Do a cost-benefit analysis of what marriage/long term relationship means to you, what would it look like ?
I think this one might strike a cord with one or two of us:
"Marry:
Constant companion
A friend in old age
Not marry:
Less money for books
The terrible loss of time" *
:cool:
*stolen from a rather famous person.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Do a cost-benefit analysis of what marriage/long term relationship means to you, what would it look like ?
I think this one might strike a cord with one or two of us:
"Marry:
Constant companion
A friend in old age
Not marry:
Less money for books
The terrible loss of time" *
:cool:
*stolen from a rather famous person.
OP preserved since within a few hours I'll be replaced with a random smilie. -_-
:rolleyes:
:Embarrass:
In terms of quotes I like this definition of marriage from The Devil's Dictionary:
MARRIAGE, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Yet Mono got married...I am so confused.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Are you talking about marriage or child bearing?
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Yet Mono got married...I am so confused.
Which leads me to believe his online persona may not be an accurate reflection of his true self.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Are you talking about marriage or child bearing?
One normally follows the other but if we talk about childless couples, from the perspective of the lower wage earner its a great financial deal. Not so great from the perspective of the higher wage earner.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
So what is your perspective/ C.B.A ?
What does the Canadian Bar Association have to do with this?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:58:40 PM
What does the Canadian Bar Association have to do with this?
Surely he's talking about the Continental Basketball Association.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:46:13 PM
If you look at it from a strictly financial perspective it makes no sense. But then again if you are looking at it from a strictly financial perspective you shouldnt be getting married.
Are you talking about marriage or child bearing?
One normally follows the other but if we talk about childless couples, from the perspective of the lower wage earner its a great financial deal. Not so great from the perspective of the higher wage earner.
As the higher-wage-earner (but not dramatically so) - how do you figure? We finance a household based on two incomes. Many (although not all) of our expenses would be exactly the same whether or not there was one or two people in the household. Marriage is a financial winner.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
As the higher-wage-earner (but not dramatically so) - how do you figure? We finance a household based on two incomes. Many (although not all) of our expenses would be exactly the same whether or not there was one or two people in the household. Marriage is a financial winner.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:58:40 PM
What does the Canadian Bar Association have to do with this?
Surely he's talking about the Continental Basketball Association.
Good point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:19:13 PM
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.
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 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR210.8.2&pageseq=1)
QuoteRECORD: 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 —
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 03:27:05 PM
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 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-DAR210.8.2&pageseq=1)
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:23:39 PM
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. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:43:12 PM
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. :P
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. :blush:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:43:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:23:39 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:43:12 PM
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.
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:12:11 PM
:huh:
Yeah I sort of like having another person's income at my disposal...but maybe CC's wife doesn't work.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 04:12:11 PM
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 03:48:47 PM
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.
a + b = c?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 03:48:47 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:26:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
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).
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 04:32:33 PM
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.
Maybe that is where the disconnect between us lies. Discretionary spending takes up a large chunk of the CC family annual budget.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Do a cost-benefit analysis of what marriage/long term relationship means to you, what would it look like ?
I think this one might strike a cord with one or two of us:
"Marry:
Constant companion
A friend in old age
Not marry:
Less money for books
The terrible loss of time" *
:cool:
*stolen from a rather famous person.
So, if I get married, I will be in my old age in eight years (on average?)
Quote from: Agelastus on September 21, 2009, 04:49:06 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Do a cost-benefit analysis of what marriage/long term relationship means to you, what would it look like ?
I think this one might strike a cord with one or two of us:
"Marry:
Constant companion
A friend in old age
Not marry:
Less money for books
The terrible loss of time" *
:cool:
*stolen from a rather famous person.
So, if I get married, I will be in my old age in eight years (on average?)
No, but it may *seem* like that. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
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).
Yes, but part of that increase is going to be less as well, because it is shared.
Take the most apropos example: wanting a bigger house. :D
The expense of a fancy house is the same whether one person or two live in it. Two people do not require a fancy house twice the size of the fancy house lived in by one person.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:54:36 PM
Yes, but part of that increase is going to be less as well, because it is shared.
Take the most apropos example: wanting a bigger house. :D
The expense of a fancy house is the same whether one person or two live in it. Two people do not require a fancy house twice the size of the fancy house lived in by one person.
Great example. :lol:
If a certain person was single there is no chance in hell that person would be buying that kind of house..... :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 05:46:41 PM
Great example. :lol:
If a certain person was single there is no chance in hell that person would be buying that kind of house..... :D
Unless they work in a boiler room and get nigger rich.
You know, I catch a constant ration of shit at work for being almost 40 and never married, but out of the 6 guys I work with (including my boss), there's 8 ex-wives involved; complete with alimony, child custody issues, monthly support payments, et cetera.
I mean, really now. And I'm the one that doesn't know what the fuck he's doing?
Hell, I catch shit from the Meris, Brazens and Fahdizes around here, and ain't a single one of those niggers ever had a working marriage, for that matter. So fuck you guys too.
One of my friends(36) is on his 3rd wife. First one was a cunt, the 2nd was a whore and the 3rd, who knows?
On the 4th wife, I hope he punts. I'm tired of buying gifts for his weddings.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 06:27:34 PM
Great, a topic that can be discussed in any number of terms is ruined by two cannucks arguing about a strickly financial issue. :rolleyes:
:yeah:
Captain Buzzkill strikes again!
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 06:36:05 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 06:27:34 PM
Great, a topic that can be discussed in any number of terms is ruined by two cannucks arguing about a strickly financial issue. :rolleyes:
:yeah:
Captain Buzzkill strikes again!
It isn't a buzzkill on a Mongers thread. The thread is already fucked.
An important financial benefit of marriage is insurance. If one person becomes unemployed, the other can take up the slack. Same if one person gets hit with a major illness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:26:40 PM
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.
The inflationary pressure that you have described is true. I have a much higher income than my wife and yes she has much more...err...refined tastes than mine :P
But this is a pressure that can be managed. I still haven't bought the coverted i-phone for her despite years of pressure. We have a financial arrangement whereby we share "common" costs on a 50/50 basis. So yes she can dine out, but I only get to pay half price for everything.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Not marry:
Less money for books
Fantastically incorrect. DINKs have more disposable income than anyone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:28:53 PM
You know, I catch a constant ration of shit at work for being almost 40 and never married, but out of the 6 guys I work with (including my boss), there's 8 ex-wives involved; complete with alimony, child custody issues, monthly support payments, et cetera.
I mean, really now. And I'm the one that doesn't know what the fuck he's doing?
Hell, I catch shit from the Meris, Brazens and Fahdizes around here, and ain't a single one of those niggers ever had a working marriage, for that matter. So fuck you guys too.
A.) I've never given you shit for not being in a relationship. On behalf of the women of the world, I thank you for it daily.
B.) I have a wonderfully working marriage right now. It's 4.5 years along and stronger now than ever. In fact, it's lasted nearly as far along as my last marriage, and we're both happier now than we've ever been. That's not to say that it will stay that way indefinitely, but I think it's safe to say that we're content with our choice.
C.) To the OP: the Pros of marriage - Companionship; a partner in life's decisions; someone to keep you honest, laughing, and content; emotional security; financial safety for one another (if one loses a job, there's someone to help out until things get better); potential for kids if desired
Cons - Constant compromise; rarely time to oneself (especially if kids in the picture); financial problems if someone overspends with minimal chance at recourse; no variety in the bedroom
From my perspective, the pros far outweigh the cons. But I'm a happily married old woman. Who's surprised? :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:28:53 PM
You know, I catch a constant ration of shit at work for being almost 40 and never married, but out of the 6 guys I work with (including my boss), there's 8 ex-wives involved; complete with alimony, child custody issues, monthly support payments, et cetera.
I mean, really now. And I'm the one that doesn't know what the fuck he's doing?
Hell, I catch shit from the Meris, Brazens and Fahdizes around here, and ain't a single one of those niggers ever had a working marriage, for that matter. So fuck you guys too.
A.) I've never given you shit for not being in a relationship. On behalf of the women of the world, I thank you for it daily.
.............
:lmfao:
Quote from: Armyknife on September 21, 2009, 06:27:34 PM
Great, a topic that can be discussed in any number of terms is ruined by two cannucks arguing about a strickly financial issue. :rolleyes:
:P
You, sir, are
totally incorrect.
It was
three canucks. :contract:
This is an interesting thread.
I am actually a proponent of rather "meta-rational" cost benefit analysis of what you get out of marriage, and I think both parties should be rather aware not only of what THEY are getting at what cost, but what their partner is getting and at what cost.
However, the financial portion of that analysis is pretty low on the scale of important things to measure, IMO, and I am someone who has two kids and only one income.
"Marriage isn't a word, it's a sentence."
"Marriage is an institution, and I'm not ready for an institution."
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 21, 2009, 06:31:51 PM
One of my friends(36) is on his 3rd wife. First one was a cunt, the 2nd was a whore and the 3rd, who knows?
On the 4th wife, I hope he punts. I'm tired of buying gifts for his weddings.
My ex boyfriend from Uni is on his third divorce, with three kids all with different surnames, none of them the same as his...
Quote from: Monoriu on September 21, 2009, 08:02:05 PM
An important financial benefit of marriage is insurance. If one person becomes unemployed, the other can take up the slack. Same if one person gets hit with a major illness.
It's a good point - though it should be pointed out that marriage's value as insurance is considerably greater for the low earner, as on divorce the high earner will be expected to subsidize the low earner.
I will give you Ed Anger's marriage checklist. If I had Visio on this system, I'd make a flowchart
1) Is she smart? If yes, then continue
2) is she good looking? Is her Mom good looking? If Yes, continue
3) Does she nag? If yes, ABORT. No? Keep going
4) Will she sign a pre-nup? Yes? Keep going
5) Does she tolerate your quirks? Yes, keep going
6) Likes sports? Yes? JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST, GET HER A RING.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 22, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
I will give you Ed Anger's marriage checklist. If I had Visio on this system, I'd make a flowchart
1) Is she smart? If yes, then continue
2) is she good looking? Is her Mom good looking? If Yes, continue
3) Does she nag? If yes, ABORT. No? Keep going
4) Will she sign a pre-nup? Yes? Keep going
5) Does she tolerate you quirks? Yes, keep going
6) Likes sports? Yes? JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST, GET HER A RING.
Interesting. So I don't make another mistake, could you advise on a marriage checklist for women plzkthx.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
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).
From a solely "Dollars and Cents" angle I agree. Over the course of our thirteen year marriage I have clearly brought home more money, yet my wife has historically outspent me in Discretionary Expenses (an Out-Of-My-Ass Guesstimate would be at a 3 to 2 or 4 to 3 ratio).
That being said, though, there are other factors involved with the delicate intricacies of maintaining a 2+ person home that transcend the scope of pure finances: namely, Chores. Cleaning, cooking, laundry, necessary errands (grocery shopping, etc), dishes, yardwork (if necessary) -- and this isn't even including what's invoved once you add children to the mix.
In my own situation, the disparity in monetary income has been more than offset by the reverse disparity in who does Household Chores, leading me to personally feel that the extra money that I have brought into the marriage has been an excellent investment towards Free Time that would otherwise be spent on less savory endeavours...
For fun, I like to drop the "my money" line.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 22, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
I will give you Ed Anger's marriage checklist. If I had Visio on this system, I'd make a flowchart
1) Is she smart? If yes, then continue
2) is she good looking? Is her Mom good looking? If Yes, continue
3) Does she nag? If yes, ABORT. No? Keep going
4) Will she sign a pre-nup? Yes? Keep going
5) Does she tolerate your quirks? Yes, keep going
6) Likes sports? Yes? JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST, GET HER A RING.
I'd leave out number 1 and replace 6 with video games.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 10:35:41 AM
I'd leave out number 1 and replace 6 with video games.
Video games make women fat.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
Video games make women fat.
Whereas they make men buff? :unsure:
Quote from: Brazen on September 22, 2009, 10:37:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
Video games make women fat.
Whereas they make men buff? :unsure:
Well, they do toughen up the calluses on your thumbs...
I have always been the major breadwinner (and major spender of reseources) in every relationship I've been in. It used to be I earned so much it would have been tough for most people to keep up. Now, it seems whatever level my wages fall to, I always manage to find a man earning less :D
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 10:35:41 AM
I'd leave out number 1 and replace 6 with video games.
Video games make women fat.
WoW, yes. Since all Warcraft players are anti-social fatties.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 10:35:41 AM
I'd leave out number 1 and replace 6 with video games.
Video games make women fat.
There's nothing wrong with fat women. :angry:
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 22, 2009, 10:29:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2009, 04:31:19 PM
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).
From a solely "Dollars and Cents" angle I agree. Over the course of our thirteen year marriage I have clearly brought home more money, yet my wife has historically outspent me in Discretionary Expenses (an Out-Of-My-Ass Guesstimate would be at a 3 to 2 or 4 to 3 ratio).
That being said, though, there are other factors involved with the delicate intricacies of maintaining a 2+ person home that transcend the scope of pure finances: namely, Chores. Cleaning, cooking, laundry, necessary errands (grocery shopping, etc), dishes, yardwork (if necessary) -- and this isn't even including what's invoved once you add children to the mix.
In my own situation, the disparity in monetary income has been more than offset by the reverse disparity in who does Household Chores, leading me to personally feel that the extra money that I have brought into the marriage has been an excellent investment towards Free Time that would otherwise be spent on less savory endeavours...
I agree. Thats why I said in my first post that if you are looking at marriage from a strictly financial cost benefit analysis you ought not get married.
There are of course a whole host of other reasons to get married (and stay married) and that is why I have been happily married going on 19 years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 10:48:02 AM
I agree. Thats why I said in my first post that if you are looking at marriage from a strictly financial cost benefit analysis you ought not get married.
There are of course a whole host of other reasons to get married (and stay married) and that is why I have been happily married going on 19 years.
The cost of a maid, cook and shopper *is* a dollars-and-cents cost-benefit issue. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
The cost of a maid, cook and shopper *is* a dollars-and-cents cost-benefit issue. ;)
In a quantitive sense it is. But definitely not in a qualitative sense. If I was rich enough to have household staff for example it would not be the same thing.
Quote from: Brazen on September 22, 2009, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 22, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
I will give you Ed Anger's marriage checklist. If I had Visio on this system, I'd make a flowchart
1) Is she smart? If yes, then continue
2) is she good looking? Is her Mom good looking? If Yes, continue
3) Does she nag? If yes, ABORT. No? Keep going
4) Will she sign a pre-nup? Yes? Keep going
5) Does she tolerate you quirks? Yes, keep going
6) Likes sports? Yes? JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST, GET HER A RING.
Interesting. So I don't make another mistake, could you advise on a marriage checklist for women plzkthx.
1: Do you want to change him? If yes, ABORT, if no, return to "1".
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 11:15:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
The cost of a maid, cook and shopper *is* a dollars-and-cents cost-benefit issue. ;)
In a quantitive sense it is. But definitely not in a qualitative sense. If I was rich enough to have household staff for example it would not be the same thing.
Heh, doesn't necessarily mean having staff - though it isn't really all that unaffordable (you are richer than I and *I* have had staff; even my parents, who are poorer than I, had a live-out maid in several times a week, and a guy to cut the grass).
Think of it in terms of "eating at home vs. at restaurants all the time".
By staff I mean people that take care of all the household chores that we otherwise do.
We already have a maid and a chap that does the yard. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 11:24:02 AM
By staff I mean people that take care of all the household chores that we otherwise do.
We already have a maid and a chap that does the yard. :P
*Sigh* I miss Anya. She did all the chores, everything. Like a chunky Ukranian Mary Poppins. :(
I recommend cohabiting with a chef, then the partner IS the staff :thumbsup:
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2009, 08:26:55 PM
A.) I've never given you shit for not being in a relationship. On behalf of the women of the world, I thank you for it daily.
Goddamned right you do.
QuoteB.) I have a wonderfully working marriage right now. It's 4.5 years along and stronger now than ever. In fact, it's lasted nearly as far along as my last marriage,
Don't use the term "last marriage" when "first marriage" is much more appropriate and less misleading about your inability to maintain relationships, mkaythxbuhbye.
Quote from: Brazen on September 22, 2009, 11:26:55 AM
I recommend cohabiting with a chef, then the partner IS the staff :thumbsup:
^_^ You'd love me, baby.
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 06:58:23 AM
^_^ You'd love me, baby.
I'm so not sure who to defend. On one hand we have gas station food but on the other we have british food. :(
There is no winner, only gastro-intestinal distress.
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 06:58:23 AM
^_^ You'd love me, baby.
[gordonramsay]You may think you're a cook, but you're no chef[/gordonramsay]
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 09:08:01 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 06:58:23 AM
^_^ You'd love me, baby.
I'm so not sure who to defend. On one hand we have gas station food but on the other we have british food. :(
Zing!
I don't cook gas station food. ^_^
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:47:49 PM
And I just had my 3rd anniversay a few weeks ago, so I'm not exactly a blushing newlywed. :blush:
Has it been three years already? Seems like just yesterday.
Quote from: charliebear on September 23, 2009, 11:13:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:47:49 PM
And I just had my 3rd anniversay a few weeks ago, so I'm not exactly a blushing newlywed. :blush:
Has it been three years already? Seems like just yesterday.
For me too. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:19:13 PMIf 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.
I disagree, for a few reasons. The first is, as BB has outlined, that some of your expenses are fixed whether it's a two person household or one. For example, in buying a house you are likely to end up living in a nicer house if you finance it based on two incomes.
Secondly, as a matter of risk management even the person with the higher income benefits from the security of being able to rely on a partner in times of trouble. Again, looking at a house, if your spouse's income can manage the mortgage (even if barely) that leaves you in a better position if you're between jobs, which again leaves you in a better position when it comes to negotiate salary etc (because it would not be a disaster to leave).
Similarly, if you're self-employed or work on contracts, having two incomes smoothes out the distribution which can make things a lot more comfortable.
This, of course, assumes you're not filthy rich (in which case it doesn't matter) and that the incomes are not completely disparate ($ 500 000 year professional with minimum wage barrista).
... of course, it's true that you shouldn't get married (or not) purely based on financial analysis :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
I don't cook gas station food. ^_^
Indeed. I don't think most gas stations are wretched enough to sell roadkill.
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: charliebear on September 23, 2009, 11:13:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:47:49 PM
And I just had my 3rd anniversay a few weeks ago, so I'm not exactly a blushing newlywed. :blush:
Has it been three years already? Seems like just yesterday.
For me too. :)
Me too. Oh wait, I mean, my marriage is, like,
sooo yesterday.