barbed wire kisses

September 11, 2008 7:28 AM

The New York Times has finally come out and said it - marriage is about money.
posted by plexi (58 comments total)

Damn liberal media!
posted by birdherder at 7:37 AM on September 11, 2008

tl;dr : Get a pre-nup.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:46 AM on September 11, 2008

I've got ten bucks on "Mine/ours wasn't! So there!" beating the spread. Who's in?
posted by griphus at 7:48 AM on September 11, 2008

...marriage is about money.

I don't think Bristol Palin's upcoming marriage to Levi Johnston has much to do about money.
posted by ericb at 7:51 AM on September 11, 2008 [6 favorites]

Is this something they go over in premarital counseling?
posted by giraffe at 7:52 AM on September 11, 2008

Today happens to be our 9th anniversary. Mrs. Everichon would agree wholeheartedly with this article--she likes to needle the twentysomethings she works with stern advice on how they should stop cohabiting, not for moral reasons, but for financial ones.
posted by everichon at 7:52 AM on September 11, 2008

Right before the husband lost his job on Wall Street, the couple had ordered $35,000 drapes. They had to move to a smaller apartment in Manhattan and had to sell their vacation home.

I know it's not nice to snicker at others' financial problems, and that wealthy people have problems like everyone else, and that there are people in the world who would snicker at my own financial problems, but still: HA!
posted by brain_drain at 7:54 AM on September 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

"It's about economics!"
posted by Kinbote at 7:55 AM on September 11, 2008

It's sort of a "duh" article. I'd bet views on religion and children (and all of the financial issues that arise, e.g. do we want to give 10% of our income to the church?) are equally important.

Create a cash cushion, and live a lifestyle you can sustain.

Shorter advice: Don't buy shit.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:57 AM on September 11, 2008

NewYorkTimesFilter.
posted by msittig at 7:57 AM on September 11, 2008

Mrs. Everichon would agree wholeheartedly with this article--she likes to needle the twentysomethings she works with stern advice on how they should stop cohabiting, not for moral reasons, but for financial ones.

Can you explain this? Because it's way cheaper for me to have a roommate. And it's way better for my sanity to have a roommate I love.
posted by giraffe at 7:59 AM on September 11, 2008 [3 favorites]

Shorter advice: Don't buy shit you can't afford.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:59 AM on September 11, 2008 [3 favorites]

11 years happily married and my marriage had nothing to do with money.

It was all about the laundry.
posted by bondcliff at 8:00 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Mrs. Everichon would agree wholeheartedly with this article--she likes to needle the twentysomethings she works with stern advice on how they should stop cohabiting, not for moral reasons, but for financial ones.

Can you explain this? Because it's way cheaper for me to have a roommate. And it's way better for my sanity to have a roommate I love.

And I've found it cheaper to live with a girlfriend than a roommate. So I second the request for explaining.
posted by griphus at 8:03 AM on September 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

I was never really taught it was anything other than a contractual relationship, probably the most serious contractual relationship any of us will ever enter into. There's certainly an emotional dimension, though, to selecting the person you are willing to enter into the contract with; just as in other business decisions, feelings like trust, hope, comfort, desire for the benefits of the contract, and desire for success are the primary reasons for entering into the contract in the first place. In a society mostly without arranged marriages, those emotions play a bigger and more visible role and so marriage is widely seen as an emotional as well as legal and financial commitment - which it certainly is, as laws are bsaically made to adjudicate situations in which the tacit, emotionally based mutual understanding of a relationship breaks down. But love is love, and marriage is marriage. When you can marry the person in love and stay in love with the person you're married to, you are a wonderfully fortunate person. Marriage in history has rarely been anything other than a legal vehicle for establishing property and family rights for a couple engaging in shared ventures.

So I'm not sure the article is news. Also, secure finances and basic met needs are among the main reasons for the happiness of people, full stop - regardless of whether or not they are married.
posted by Miko at 8:04 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Yep. My marriage broke up when the former Mrs. Jack got fired, didn't want to go back to work (at least full-time), but still expected that we could have the same standard of living that we enjoyed when we were both employed full-time at about the same salary.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:09 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Also, secure finances and basic met needs are among the main reasons for the happiness of people, full stop - regardless of whether or not they are married.

No..sorry man...I want my fucking 35 thousand dollars drapes AND a perfect marriage.
posted by spicynuts at 8:09 AM on September 11, 2008

Cohabiting is a legal mess in times of dispute and makes both parties vulnerable, especially in the case of a large purchase (such as a house) or when there are children. Neither party has rights within the relationship as they are not in a contract.

Legal Issues for Cohabiting Couples.

Legal Agreements for Cohabiting Couples.

Some books.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on September 11, 2008 [6 favorites]

The problwm with this article is that while it address the financial dependencies of the husband and wife, it completely ignores the financial constraints placed on the girlfriend and pool boy as they compete for the husband's attention.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:13 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Shorter advice: Don't buy shit you can't afford.

I disagree. Buy shit as if you were investing for a future return and try to compromise on the P & L between important shit like a home, and not so important shit like that Fendi bag or the Franklin Mint doodads you have hanging on the wall. Also, try and distinguish between the emotional and the sensical. Emotional buys carry an inherent loss.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:15 AM on September 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

My wife and I would totally affirm that compatible financial attitudes are part of what makes our marriage work so well. But our marriage wasn't all about money -- it was all about health insurance (well, at least the timing of our marriage.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 8:19 AM on September 11, 2008

Sure, marriage is about money. Actually, I prefer to think of marriage as a corporate merger or acquisition. Wooing is like due diligence, finding out about your partner and whether the pairing will be mutually beneficial. Sometimes I prefer a hostile takeover, though this tends to get the board upset. In general, though, before I consider going on a date with anyone, I solve the following equation for the value of the minimum required synergies: ((pre-merger value of both entities + synergies) / post-merger number of shares = pre-merger stock price. Strangely enough, I've been dateless for years. At this point, I'd just settle for a quick horizontal merger.
posted by naju at 8:21 AM on September 11, 2008 [9 favorites]

what a coincidence! almost exactly ten years ago to the day, i learned that marriage was about money. in my property law class. which reminded me that marriage had historically been about money, which i learned in my undergrad seminar on english literature in the 19th century. which reminded me that i'd learned this same lesson back in high school, when we were studying european history. gosh, there's an awful lot you can learn by studying the western canon, huh?

in other words: wut miko sed. i also doubt this story from nyt qualifies as news.
posted by deejay jaydee at 8:23 AM on September 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

explain

The advice-receivers seem not to have considered what will happen to their mutually-purchased stuff, up to and including in several cases a house, should they separate. That, or they protest that "oh, we would never have a non-amicable separation".

Disclaimer: I have only overheard some of these conversations in passing, and they are never meant or taken terribly seriously. I think I regret the comment, it being half-baked and all. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
posted by everichon at 8:26 AM on September 11, 2008

When is Mutant going to arrive in this thread and really lay it down?
posted by spicynuts at 8:26 AM on September 11, 2008

Cohabiting is a legal mess in times of dispute and makes both parties vulnerable, especially in the case of a large purchase (such as a house) or when there are children. Neither party has rights within the relationship as they are not in a contract.

I'm assuming this is an answer to the above question re: why cohabitation is bad financially. I'm still confused though. I don't know any 20-somethings that are also homeowners. And cohabitation certainly doesn't mean that you have children or even intend to have children.

So is the statement more about couples living together that have no intention of getting married, but intend to stay coupled for a long period of time? Does the US not have common law marriage anymore?
posted by giraffe at 8:26 AM on September 11, 2008

And what miko said.
posted by everichon at 8:26 AM on September 11, 2008

Marriage as done in the US of A is a 3 party contract. You, your SO and The State.

Here is a guy who has no love for the state.

George Gordon who proves that a digital clock display hooked up to a random number generator that changes every second will display the correct time every once in a while. (Warning - religious nutter. In a http://www.thepeacock.com/ kinda way.)

http://db.georgegordon.com/index.php?yr=2006

The people who've had interaction with The State when it comes to divorce or child protective custody seem to find his words/ideas have some truth VS those who have not.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:27 AM on September 11, 2008

When has it not been?
posted by trondant at 8:30 AM on September 11, 2008

Aha. I get it now. I was thinking more in terms of couples that move in together as like a pre-marriage type thing (it's good to know that your SO doesn't spend 70% of his income on temporary tattoos and can do his own laundry).

Thanks all!
posted by giraffe at 8:31 AM on September 11, 2008

Does the US not have common law marriage anymore?

Effectively, no. It's still on the books in a couple of states, but always requires that the couple present themselves as married - eg, it'll bypass the paperwork, but requires that you actually want to be married. It can't sneak up on you.

The advice-receivers seem not to have considered what will happen to their mutually-purchased stuff, up to and including in several cases a house, should they separate. That, or they protest that "oh, we would never have a non-amicable separation".

Yes, because when married couples split apart, there's never any question about, or difficulty resolving, what happens to their mutually-purchased stuff.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:32 AM on September 11, 2008

A home is just an example, a 20-something couple could easily have big problems deciding who gets the giant flat-screen tv they bought with their student loan money. Major purchases are relative to your income.

Common Law marriage is tricky and inconsistent in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_States
posted by device55 at 8:32 AM on September 11, 2008

And cohabitation certainly doesn't mean that you have children or even intend to have children.

there's lots of people who cohabit and have children - happens all the time
posted by pyramid termite at 8:33 AM on September 11, 2008

I'm assuming this is an answer to the above question re: why cohabitation is bad financially. I'm still confused though. I don't know any 20-somethings that are also homeowners. And cohabitation certainly doesn't mean that you have children or even intend to have children.

I know several 20-somethings who have bought houses with a boyfriend/girlfriend, who simply don't believe they would ever break up. Most of the ones I know have married when a kid turned up though.
posted by jacalata at 8:33 AM on September 11, 2008

RUN A HOME LIKE A BUSINESS

Weekly Home Meeting Minutes 9/7/08

Attendees:
- Steve
- Linda
- Susie
- Billy

Key Items Addressed:

- Billy insisted that the technical issues that prevented him from taking out the garbage would soon be resolved.

- Linda presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Leveraging Shared Bathroom Facilities To Achieve Maximum Hygiene Synergy".

- Steve noted that Susie's shoebox Antarctica diorama project failed key performance metrics. Linda suggested the possibility of outsourcing future projects to India. Billy noted that it is impossible to truly outsource Susie's contributions in general, due to the technical infeasibility of outsourcing cooties. The meeting was temporarily disrupted by a physical altercation between Susie and Billy.

- Steve provided an updated on the latest progress for the Life Partner Summer Internship program. Several candidates from the local University seemed promising. Linda re-iterated concerns about the program in general, and its effect on current operations. Steve and Linda agreed to schedule another meeting to address the concerns in more detail.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:35 AM on September 11, 2008 [46 favorites]

Update: Oh, we were talking about cohabiting in the form of "We don't need marriage?" Odd. The origin point for all this, I thought, was the woman advising her twentysomething coworkers not to cohabit, which at least seems to imply that they're pre-marriage cohabiting and not explicitly avoiding marriage. Am I missing something?
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:37 AM on September 11, 2008

Yeah, I was confused too, Tomorrowful. I guess what they mean is "Don't enter a marriage-like relationship, with shared property and finances and all, without the legal protections of marriage."

My boyfriend and I are cohabiting, but it's nothing like an in-lieu-of-marriage agreement. It's just to have a roommate. The only property we share are the cats.
posted by Anonymous at 8:42 AM on September 11, 2008

Recognize, Minimize Financial Risks of Living Together

I don't know exactly what Mrs. Everichon said, but it's likely that she just wanted to people to understand the risks and limitations of living together. In our culture, it's become so common to move in with your boyfriend or girlfriend that it seems like no big deal to live together. But things can get complicated if there is a break-up, a serious illness, or a combined purchase that both are contributing to. Yes, break-up disputes happen in marriage too, but they happen within a legal context that has protocols for managing the dispute. No protections or standards apply when you don't have a marriage contract. If you are bringing significantly more income into the home, or subsidizing your partner's education, then it's important to be aware that should you split up, you won't have any way to recoup the financial loss the relationship caused. If your partner is incapacitated because of an accident or illness, you have absolutely no family rights to help determine the type of care they will receive - you may not even have access to full medical information due to federal privacy protections. The next of kin will make decisions, not you.

I'm not anti-living together, but in general, I don't think most of us are conscious of how the legal status of our relationships affects our rights and obligations. People live together for a lot of reasons - because they just want to, with no concern about whether it's marriage-bound; because they don't like the institution of marriage and don't want to participate; because they're not legally permitted to marry; because they plan to marry but haven't gone through the ceremony yet; because it's cheaper than living alone; because one partner is still legally married to someone else; and so on and so on. Living together is totally fine, but it's worth thinking about how the relationship should be managed legally and financiallly.
posted by Miko at 8:58 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]

Schroedinger has cats PLURAL? This changes everything...

(sorry)

On topic: I am getting married in about 6 weeks. While we are very much in love, we cannot deny that finances are a good part of it.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:04 AM on September 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

Congrats to you, MysticMCJ. Wishing you a happy and prosperous marriage. :)
posted by hojoki at 9:23 AM on September 11, 2008

I don't know exactly what Mrs. Everichon said, but it's likely that she just wanted to people to understand the risks and limitations of living together.

Thank you, yes.
posted by everichon at 9:27 AM on September 11, 2008

I have a friend who, for the last decade or more, has serially lived with one boyfriend after another. All the relationships ended badly, and the most recent one may (his assertion) or may not (her assertion) have become a common-law marriage due to the duration. Whether or not she intended for these relationships to be financial in nature, they're leaving a financial crater in the rest of her financial life.

Not that I'm passing judgment. Mrs. Gurple and I finally did get married, after purchasing a house, a car, and a dog. We had a fairly decent protective agreement on record with the county about the house, but I'm sure it would have been a chaotic mess regardless.
posted by gurple at 9:57 AM on September 11, 2008

I don't get everyone's assertion that this article is about marriage being about money. To me it's about the fact that fights over how the couple should spend their money can be a major issue in a marriage. That isn't the same as marrying for money.
posted by whoaali at 9:58 AM on September 11, 2008

I don't think Bristol Palin's upcoming marriage to Levi Johnston has much to do about money.

It goes like this: Shotgun wedding to shore up family values credibility of half the republican ticket so the party can hopefully hang on to presidency and ensure that the interests of Corporate America and the wealthy elite are protected from any efforts to curtail their hijacking of the government of the people and get ever more MONEY in their pockets.
posted by longsleeves at 10:09 AM on September 11, 2008

I guess what they mean is "Don't enter a marriage-like relationship, with shared property and finances and all, without the legal protections of marriage."


FFS, why am I reading this the day after we broke up instead of the day before we met?
posted by vbfg at 10:19 AM on September 11, 2008

Congrats, everichon! Today is our 9 year anniversary too.
posted by selfmedicating at 10:42 AM on September 11, 2008

I'd bet views on religion and children (and all of the financial issues that arise, e.g. do we want to give 10% of our income to the church?) are equally important.

My marriage ended because of a fundamental disagreement on having children. (I am solidly pro. He was decidedly con. No way of compromising as the technology for "half a child" has yet to be invented.) Finances definitely played into it - as in, it costs a lot more to have a kid and maintain a certain standard of living (or any standard of living, period), which added to my ex's reluctance to reproduce, but it was mainly a kid v. no-kid battle that just could not be won.

Just adding 2c that while finances weren't a direct factor in the dissolution of my own marriage, they were certainly a secondary concern.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:08 AM on September 11, 2008

11 years happily married and my marriage had nothing to do with money.

It was all about the laundry.

I was about to laugh until I realized I'm on the wrong end of that equation.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:32 AM on September 11, 2008

A few friends of mine (all female, by the way) would argue that common law is still on the books to the extenet that when you attempt to DTMFA, he can haul you into court and walk out with a nice chunk of your $$$.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 11:58 AM on September 11, 2008

"Marrying for love is a relatively recent phenomenon."

NYT: Lets base an entire article off a very, very simplified and shaky assumption that we do nothing to substantiate.

Any mystery why the right in this country has a problem with the NYT?
posted by hellslinger at 12:01 PM on September 11, 2008

Thanks, selfmedicating! To you, too!
posted by everichon at 12:20 PM on September 11, 2008

she likes to needle the twentysomethings she works with stern advice on how they should stop cohabiting, not for moral reasons, but for financial ones.

Love to! If only my Canadian marriage license worked here.
posted by electrasteph at 12:23 PM on September 11, 2008

Well, that's actually true historically, hellslinger. Falling in love isn't new, but marrying primarily for love is a product of the development of the middle class/merchant class in about the last 300 years.

My critique of the NYT, though, has to do with the subjects they pick. Stories like these, with the $35,000 drapes, or the one last year about camp for rich families, are really just "Hey, Martha" stories dressed up to look like sophisticated sociology. What possible reaction are readers supposed to have other than condemning the overconsumption of the rich or the vanity of the selfish? Increasingly, Times' social stories on this model seem to be not much more than invitations for the slightly less affluent to feel superior to the very affluent. I wonder if that becomes a perverse justification for continued overconsumption on the part of the upper middle class readership - since, after all, they are nowhere near as bad as the upper-upper middle class.
posted by Miko at 12:25 PM on September 11, 2008

The New York Times has finally come out and said it - marriage is about money.

Area Man Announces: Marriage All About Money

Increasingly, Times' social stories on this model seem to be not much more than invitations for the slightly less affluent to feel superior to the very affluent.

Well, do you suppose a Times editor typically makes more or less money than the people he meets at parties?
posted by straight at 2:35 PM on September 11, 2008

No way of compromising as the technology for "half a child" has yet to be invented.

Atchly, I think that Solomon had this one figured out, back in the day.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2008

Congrats, everichon! Today is our 9 year anniversary too.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:42 PM on September 11

Wow, those are some pretty long odds no?

Humans->MeFi Members->MeFi Members in this thread->Married->Married on Sept 11->Married on Sept 11 1999.

Neat.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:33 PM on September 11, 2008

Atchly, I think that Solomon had this one figured out, back in the day.

Yeah, see, that's what I thought too, but apparently no one could agree whether to cut vertically or horizontally. I'd go with vertically, wouldn't want to end up with the butt end of the child and no adorable cooing to compensate for the endless poo.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:40 PM on September 11, 2008

On the other hand, you don't have to buy food for the butt. Then again, the top end can't get knocked up when you're running for veep.

But for my own children, I prefer they be divided into inside & outside halves. I donate the organs to science and have the skin stuffed. All of the cute, none of the mess.
posted by ryanrs at 3:58 PM on September 12, 2008