
America, Home of the Transactional Marriage - jseliger
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/marriage-rates-education/536913/?single_page=true
======
icanhackit
I'd wager entertainment and advertising plays a large part in it as well.
Educated people see the folly in shows like the Kardashians, daytime soap
operas and ads showing material wealth as virtuous and something to aspire to.
Less critical thinkers lap that stuff up and misinterpret the source of
happiness and contentment. TV shows can create toxic expectations that can't
be practically met by everyone, and for many people these shows have replaced
community culture and personal belief systems.

The culture of material expectation could help explain the difference between
Canada and the US when it comes to relationship stability and partner
selection. Obviously better social welfare in Canada/West Europe is a massive
driver, but it would still need to be paired with a culture where the stigma
of poverty isn't as great and material wealth isn't as coveted.

~~~
compiler-guy
There is remarkable data showing that the television show "Sixteen and
Pregnant" reduces teen pregnancy rates in locations where it is shown. This
would tend to support your hypothesis.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-
entertainment/w...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-
entertainment/wp/2014/04/09/how-mtvs-16-and-pregnant-led-to-declining-teen-
birth-rates/?utm_term=.523213462be8)

~~~
alasdair_
I'm almost certain that this was the initial effect, but later seasons (where
every one of the cast members are reasonably wealthy due to cash from MTV) had
the opposite effect.

I can o ly find 2014 data right now rhough.

Relatedly, "baby simulators" lead to an increase in teen pregnancy
-[https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/25/infant-simulators-
teen-p...](https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/25/infant-simulators-teen-
pregnancy/)

~~~
trprog
>teenagers are handed an electronic doll to care for for a day or two

Not surprised this had the opposite effect. It completely misses what is, in
my opinion, one of the most dramatic aspects of being a parent. It doesn't end
until you die.

Many parents have a baby that destroys the parent's sleep schedule for so long
that it feels like it will never end. Then there is worrying about your child
reaching important feeling development milestones, worrying about your child's
ability to make friends and to survive bullies, where will they go to school?
"how can those shoes be too small? We just bought them!" etc etc. A child is a
never ending stream of things to worry about.

Any bozo who has been provided with the most basic baby care instruction can
take care of a baby for 48 hours. Simply knowing that there is a fixed period
in time at which it is over makes it manageable.

------
lmg643
This is a pretty provincial piece. Marriage has been transactional for
thousands of years. To this day, the practice continues around the world. I
have a colleague in the US who has an arranged marriage (he was born
overseas). But of course, let's pretend that "romantic love" is the historical
norm (versus recent movie invention) and we've somehow fallen from this
expectation.

~~~
swsieber
The divorce rate is a new thing though, right? I'd bet that even if it was an
arranged marriage, if you knew you weren't going to get divorced, you'd try to
find ways to love your partner...

~~~
closeparen
Recognizing domestic violence and spousal rape as outside the bounds of
acceptable behavior and/or grounds for redress is also a new development, in
the grand scheme of things.

~~~
victorhooi
Do you have any evidence do suggest this is actually a leading cause of
divorce, as opposed to other things like personality clashes, financial
stress, etc.

Everything I've read seems to suggest that incompatible personalities and
finances are the main reasons people in our society split up - which would
seem to debunk your theory.

~~~
riquito
Do you seriously think that all the fights and demonstrations to get the right
to divorce were mostly because of "incompatible personalities and finances"?

~~~
horsecaptin
Do you think those fights would have been possible without the possibility of
financial independence?

~~~
riquito
Yes, there is no correlation between the ability to fight and one of the
possible outcomes of the fight

------
nl
An interesting somewhat related phenomenon is the rise of the medical divorce,
where a couple will divorce to protect assets from medical debt
bankruptcy[1][2]. The ACA and Medicaid expansion lowered the divorce rate by a
measurable amount in some population groups[3] which I find amazing.

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplanner/2014/08/21/divor...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplanner/2014/08/21/divorce-
due-to-medical-bills-sometimes-it-makes-sense/)

[2] [http://www.helsell.com/helsell-news/medicaid-divorce-an-
over...](http://www.helsell.com/helsell-news/medicaid-divorce-an-overview/)

[3] [http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/obamacare-
divorce/](http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/obamacare-divorce/)

------
kennethh
I can recommend reading The Rational Male, he discusses the dynamics of
marriage and you get a much better understanding after reading the books or
the articles on the website.
[https://therationalmale.com/](https://therationalmale.com/)

Teaser: women initiate 70+% of the divorces and the reasons they do is not
what is shown in the media.

------
beebmam
There really should be no financial benefit to marriage. It becomes a coercive
force that encourages people to marry and stay married, even though they may
not want to.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Actually, for a couple who earn about the same each, there is a marriage
penalty:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marriage-
penalty-couples-income.html)

~~~
sokoloff
If the tax penalty is smaller than the savings from sharing a household, it's
still an advantage to be married vs single and living alone.

~~~
protomyth
Well, you could be unmarried and living together.

~~~
PakG1
I don't know how it is in other places, but in Vancouver, if you cohabit for a
number of years, you are subject to the same stuff as if you were married
couples. I can't remember the details, forgive me, busy work day.

~~~
kobeya
That's called common-law marriage and it exists in California too, but it
doesn't mean you start paying married tax rates. It just means that, e.g., if
your partner falls terminally ill you are allowed to make medical decisions
for them just as a spouse would, or if they die you take custody of the
children rather than their side of the family, etc.

~~~
mercutio2
California most certainly does not have, and has not had for over 100 years,
common law marriage. Many people think they’re fine, then are in for a
horrible, rude awakening when their long term partner is either sick or dies
as the title holder to assets.

Spread the word!

[https://apeopleschoice.com/common-law-marriage-in-
california...](https://apeopleschoice.com/common-law-marriage-in-california/)

------
dangoldin
This reminded me of a book I read last year that takes about the role of work
and poverty in a poor, anonymous town in California. Definitely worth reading
if you're interested in this topic:
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0043GWQ22/ref=oh_aui_d_de...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0043GWQ22/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o02_?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

------
zxcvvcxz
> The country’s exceptionally thin safety net prompts residents—especially
> those with less-steady employment—to view partnership in more economic
> terms.

Huh? This is literally the opposite of reality.

It's the poorer countries with low GDPs per capita that have thin public
safety nets, and where strong marriage and family ties are a must,
economically speaking.

Here in The West, we're so rich that we'll redistribute our money (tax
dollars) and allow you to become a single mother.

Furthermore, name me another part of the world with fat homeless people.

Marriage is not "transactional" in the country with one of the richest
countries on Earth. With a GDP per capita of 57,466.79 USD (2016), marriage is
_optional_ , and economically independent women don't need to settle with mid-
tier men, especially not during the "fun years" (e.g. 18 - 30).

Remember, 80% of men are below average: [https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-
looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0...](https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-
your-inbox-8715c0f1561e)

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's the poorer countries with low GDPs per capita that have thin public
> safety nets, and where strong marriage and family ties are a must,
> economically speaking. Here in The West, we're so rich that we'll
> redistribute our money (tax dollars) and allow you to become a single
> mother._

That was then, this is now, as they say.

In the west safety nets might not be as thin as in the "poorer countries" but
they have been getting increasingly thinner. And being a "single mother" is
the last thing (economically speaking) anyone would wish for in today's
climate.

So you're both right. Marriage is even more transactional in the poorer
countries, but the article is about how it's becoming more transactional in
the US too, which is indeed a thing.

> _Marriage is not "transactional" in the country with one of the richest
> countries on Earth._

That doesn't matter for those who can't find a job, or that are an illness
away from being homeless and with no savings -- which are millions.

~~~
gozur88
>In the west safety nets might not be as thin as in the "poorer countries" but
they have been getting increasingly thinner.

I can't speak for the rest of The West, but the safety net in the US has been
getting better over time. Compared to my childhood it's easier to qualify for
government assistance and it's easier to get medical care.

~~~
coldtea
> _I can 't speak for the rest of The West, but the safety net in the US has
> been getting better over time. Compared to my childhood it's easier to
> qualify for government assistance and it's easier to get medical care._

Compared to the time when a single income earner in a family of four, could
buy a house in their 30s and send their kids to college?

~~~
dragonwriter
That's not the safety net, that's a condition contributing to whether people
who need the safety net.

But, yes, in a number of key respects, the safety net has gotten worse, too.
And it's _harder_ to qualify for most assistance (other than health insurance
subsidies) than it was pre-“Welfare Reform”.

------
gozur88
This article seems completely unmoored from any historical context.

