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

Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 209 posts

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#181

Post by ethbr1 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #135
graemep wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not really understand that. Why would people have to start again from zero? What sort of "forced loss of agency" happens? Are there laws allowing people to stop their spouse from running an existing business?

It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope…

If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt?

Do you have details on what you're talking about?

Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#182

Post by nothercastle »

jb1991 wrote: post #121
pdabbadabba wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People get married in the states because of the law That's at least vastly overstated, and probably just false. I'm an American living in a major urban center and I don't think I know anybody for whom the decision to get married was influenced by legal considerations to any significant degree.

Tax benefits. Married, filing jointly. Happens a lot, including to people within my family. Also, health insurance. Another thing Americans have yet to learn from Europe. In the states, sometimes you have to get married just to get health insurance. It’s kind of ridiculous.

There are benefits if you have different income levels but penalties in the low and the high end. Very high penalties on the low end

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#183

Post by nothercastle »

parpfish wrote: post #11
elric wrote: post #2

How many of these never-married men are in a relationship? Unmarried != single. Stats on the number of singles who have never been in a relationship would be far more valuable. Relationships, sexual or otherwise, are not subject to paperwork. The days of relationships, sex, or even reproduction being tied to marriage are long gone.

The label “single” is weird. In most cases it just means “not in a relationship” and doesn’t tell you about marital status. But if you’re in specifically asking about marriage, it can mean unwed (and I’m sure it gets even trickier for poly relationships). If a flirty stranger approaches and asks “are you single”, you’d say no “no, I’m in a relationship” If you’re filling out a form at the doctor office and it asks “m…

Living with a partner should narrow it down

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#184

Post by devilbunny »

jb1991 wrote: post #125
pdabbadabba wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People get married in the states because of the law That's at least vastly overstated, and probably just false. I'm an American living in a major urban center and I don't think I know anybody for whom the decision to get married was influenced by legal considerations to any significant degree.

Just google all of the legal and financial benefits that you get in the United States when you get married.

The legal incentives are quite large, but the financial ones are much less impressive unless you have a stay-at-home spouse.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#185

Post by Jensson »

ethbr1 wrote: post #181
jandrewrogers wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope…

If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt? Do you have details on what you're talking about? Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.

Depending on state that will be thrown out.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#186

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #62
willidiots wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to be mindful of is that this limits your ability to help your partner as you age. State intervention can play both ways.

It’s actually the opposite. A lot of benefits programs are punitive to marriage wrt household income. I know many older couples who stay unmarried because one of them would lose their healthcare or cash transfer benefit, for example. For making healthcare decisions, durable power attorney and a medical proxy should be sufficient for unmarried couples. Not an attorney, talk to one if this is a need you have to validat…

[deleted]

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#187

Post by abenga »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #137
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #75

I was married for 11 years, had three children and am happily divorced. I’m glad I got married and I’m just as glad I was able to get a divorce. What’s overwhelmingly changed in my lifetime (since 1980) is that young adult people would rather be alone with no children than take the risk on being unhappy or getting a divorce. The single biggest change is that the average sentiment now in the “global-west” is “why shou…

We were never gonna scale our population much further anyways. Arguably, the social changes we’ve seen could be a response to our reaching a (very approximate) carrying capacity and experiencing friction against further growth in myriad ways. That’s the way I’ve been thinking about it at least. > That wasn’t previously really an option for most people - for a lot of structural reasons. I’d be interested to hear more…

> I’d be interested to hear more about this if its no trouble.

For women, at least, you could not be independent (legally at least). You needed a man to co-sign applications to open bank accounts/credit cards/etc. Fewer well paying jobs were available to you. All these were worse still if you were a member of a minority.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#188

Post by jandrewrogers »

ethbr1 wrote: post #181
jandrewrogers wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope…

If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt? Do you have details on what you're talking about? Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.

> Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.

Really? That’s what you’ve got?

I’ve seen examples of this in Silicon Valley going back to the 1990s. A prenup is not reliable and loads of people don’t have one in any case. Unlike not getting married, there is significant social pressure against prenups. If you actually care the path of least resistance is to not get married. It is quite difficult to get a prenup against the possibility that someone will prove to be irresponsible or malicious in the future in a context they’ve never experienced thus far.

It also doesn’t address the case that if you start a company while married, your spouse effectively has full license to destroy it even if they were completely uninvolved up until the point where they decide to destroy it. I’ve seen it happen, lots of collateral damage for both employees and investors. People will do it out of spite. How do you write a prenup about a company that doesn’t exist yet and may never exist?

Anything that can happen legally generally happens in practice. Average people even in tech don’t hire a team of lawyers when they decide to get married.

If you’ve chosen to get your information from talk radio and TikTok as you seem to suggest, well, that’s a choice.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#189

Post by jb1991 »

techjamie wrote: post #171
jb1991 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Married filing jointly, tax benefits. My sibling did it. Also, health insurance. Another thing Americans have yet to learn from Europe. In the states, sometimes you have to get married just to get health insurance. It’s kind of ridiculous.

My employer is of course just one and not representative of every company. But my work/indurance is happy to accept long term domestic partner in lieu of marriage. As long as you swear to be in a long term committed relationship and live together, it's fine.

That opens up an entirely different discussion, which is why should health insurance be tied to a job? This is also uniquely American. Is your home insurance tied to your job? Is your car insurance tied to your job? Is your life insurance? Doesn’t make sense that your health insurance should be. What happens if you get laid off or you decide you don’t want to work for this company any more or you want to take another opportunity? Now your health insurance or your health insurance costs might both change. And you might have to go through the same hoops again to get a domestic partner installed, etc.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#190

Post by [deleted] »

diogocp wrote: post #173
jb1991 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I do get your point, marriage is so deeply ingrained into the legal and financial systems of the U.S. that I think many can't help but subconsciously attach these things that really should be independent. Marriage unlocks a wide range of legal and financial benefits: access to a spouse’s health insurance, favorable tax treatment (like joint filing and estate tax breaks), and legal protections such as hospital v…

> In many other countries, marriage is not attached to these things. Care to name one? What you described is basically how marriage works in my corner of Europe.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN