Marriage - Your Cost-Benefit Analysis.

[Barrister]

If both incomes are essentially equal I suppose there is an argument for pooling resources but once those incomes diverge that kind of argument goes out the window.  The point is that if you are getting married or entering a relationship because you see some economic benefit then you are on some very shaky ground since whatever financial advantage you might see now is fleeting at best.

Not at all.

The cost of running a household with 2 people is scarecly larger than the cost of running a household with 1 person.  Many bills like phone or cable would be exactly the same.  Other costs increase only marginally (the cost of a 1 bedroom vs 2 bedroom apartment).  As long as your spouse is making any income that is beyond trivial marriage is a financial winner.

The flip side is that divorce is a financial loser.  I have heard and read that your standard of living will decrease when divorced as it is more expensive to maintain 2 households rather than 1.

[Armyknife]

The 'quote' in my OP is taken from here:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR210.8.2&pageseq=1

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. 'This is the Question Marry Not Marry' [Memorandum on marriage]. (7.1838) CUL-DAR210.8.2 (Darwin Online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/)

REVISION HISTORY: Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker, checked and edited by John van Wyhe 12.2007. RN1

NOTE: Reproduced with the permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and William Huxley Darwin.

See also Darwin, C. R. 'Work finished If not marry' [Memorandum on marriage]. (1838) CUL-DAR210.8.1

[1]

This is the question

Mary

Children — (if it Please God) — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, — object to be beloved & played with. —  —better than a dog anyhow. — Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. — These things good for one's health. — Forced to visit & receive relations but terrible loss of time. —

W My God, it is intolerable to think of spending ones whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working, & nothing after all. — No, no won't do. — Imagine living all one's day solitarily in smoky dirty London House. — Only picture to yourself a nice soft wife on a sofa with good fire, & books & music perhaps — Compare this vision with the dingy reality of Grt. Marlbro' St.

Marry — Marry — Marry  Q.E.D.

Not Mary

No children, (no second life), no one to care for one in old age.— What is the use of working 'in' without sympathy from near & dear friends—who are near & dear friends to the old, except relatives

Freedom to go where one liked — choice of Society & little of it.  — Conversation of clever men at clubs — Not forced to visit relatives, & to bend in every trifle. — to have the expense & anxiety of children — perhaps quarelling — Loss of time. — cannot read in the Evenings — fatness & idleness — Anxiety & responsibility — less money for books &c — if many children forced to gain one's bread. — (But then it is very bad for ones health to work too much)

Perhaps my wife wont like London; then the sentence is banishment & degradation into indolent, idle fool —

1 These notes record Darwin's speculations about the prospect of marriage and his future life and work. They were written before his engagement and marriage to his cousin Emma Wedgwood in January 1839. The note has been conjecturally dated to July 1838. Darwin's notes on marriage are transcribed and annotated in Correspondence vol. 2, appendix iv.

[2]

It being proved necessary to Marry
When? Soon or Late

The Governor says soon for otherwise bad if one has children — one's character is more flexible —one's feelings more lively & if one does not marry soon, one misses so much good pure happiness. —
But then if I married tomorrow: there would be an infinity of trouble & expense in getting & furnishing a house, —fighting about no Society —morning calls — awkwardness —loss of time every day. (without one's wife was an angel, & made one keep industrious). — Then how should I manage all my business if I were obliged to go every day walking with one’s my wife. — Eheu!! I never should know French, — or see the Continent — or go to America, or go up in a Balloon, or take solitary trip in Wales — poor slave. — you will be worse than a negro — And then horrid poverty, (without one's wife was better than an angel & had money) — Never mind my boy — Cheer up — One cannot live this solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless & cold, & childless staring one in ones face, already beginning to wrinkle. — Never mind, trust to chance —keep a sharp look out — There is many a happy slave —

[Habbaku]

The 'quote' in my OP is taken from here:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR210.8.2&pageseq=1

[crazy canuck]

Not at all.

The cost of running a household with 2 people is scarecly larger than the cost of running a household with 1 person.  Many bills like phone or cable would be exactly the same.  Other costs increase only marginally (the cost of a 1 bedroom vs 2 bedroom apartment).  As long as your spouse is making any income that is beyond trivial marriage is a financial winner.

The flip side is that divorce is a financial loser.  I have heard and read that your standard of living will decrease when divorced as it is more expensive to maintain 2 households rather than 1.

Phone and cable are actually good examples of greater expense.  There is no way I would have close to the long distance bill I have if I was single.  Also, the only cable I would have is for sports.

It is a myth that two live as cheaply as one.  Of course your standard of living would go down with divorce but also your standard of living would be higher if I had never gotten married at all - financially speaking.  The delta in the standard of living depends on the income difference between you and your wife.

I will ask this question of you again in 20 years and see if you continue with your newly wed views.

[Barrister]

Phone and cable are actually good examples of greater expense.  There is no way I would have close to the long distance bill I have if I was single.  Also, the only cable I would have is for sports.

It is a myth that two live as cheaply as one.  Of course your standard of living would go down with divorce but also your standard of living would be higher if I had never gotten married at all - financially speaking.  The delta in the standard of living depends on the income difference between you and your wife.

I will ask this question of you again in 20 years and see if you continue with your newly wed views.

No, two can not live as cheaply as one.  But it does not cost twice as much for a 2-person household.  Not even close.  You might have a slightly larger cable bill, but it is not double what you otherwise would have paid.  You might buy a slightly larger house for 2 people, but not a house twice as expensive.

And I just had my 3rd anniversay a few weeks ago, so I'm not exactly a blushing newlywed.   

[Malthus]

Not at all.

The cost of running a household with 2 people is scarecly larger than the cost of running a household with 1 person.  Many bills like phone or cable would be exactly the same.  Other costs increase only marginally (the cost of a 1 bedroom vs 2 bedroom apartment).  As long as your spouse is making any income that is beyond trivial marriage is a financial winner.

The flip side is that divorce is a financial loser.  I have heard and read that your standard of living will decrease when divorced as it is more expensive to maintain 2 households rather than 1.

Phone and cable are actually good examples of greater expense.  There is no way I would have close to the long distance bill I have if I was single.  Also, the only cable I would have is for sports.

It is a myth that two live as cheaply as one.  Of course your standard of living would go down with divorce but also your standard of living would be higher if I had never gotten married at all - financially speaking.  The delta in the standard of living depends on the income difference between you and your wife.

I will ask this question of you again in 20 years and see if you continue with your newly wed views.

I don't really agree - living in one house or apartment is cheaper than living in two. There is a certain minimum amount of stuff you need (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, laundry facilities, etc.) that you would need two of if you lived seperately.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course your standard of living would go down with divorce but also your standard of living would be higher if I had never gotten married at all - financially speaking.

[Valmy]

Yeah I sort of like having another person's income at my disposal...but maybe CC's wife doesn't work.

[crazy canuck]

What you guys are all missing, even if you accept the myth that two can live as cheaply as one, is that if one of the spouses has a signficantly larger income then the tastes, wants and needs of the other person will increase.

The person with the greater income ends up subsidizing the increased buying habits of the other person who would never have purchased those kinds of things for themselves on their own income.

Marriage creates a kind of inflationary pressure when there is a divergence in income on the spending of the person with the lower income and that inflationary pressure is paid for out of the income of the higher income earner.


I think you guys are all approaching this from the point of view of equal income which stays equal throughout the whole marriage.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah I sort of like having another person's income at my disposal...but maybe CC's wife doesn't work.

She works.  She makes more then most people but she still makes less (significantly) then I do.

[crazy canuck]

I don't really agree - living in one house or apartment is cheaper than living in two. There is a certain minimum amount of stuff you need (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, laundry facilities, etc.) that you would need two of if you lived seperately.

That analysis only holds true if spending does not increase to meet the available extra income.

Show me where that ever occurs.

[Ed Anger]

a + b = c?

[Malthus]

I don't really agree - living in one house or apartment is cheaper than living in two. There is a certain minimum amount of stuff you need (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, laundry facilities, etc.) that you would need two of if you lived seperately.

That analysis only holds true if spending does not increase to meet the available extra income.

Show me where that ever occurs.

Well of course. I know that is true.

But it is true when a person is single as well.

[Barrister]

What you guys are all missing, even if you accept the myth that two can live as cheaply as one, is that if one of the spouses has a signficantly larger income then the tastes, wants and needs of the other person will increase.

No one is saying "two can live as cheaply as one".  Nobody.

What I am saying is more like "two can live for 30% more than one".

I think you have to get into some hugely disproportionate incomes in order for marriage to become a net negative.  I make clearly more than my wife and marriage has been a huge, enormous, financial plus.

The "inflationary pressure" you talk about will only apply to discretionary spending, which tends to be a small portion of overall expenses.

[crazy canuck]

But it is true when a person is single as well.

Yes but in that instance you are only paying for your own increase in standard of living.  When married you are paying for that increase for one other person who cannot pay for the increase based on their own income (keeping kids out of it).