The Case for Getting Married Young • Hacker News Board

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#21

Post by alexjeffrey » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

alberich wrote: post #8

alexjeffrey wrote: post #2

as someone who got married at 21, I can honestly say it's the decision I'm most happy about in my life so far. However, we had been together for over 7 years by that point and I'd be very wary of advocating getting married young to everyone, as I know at least here in the UK there seem to be quite a few teenage/early-twenties couples who decide to get married after a few months to a year, and end up divorced 6 months…

> However, we had been together for over 7 years by that point Just for curiosity... did you start your relationship with 14 y/o? I guess playing video games was all I cared when I was this age :D

13 actually - funnily enough it started with video games; we met on Runescape!

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#22

Post by auctiontheory » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:31 PM UTC

This article is a statistical catastrophe. Sample bias is just the most blatant of many problems.

She might have a different perspective if she'd interviewed a few (dozen) folks who married young and wrong, before they had matured enough to really know themselves or their spouse.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#23

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

kscaldef wrote: post #12

"Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married counterparts" Let's all say it together: Correlation is not causation.

As I posted elsewhere, you might be interested in some strong evidence for the causal relationship as described by economist Bryan Caplan:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#24

Post by Zimahl » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:34 PM UTC

The average age at which a woman first gives birth (25.7) is now earlier than the average age of first marriage (26.5), a phenomenon Knot Yet calls "The Great Crossover" and which brings with it all of the well-documented concerns that surround the rearing of children outside of wedlock.

I wonder what these values were historically. I just don't think that those two numbers are ever too terribly far apart.

I mean, if a unmarried woman got pregnant in 1950 she would be married probably within the 9 months before the baby was born and the lack of birth control historically could have lead to many pregnancies immediately following marriage. Both of these would push the first child age to be later than first marriage.

Although, logically, one would think the advent and superfluousness of birth control would prevent unwed pregnancies and allow married couples to wait on having children (should they desire to wait), driving the first child age way up. But that's not the case - intriguing.

I guess in current times people have the means (and typically the lack of social scorn) to wait to get married and don't have to just because of an accidental pregnancy.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#25

Post by ryusage » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

kscaldef wrote: post #12

"Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married counterparts" Let's all say it together: Correlation is not causation.

I agree. Someone already in that situation will not be less depressed or more satisfied just by getting married. If anything, that's likely to make it worse in most cases.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#26

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:40 PM UTC

kscaldef wrote: post #12

"Unmarried twenty-somethings are more likely to be depressed, drink excessively, and report lower levels of satisfaction than their married counterparts" Let's all say it together: Correlation is not causation.

Do you have a hypothesis why "happiness" would correlate with marriage without their being any causative relationship?

Correlation does suggest causation though. Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#27

Post by Axsuul » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:41 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #9

I'm yet another example of a successful early marriage (I was 22 and she was 19). She finished her undergrad and masters degrees after we married and we also started "with nothing but each other". After 30 years, I still can't imagine being with anyone else ... it makes life so much better if you have someone to share your happiness with - and if there are two of you to tackle life's problems together.

Does your wife know that you still can imagine being with someone else?

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#28

Post by fusiongyro » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:43 PM UTC

perokreco wrote: post #20

fusiongyro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "...[A]mong the women that report being "highly satisfied" with their lives, 29 percent are cohabitating, 33 percent are single, and 47 percent are married." That would seem to suggest that "upbeat roommates" are, on average, worse for women than singledom or marriage, no? Your personal experience notwithstanding, the statistics (at least for this claim) are on the side of the article.

No it wouldn't. This statistic is highly misleading and the article author is basically lying by putting it in the article. If there are twice as many women who are married than there are those who are cohabitating then cohabitating is on average better than marriage.

I'm guessing she took that from this graphic:

http://twentysomethingmarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

Note that 33 + 29 + 47 = 109, not 100. Her wording makes it sound like they computed from one pool of "very satisfied" people the amount that were single, cohabitating and married, but the numbers in the infographic don't support that interpretation. It looks like instead they separated the groups by gender and status, and then tallied up the number that said they were "very satisfied" which I don't think is vulnerable to your rebuttal.

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#29

Post by Zimahl » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #18

purplelobster wrote: post #7

You don't have to be married to be in a committed relationship. A large percent of couples (> 30%) in Scandinavian countries for example never enter into a marriage, or people might marry 5, 6, 7, 8 years after they're first together. In that sense the marriage is a capstone, but there is no difference between that couple and a couple that got married right away and have been together for 8 years.

> there is no difference between that couple and a couple that got married right away and have been together for 8 years // Anything to back up that assertion?

I don't think he needs to back that up. I mean there isn't a whole lot of difference between an amorous, unmarried couple who cohabitates together or an amorous, married couple who cohabitates together. In the US, other than a document from the state you were married in, there's just about zero difference, other than societal views.

(BTW, I know my above doesn't apply to homosexual couples. I'm purposely ignoring it right now because it doesn't suit my explanation. Those are issues that need to be resolved by SCOTUS.)

Re: The Case for Getting Married Young

#30

Post by jessriedel » Thu, Mar 28, 2013, 9:52 PM UTC

> One student told him that her parents "want my full attention on grades and school." But such advice reflects an outdated reality, one in which a college degree was almost a guarantee of a good job that would be held for a lifetime.

I really don't think the outdated-ness of this advice has anything to do with the value of a college degree.The modern open dating offers lots of varied sex to those who can navigate it well. This seems like way more time intensive, especially in terms of displacing constructive activities like studying, than a committed relationship.