Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Marriage

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#81

Post by davi »

breck wrote: post #72
bokonist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those statistics are totally the wrong ones to look at. It's "Age at marriage for those who divorce in America". You want "Divorce rate by age at marriage".

"Divorce rate by age at marriage" + the age of marriage as a percentage of all marriages (otherwise you might find 80% of marriages at age 60 are successful but fail to realize that probably accounts for a I think it's kind of funny that we're all seeking statistics on marriage. Where are the romantics on HN?

Numerate romantics seek sanity check?

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#82

Post by pohl »

scott_s wrote: post #40
yummyfajitas wrote: post #27

Don't marry if you are a guy. At present, marriage is a contract with no upside for you. You gain nothing from marriage that you can't get from a committed non-marital relationship, and stand to lose a lot.

Marriage is a way of saying "My intention is to spend the rest of my life with you as my partner." That means something to your partner. If you're not willing to say that, then that means something, too.

That's an interesting perspective. What you're saying is that marriage is a mode of communication for that one sentiment. Are there other modes of communicating the same sentiment? (an epic poem, breaking into heartfelt song, getting tattoos,...) Are they all equivalent? Does choosing to not express it by marriage necessarily imply that one is not willing to express it at all?

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#83

Post by noodle »

josefresco wrote: post #25
noodle wrote: post #14

frankly, i think its a commentary on marriage, not just entrepreneurial or techie marriages. divorce rates are higher with younger couples. the younger, the higher.

where's the beef? got a url to back that up? would love to read up on it.

http://www.divorcerate.org/

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#84

Post by mmc »

bokonist wrote: post #67
mmc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.divorcerate.org/ has the following for men: age rate So if you are just playing the numbers, wait until your late 20's at least. But please, don't play the numbers. As someone already said, don't try to plan love.

Those statistics are totally the wrong ones to look at. It's "Age at marriage for those who divorce in America". You want "Divorce rate by age at marriage".

Very good point. Finding the second breakdown seems harder.

At any rate, it's still the wrong game to play for the OP.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#85

Post by prawn »

Whatever you do, when it comes to marriage, don't rush into it. Don't do it because it seems like the next logical step, don't do it because it brings a partner health benefits, don't do it because either family is pushing you.

You can take your time, give the r'ship loads of time to be tested (by travel, financial compromises, living together, sexual compatibility, etc) - if and when you do it, only do it for absolutely the right reasons.

It's harder to undo than it is to do.

(Personally: Married and divorced before 25. Now engaged to someone after 6-7 years together including living together for much of that, and travelling the world for 12 months.)

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#86

Post by TriinT »

falien wrote: post #78
breck wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

misleading. i'm guessing the number of murder victims is many orders of magnitude smaller than marriages, and is negligible.

I like how I'm downvoted for a joke response to a worthless uncited statistic. If its because you think its not funny fine. I sincerely hope no readers of HN are dumb enough to actually be "mislead" by it.

There's a lot of herd phenomena on HN. Humans are social animals, and animals are dumb by nature.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#87

Post by whughes »

cnlwsu wrote: post #79
whughes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html Also, "all US marriages" is not the same thing as "all US first marriages." A person divorced twice and divorcing for the third time is different from a person divorcing for the first time. That has little to do with the poor judgment of youth.

according to wolfram its ~49.8% http://www42.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+annual+...

Did you read the article I posted? It pretty extensively explains why that statistic is useless. Number of divorces / number of marriages is not the same thing as the chance of a marriage ending in divorce.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#88

Post by scott_s »

pohl wrote: post #82
scott_s wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marriage is a way of saying "My intention is to spend the rest of my life with you as my partner." That means something to your partner. If you're not willing to say that, then that means something, too.

That's an interesting perspective. What you're saying is that marriage is a mode of communication for that one sentiment. Are there other modes of communicating the same sentiment? (an epic poem, breaking into heartfelt song, getting tattoos,...) Are they all equivalent? Does choosing to not express it by marriage necessarily imply that one is not willing to express it at all?

It doesn't just communicate it to your partner, but to society. Getting married is a ritualized promise that is done before one's community of family and friends. I think saying the vows to your partner, in front of your family and friends, is markedly different than, say, writing a poem and getting tattoos.

I suppose marriage is what you make of it. I consider being married to be a different state than not being married. I don't see any state change happening from writing a poem. But there is one with getting tattoos.

Whether or not you get married in the eyes of the state or a church I don't think is important. But I do think that promise is important, and it is further weighted if done publicly.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#89

Post by anamax »

grandalf wrote: post #64
cujo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're still stuck with a financial liability if you decide to have kids with non person you aren't married to. Plus there are tax breaks for being married. But that is just monetary. In reality most people in the US aren't as inclined to have life partners without the marriage part. And frankly, there is something special about professing your commitment to another person in front of your community that some…

Tax breaks for being married? Quite the contrary. You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels. Also, if you file as married (jointly or separately) if one person itemizes the other must itemize, or vice versa w/ the standard deduction. One gets big tax breaks for owing money to a bank for a mortgage loan or for having children, but not simply for being m…

> You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels.

If you do the math you actually find that married folk pay less US federal income taxes in certain situations and more in others. (CA is the same - I don't know about other states) The result depends on the distribution of income between the two people

If both people make roughly the same amount of money, being married results in more taxes. If one person makes all the money, being married results in less taxes.

It turns out that a marriage differential (different taxes for married and unmarried couples) is a mathematical consequence of any tax system that has progressive marginal rates and treats a married couple's income as a lump sum.

That said, the marriage differential can be "married is always cheaper", "married is always more expensive", or "some times married is cheaper and some times it isn't" (as is the case with US and CA). It all depends on the various rates and deductions.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#90

Post by endtime »

pohl wrote: post #74
endtime wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many women out there want to raise kids out of wedlock? Probably not many, and the same is probably true of most men. Or are you assuming that men don't want to have families?

I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner. Neither a wedding nor a state-enforced contract is required for a committed, long-term, loving relationship. There is an increasing phenomenon of women choosing to give birth out of wedlock. It's not yet clear if they are having children without a cohabitant partner. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-tren...

>I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner.

I really think you're being unrealistic if you think women don't care about getting married before having children with someone. You can place whatever value judgments you like on the reasons for that, but to say it isn't the case isn't realistic.

Post reply on HN