Marriage and Hard Times

[Mr. Lucky]

Divorce and hard times

 

Economic woes often cause marital splits, right? Well, not so fast.

Gregory Rodriguez

 

July 13, 2009

 

Can't stand your boring husband? Thinking of calling it quits? Well, you should have mustered the nerve to leave him well before this economic crisis. Now you might not be able to afford to live without him, literally.

 

It's a well-known fact that financial woes are the biggest cause of marital spats. With the economy the way it is, you'd expect lots of husbands and wives to be at each other's throats. But the conventional wisdom is wrong. This recession is so bad that you can count divorce lawyers among those professions that have taken a hit.

 

That's good news, right? People are now forced to stay together and work things out. Well, not if history tells us anything. The Depression also saw a decline in the divorce rate, but, according to marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, incidents of domestic violence and outright family desertion went up.

 

In any case, despite the fact that divorce can cause all sorts of emotional and financial turmoil, its statistical decline isn't as positive a social indicator as one might think. As economist David Friedman has written, divorce is actually a reflection of "an increase in the range of choice available to individuals," and a high divorce rate and the general weakening of marriage "are bad things only to the extent that they reflect a failure of our institutions and expectations to adjust completely to new circumstances."

 

In other words, in more traditional days, in which social changes occurred more slowly, we all shared a general idea as to what marriage was and how it functioned. From an economic standpoint, we all understood how the marital division of labor worked. But in a rapidly changing society, it's harder to figure out what kind of arrangement we should make with our spouses. Such changes as the entrance of large numbers of women into the workplace and the mechanization or outsourcing of household duties (from washing clothes to curing bacon) undermined that tradition.

 

As the basic marriage deal has shifted, our notions and ideals haven't shifted with it, and the disconnect explains the astronomical divorce rate in contemporary America. We haven't figured out a new marriage model that takes into account the greater range of choices for both women and men.

 

This fits right into the fact that we're divorcing less in hard times. In the context of this recession, we have fewer choices, and fewer choices means we're back to a good fit with the marriage model of old. Still -- and a little paradoxically -- the fact that there are untraditional marriages may also be helping husbands and wives withstand some of the emotional and financial stress of economic hard times. During the Depression, the ego blow to a man who lost his job caused marital problems. Today, if a man loses his job -- and his wife is the breadwinner -- it's less likely to create as much unhappiness.

 

If it's distasteful to you to look at marriage in economic terms, then it might be easier to consider the economics of divorce. Not only are there attorney's fees to be paid, but the value of the two biggest assets of most marriages -- a home and a retirement plan -- has diminished dramatically. Faced with the prospect of halving their shrunken assets, many couples are deciding to stick it out a while.

 

A recent survey conducted by the Institute of Divorce Financial Analysts -- who knew? -- found that 68% of its members "have seen clients who could not afford to get divorced because of recession-related financial problems."

 

So even as most of us are looking forward to happier days of an economic recovery, there must be a number of Americans who are waiting patiently to be able to afford to experience the pain and suffering of divorce. You've heard of the pent-up desire and aspiration that are released after times of war? That's why we get such phenomena as baby booms. When this economic recovery finally arrives, prepare yourselves for a boom of an entirely different sort.

 

grodriguez@latimescolumnists .com

[Mr. Lucky]

I thought the above article was an interesting take on the effect of the economy on divorce rates...

 

Mr. Lucky

[OpenBook]

Very interesting information, Mr. Lucky. It seems to confirm what most marriages are really all about (and always have been): lifelong financial partnerships, as opposed to a luuurrrrrrrvve connection... even if they started out that way.

 

If you're lucky, love will continue to play a part in the marriage as it endures and progresses.

 

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

 

It would be interesting to see the "pent-up demand" dynamic illustrated in actual statistics of divorces spiking during recovery periods, in contrast to the divorce rate during "normal" times.

[SuicideBlonde]

Not surprising - divorce used to be a rarity, but after women's lib and a booming economy, people had more resources and more opportunities.

 

In the "olden days" there just weren't as many opportunities - so people stuck it out. (As they should, unless there's abuse of some sort)

[utterer of lies]

Not surprising - divorce used to be a rarity, but after women's lib and a booming economy, people had more resources and more opportunities.

 

In the "olden days" there just weren't as many opportunities - so people stuck it out. (As they should, unless there's abuse of some sort)

 

Haha, this strikes me as a little naive - I think it was more like:

 

In the old days, women didn't have the right to divorce, or weren't able to support themselves after leaving their husband. So they stayed.

 

It wasn't such a big problem, because the whole idea of 'romantic ever-lasting love in a marriage only got really popular towards the end of the 19th century. Before that, marriage was most often mainly an economic thing...

[carhill]

Didn't stop us. Finding an amicable path has saved enough in lawyer fees to offset the negative impact of a property settlement. We're just average working stiffs, likely poorer than most LS'ers. Where there is a will and creativity, there's a way. No need to prolong suffering because of a few bucks. I've lived my life being a contrarian so finding no common ground with the article is nothing new. I actually was able to use the current economic conditions to strengthen my position in any eventual split. When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade

[stuckinoz]

Didn't stop us. I actually was able to use the current economic conditions to strengthen my position in any eventual split. When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade

 

And then you toss in some Vodka & get the hell outta Dodge

[angie2443]

In the old days, women didn't have the right to divorce, or weren't able to support themselves after leaving their husband. So they stayed.

 

It wasn't such a big problem, because the whole idea of 'romantic ever-lasting love in a marriage only got really popular towards the end of the 19th century. Before that, marriage was most often mainly an economic thing...

 

This is true. I am thankful that I didn't live "in the old days". I think if there is a good reason to leave a marriage, one should be able to leave it.

[redtail]

And then you toss in some Vodka & get the hell outta Dodge

 

 

BWAhahahahahahahahahaha

 

Good one...

[carhill]

Personally, I've stopped drinking. The 'reason' is now gone, not to mention I can't afford to anymore. Many blessings in many disguises

[Mr. Lucky]

It would be interesting to see the "pent-up demand" dynamic illustrated in actual statistics of divorces spiking during recovery periods, in contrast to the divorce rate during "normal" times.

Yes, it almost seems counterintuitive. You'd think that the financial stresses of hard times would split more couples apart, but the author's theory is that the divorce rates spike in boom times simply because people have more options. You right, kind of removes the romance factor ...

 

Mr. Lucky

[NoIDidn't]

Very interesting information, Mr. Lucky. It seems to confirm what most marriages are really all about (and always have been): lifelong financial partnerships, as opposed to a luuurrrrrrrvve connection... even if they started out that way.

 

 

 

Oh so bitter. Always waiting for the opportunity to say something bad about marriage.

 

Luuurrrrrvve connection? LOL.

[NoIDidn't]

Interesting article.

 

I know plenty of couples that are divorcing right now that decided regardless of the economic climate, they had to get out NOW.

 

Regarding the article, though, I agree on the part about modern times and how marriages haven't kept up with the changes. Not all marriages, but some spouses really do want to live in the Stone Age regarding gender roles.

 

Nowadays, you really don't have to wash the dishes, just load the dishwasher. But there still seems to be an incapability in some to even do that. The same for washing clothes. Separate them out, set the right temperature on the machine and go. No more handwashing everything. The microwave. Delivery dinner. You name it. Modern conveniences really should have negated some of the old arguments. But it doesn't seem to have happened. Now we just disagree on who should have called, when, and what to order. LOL.

 

Oh well. Very interesting article.

[Woggle]

I don't care if we are living in a cardboard box because if a woman betrays me she has to get out now.

[confusedinkansas]

Very interesting information, Mr. Lucky. It seems to confirm what most marriages are really all about (and always have been): lifelong financial partnerships, as opposed to a luuurrrrrrrvve connection... even if they started out that way.

 

If you're lucky, love will continue to play a part in the marriage as it endures and progresses.

 

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

 

It would be interesting to see the "pent-up demand" dynamic illustrated in actual statistics of divorces spiking during recovery periods, in contrast to the divorce rate during "normal" times.

 

I personally don't believe that's ALL marriages are about. But finances do play a role.

This is speaking from one that was separated from her husband for a year - worked things out & NOW we are in serious financial trouble because of having 2 separate residences. We weren't when I moved out.

We are getting back together for two reasons - the #1 reason is because we love each other & are better together than apart....& the #2 reason is IT IS CHEAPER to live together as a married couple than apart. Especially since we've been married almost 29 years.

[Mr. Lucky]

I personally don't believe that's ALL marriages are about. But finances do play a role.

This is speaking from one that was separated from her husband for a year - worked things out & NOW we are in serious financial trouble because of having 2 separate residences. We weren't when I moved out.

We are getting back together for two reasons - the #1 reason is because we love each other & are better together than apart....& the #2 reason is IT IS CHEAPER to live together as a married couple than apart. Especially since we've been married almost 29 years.

Your post shows that the financial perspective has more impact than some of us hopeless romantics would like to acknowledge. Hope things continue to work out for you.

 

My POV is probably also limited by my personal experience. As an old white guy (OWG? ), I like to think that I'd take a second job flipping burgers at McD's if that's what it would take to get out of an unhappy marriage. Were I a young woman and divorce rendered me a single Mother of 3, would I have the same options?

 

Mr. Lucky

[NoIDidn't]

I am far from a romantic person, but I think it should be common sense that marriage has a financial component unless the parties in the marriage have been keeping their finances separate for the entire relationship: maintaining separate residences, separate bank accounts, going dutch on everything, and so on.

 

But not many people do marriage like that, so of course dissolving one is going to put both parties through a difficult financial transition.

 

I do think the point that a mother with young children might not have as many options as a woman/man without children, though. Child support doesn't always make up the shortfall of losing an income for divorcing parents, no matter who gets sole custody of the children.