Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good points. And the in-law drama, as far as I've observed, is a cliche that doesn't come up for most couples. Most in-laws have the sense to stay out of the couple's personal decisions. I don't know of anyone who has had their mobility restricted for career advancement, just by getting married. How would it restrict your mobility, for example, since your wife doesn't work? She's free to relocate with you, as need be. The marriage gig isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, as long as people don't bring unresolved issues from the past into it, and make good choices.
I was talking about my particular case--don't want to go into details but yes there are stress factors coming from the in-laws--not too bad but they ARE there. Also, my wife has stubbornly refused/refuses to move out of this area even when I had much better job prospects in other parts of the country. And she does work, btw. I have learned to live with the situation--it is not worth going for the extra $ to wreck a good marriage. Marriage is give-and-take--compromises. Sometimes I yield to her and sometimes she does to me.
I agree, marriage 'gig' is not as bad as made out to be.
There are also economic benefits. The economy needs a stable population to continue growing. Population decline is economic decline. Period.
Aren't we just a collection of miserable, lonely, money-loving people in this country?
Our birth rate is under 2.1. American society is shrinking without immigration. Please, all of you naysayers don't reproduce so we can allow more of the hard working third world culture to replace our screwed up greedy entitled culture.
You are correct--without immigration a lot of Western countries are doomed. But 'humanity' won't end when that happens. I am sure the brown, the black, and the yellow people of the world will fill the 'void'. Perhaps that's what so hard for some people to entertain? [I am not saying YOU are one of those people].
A marriage could potentially be more financially rewarding than a solo act, IF both of the players are stars and contributors. For example, if I'm making $100k right now and my wife is making $65k, combining that means we now have $165,000 a year to play with. If we both know how to budget, save and invest, then we would be getting off further ahead than being solo as the expenses (with the creation of the 2-3 kids) would be easily managed.
You'd be better off having the ceremony but declining to sign the gov't form to avoid the extra $3K in annual taxes, the so-called marriage penalty. With 2-3 kids you won't retire unless the gov't can manage to borrow another, say, $50 trillion. If the gov't can't borrow it to keep pumping up the stock market, you can expect your investments to do little better than inflation.
I would say that the institution of marriage, as something 'must do' or even 'sacred' is wrong. Two mature human beings don't need a piece of paper. And frankly, as happily married as I am for over a decade, I too sometimes have doubts because--hmmm--there are other women who appear younger/more appealing. Also, marriage introduces the dramas from in-laws. Also, marriage seems to restrict my mobility for career advancement. Imagine these concerns despite NOT having kids?! Now factor in kids!
But I don't look at marriage as a financial transaction at all. I am the bread-winner but the wife still contributes significantly both financially and in keeping the house going. Then there are mutual human needs. Trust. Social circles. Travel. Someone to 'lean on' for both of us. We are a couple and friends of each other. If the piece of paper gives her 'security' then so be it; I too gain a lot by having a 'secure' wife.
I wouldn't trade the stability and all the above in my life for some other woman. And, yes, I have to have a woman in my life. Call it human nature.
What benefits did you receive from marrying that you DIDN'T receive prior? So you are telling me that your "soulmate" would have left you if you decided to not sign marriage papers? If that's the case, is she really your soulmate then?
You might not "look" at marriage as a business or a financial transaction, but that doesn't mean that the Family Court doesn't, it doesn't mean the IRS doesn't, it doesn't mean that your "soulmate" won't once she decides to divorce you for irreconcilable differences.
Marriage IS a financial transaction. The marriage paperwork is sent to the SOS (the same place that corporation paperwork is sent when established) and filed with the SOS. It's sort of foolish to say that marriage isn't a business and financial transaction when that's EXACTLY the purpose of getting married to the person you "love". The point is to either build wealth more efficiently, share wealth more efficiently, etc.
I posted in another thread that 60% of 1st - 3rd marriages end in divorce. You are already married so you are sort of already stuck, you BETTER not do anything to tick that woman off (which includes breathing too hard) because if so.....kiss your financial peace and life goodbye sir.
Got the snip when I was 21 and that was 7 years ago... best damn thing I've ever done. I'd be single, alone, and happy as hell before I ever allow a child to come to be.
Not a woman out there can convince me otherwise :-)
You'd be better off having the ceremony but declining to sign the gov't form to avoid the extra $3K in annual taxes, the so-called marriage penalty. With 2-3 kids you won't retire unless the gov't can manage to borrow another, say, $50 trillion. If the gov't can't borrow it to keep pumping up the stock market, you can expect your investments to do little better than inflation.
Depends on local COL and on lifestyle. If you're willing to be frugal for several decades, it can be made to work in most areas.
Yet the economic decline is great for most people. Houses get cheaper, traffic congestion lessens, etc. etc. No more property tax hikes to widen the local freeway. And on and on. You just don't want it to decline so fast that it's unmanageable, e.g. Detroit.
What benefits did you receive from marrying that you DIDN'T receive prior? So you are telling me that your "soulmate" would have left you if you decided to not sign marriage papers? If that's the case, is she really your soulmate then?
You might not "look" at marriage as a business or a financial transaction, but that doesn't mean that the Family Court doesn't, it doesn't mean the IRS doesn't, it doesn't mean that your "soulmate" won't once she decides to divorce you for irreconcilable differences.
If she had left me had I not married her then that would be fine with me. I married late--well in late 30's--and I would have more than survived continuing an unmarried life.
My wife is my companion, friend and a lover. We trust each other. And if it required her to have the piece of paper as a condition to build the trust then so be it. And if I make a bad choice then, yes, I will have financial consequences. I KNEW that before getting married.
Again, in my situation I did not and do not consider the marriage as a financial transaction, regardless of what the Family Court says. We are good friends/couple for over a decade and that's very likely to continue. Not everyone falls into some statistic!
You are correct--without immigration a lot of Western countries are doomed. But 'humanity' won't end when that happens. I am sure the brown, the black, and the yellow people of the world will fill the 'void'. Perhaps that's what so hard for some people to entertain? [I am not saying YOU are one of those people].
Agreed. A lot of bitter angry single folks just won't accept this. Not that all single people are bitter and angry (I am single), but this attitude that kids are worthless is just hilarious.
The same people complaining about immigration are the same people not wanting to have kids. What do they expect?
2.1 is the magic number.
Population decline looks like this (1.5 birth rate):
John & Mary: -----> Little John
Joe & Susan: ------> Little Joe & Betty
Yet the economic decline is great for most people. Houses get cheaper, traffic congestion lessens, etc. etc. No more property tax hikes to widen the local freeway. And on and on. You just don't want it to decline so fast that it's unmanageable, e.g. Detroit.
No, you're only thinking about yourself. You're missing the big picture.
If the United States doesn't reach replacement levels through birth, it needs immigration. If it doesn't reach replacement through birth + immigration, the population declines. If population declines, economic demand declines. Real estate market will decline. Profits will decline.
Downward spiral.
Don't believe me? How is Japan's 1.2 birth rate helping their economy? (Hint: 20+ years of recession)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
