and people who don't want to get married and have kids can do that. No need for coercive social norms. In a vacuum, that sounds true. But a conservative would say: how can you be so sure that those social norms aren't helping people who ultimately want to get married to do so and stay married? The idea that societal happiness is maximized by maximum personal freedom and the total absence of social coercion is not obviously true.

There are life happiness benefits to older people helping younger people know what to look for in a spouse, and setting expectations about marriage and life in general. There are benefits and efficiencies that come from people of a similar age having kids at the same time. There are benefits that accrue from people being involved in supporting each others' marriages. My wife and I got married and had kids in our mid 20s--average for Americans in general but pretty early among our demographic (college-educated coastal urbanites). We didn't realize it at the time, but living in DC/NYC we were pretty miserable. Nobody our age had kids and it was very isolating. We were so much happier after we moved to a more socially traditional exurban place where other people our age also had kids, peoples' parents were actively involved in helping them raise their children, etc.

"singleness" is an interesting term here. Are the authors implying that being single is inherently a bad thing? It seems as though they're using it to have a negative connotation.

The fact that involuntary singleness correlates with higher family instability is not a surprise.