Your source [1] commits several data errors in the first sentence. Having a divorce rate of 60% does not mean that 60% of married couples are unhappy (even though the divorce rate is not 60%, as your link [2] shows -- the peak divorce rate is for marriages originating in the 1970s, of which 48% did not last 25 years). Marriages are not distributed uniformly: many people will have none, many will have one, and some may rack up more than a few. By definition people with many marriages will account for more than their fair share of the "divorce rate" (even in the 48%), and you can't simply swap "people" or "couples" in for "marriages" in the denominator of that statistic. Yet, why are there some people who keep getting married and failing? Their passion and decision-making that causes them to marry is probably related to the reasons they end. I think if you're so dispassionate that you can consider all the reasons to not get married, then you're probably the sort of person whose marriage would be carefully calculated and not end in flames quickly.

Your second link has much more meaningful data on this: yes, marriages are getting later in life and more people and choosing not to marry. However, divorce rates are lower than the 70s and marriages are generally lasting longer. If you consistently advise people not to get married out of some misplaced fear of having to split assets in half, that seems a bit myopic. It seems like a more complex issue.

Disagree. Willingness to move where you receive the best job offers is one of the key factors to strong career progress and earning potential.

Unless you happen to both be in the same line of work and have that line of work be centralised in one city so hard that your best offers are pretty much always going to be there anyway, you can only maximise one of your careers. The other person is turning down offers they otherwise could have taken, moving to locations they otherwise would not have, at times when they otherwise would not have. It's a huge sacrifice even if both people are full time employed and no kids are in the picture.

Deciding to try to spend the rest of your life living with another person is the opportunity cost. Marriage and alimony are the tools that try to balance that out and make it fairer.

Agree, but you need to remember that in some places you don't need to be married to pay alimony: some USA states have common law marriages and in Canada you don't even need to cohabitate to be legally responsible for alimony (there was a very famous case 1 year ago with 2 people that never lived together).

>but getting married is betting half your stuff and a substantial amount of future earnings things will work out.

Exactly. It's greater risk for a greater reward.

Also divorce rates are significantly lower (seeing ~20% on Google) for this with a college degree

I suppose you can still have a prenup explicitly sharing wealth 50/50 if one party will take care of the kids and home while the other will earn money.

The problem with all of this is always intangible wealth, and unpaid contributions to the household. Person A got a degree while person B sweated away to keep a roof over their heads. If they divorce the day Person A graduates, with zero net assets, Person B gets the raw end of that deal (Unless it's a degree in Latin poetry.)

Or, person A made money, while person B did all the unpaid housemaking, childcare, etc. Or, person A made the money, did the housemaking, childcare, while person B bummed around, drunk all day.

All of these are special cases, and none of them can be covered by a one-size-fits-all policy. It's why divorce litigation is necessary, as a safety valve, and why pre-nups aren't ironclad.

What is the greater reward?

There is some evidence that male marriage participants live longer and are healthier [1] than non married counterparts. Conversely, there is also evidence that single, childless women are the happiest subpopulation [2].

With regards to data about happiness, you can make a case for whatever your position is based on picking your choice of longitudinal study. Happiness is a crapshoot.

[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5018.html

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h...

I know this is anecdata, but almost all women I know wanted kids very badly, and they were ok with a bad career but a nice family. Those that are childless despite their desire don’t look that happy to me.

Sure, I know women who’re childless and single by choice and they’re perfecly happy with that. But I wonder whether we’re just cherrypicking a peculiar and yet uncommon population slice.

> male marriage participants live longer and are healthier [1] than non married counterparts.

or a wealthier male is more likely to be able to get married, and thus also be healthier (due to the wealth, not the marriage).

To me, happiness is the ability to do what you wish, and not have responsibility or obligations to anyone.

Happiness is a caveated crapshoot

I'm fairly certain we are all capable of the google search and you can and will find the multitude of studies, anecdotes, memes and conversations about:

- women's unpaid labor at home, with their children, in their community and for aging relatives/relatives who need care

- women's thwarted ability to get promoted

- women's inability to negotiate as easily for a raise bc when you're aggressive you're a bitch and when you're not you dont get a raise

- women's emotional labor in relationships as men in our specific (NA/Euro) societies tend to have limited social circles as they age

Single childless women are happier for structural and social reasons. It is not in fact just a crapshoot.

The promotion and negotiation problems will negatively affect single childless women too, right? So those would make that group less happy compared to the male groups.

Yeup.

Anecdotal opinion: it is easier to keep finding new strategies to deal with my career, including building my own business, when I'm not drained by my personal life.

It was widely covered in the media that unmarried women are the happiest subgroup. However, the reported study may have misinterpreted some data.

The study reported that married women were happier only when their spouse was in the room. When their spouse was absent their response was miserable. The problem is that the original survey defined absence as a spouse no longer living in the household.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married...

Having a real family?

There is none. But married people would like to make imaginary (ie: emotional) rewards to explain their non-sense trade.

being absolutely committed to someone, sharing your life with them, and raising a family.

half their stuff

A persistent sense of fulfilment -- one that makes you feel like everything is going to be alright.

There's no need to keep on searching. You have everything you'll ever need right here.

Spot on, "persistent sense of fulfilment" exactly the way I feel about being married. Thanks for putting it into words for me.

I'll also add - a feeling of stability I didn't think was possible for me (mega high anxiety) to experience.