Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

    A new economics paper has some old-fashioned advice for people navigating the stresses of life: Find a spouse who is also your best friend.

    Social scientists have long known that married people tend to be happier, but they debate whether that is because marriage causes happiness or simply because happier people are more likely to get married. The new paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, controlled for pre-marriage happiness levels.

    It concluded that being married makes people happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who remain single – particularly during the most stressful periods, like midlife crises.

    Even as fewer people are marrying, the disadvantages of remaining single have broad implications. It’s important because marriage is increasingly a force behind inequality. Stable marriages are more common among educated, high-income people, and increasingly out of reach for those who are not. That divide appears to affect not just people’s income and family stability, but also their happiness and stress levels.





    A quarter of today’s young adults will have never married by 2030, which would be the highest share in modern history, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet both remaining unmarried and divorcing are more common among less-educated, lower-income people. Educated, high-income people still marry at high rates and are less likely to divorce.

    Those whose lives are most difficult could benefit most from marriage, according to the economists who wrote the new paper, John Helliwell of the Vancouver School of Economics and Shawn Grover of the Canadian Department of Finance. “Marriage may be most important when there is that stress in life and when things are going wrong,” Mr. Grover said.

    They analyzed data about well-being from two national surveys in the United Kingdom and the Gallup World Poll. In all but a few parts of the world, even when controlling for people’s life satisfaction before marriage, being married made them happier. This conclusion, however, did not hold true in Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

    Intriguingly, marital happiness long outlasted the honeymoon period. Though some social scientists have argued that happiness levels are innate, so people return to their natural level of well-being after joyful or upsetting events, the researchers found that the benefits of marriage persist.

    One reason for that might be the role of friendship within marriage. Those who consider their spouse or partner to be their best friend get about twice as much life satisfaction from marriage as others, the study found.

    The effect of friendship seems to be the result of living with a romantic partner, rather than the legal status of being married, because it was as strong for people who lived together but weren’t married. Women benefit more from being married to their best friend than men do, though women are less likely to regard their spouse as their best friend.

    “What immediately intrigued me about the results was to rethink marriage as a whole,” Mr. Helliwell said. “Maybe what is really important is friendship, and to never forget that in the push and pull of daily life.”

    Marriage has undergone a drastic shift in the last half century. In the past, as the Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker described, marriage was utilitarian: Women looked for a husband to make money and men looked for a woman to manage the household.

    But in recent decades, the roles of men and women have become more similar. As a result, spouses have taken on roles as companions and confidants, particularly those who are financially stable, as the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have discussed.

    The benefits of marital friendship are most vivid during middle age, when people tend to experience a dip in life satisfaction, largely because career and family demands apply the most stress then. Those who are married, the new paper found, have much shallower dips – even in regions where marriage does not have an overall positive effect.

    “The biggest benefits come in high-stress environments, and people who are married can handle midlife stress better than those who aren’t because they have a shared load and shared friendship,” Mr. Helliwell said.

    Overall, the research comes to a largely optimistic conclusion. People have the capacity to increase their happiness levels and avoid falling deep into midlife crisis by finding support in long-term relationships. Yet those relationships seem to be less achievable for the least advantaged members of society.

  • #2
    Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

    I just can't help but notice, the absence of any discussion of children, family, culture, etc. - just pure unadulterated "what's in it for me" as a reason for marriage. No talk of commitment through thick and thin, the romance of the decision and commitment to "bind oneself to another", the importance of stable families on transmission of culture. Of course, having a stable friend in middle and old age is a no brainer, but you don't need to be married to have good friends.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

      Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
      I just can't help but notice, the absence of any discussion of children, family, culture, etc. - just pure unadulterated "what's in it for me" as a reason for marriage. No talk of commitment through thick and thin, the romance of the decision and commitment to "bind oneself to another", the importance of stable families on transmission of culture. Of course, having a stable friend in middle and old age is a no brainer, but you don't need to be married to have good friends.
      Or the submission of one's own desires for the needs/goals of the extended family.

      Arranged marriages are often vilified in the west, as are very robust family/community/religious networks.

      Marriage, in a clinical sense, is a persistent(more or less) physical connection between two "meat space" networks isn't it?

      He(or she) who has the biggest/best network usually wins right?

      Isn't marriage in the modern west mostly about personal love, rather than the traditional east's familial benefit/opportunity?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

        I suspect most marriages that last through middle age are "good" ones. The others end in divorce or in lifeless cohabitation.

        In other words, a happy marriage is good for you. Your chances of finding that, however, are probably 1 in 4. (1 in 8 if you care that your spouse is happy too).

        I guess the author is part of the 1/8th that made it. These types of articles usually are.

        Marriage = 75% chance of an unhappy ending.
        Single = 100% chance of avoiding Russian Roulette

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

          I heard somewhere that married men live longer.

          Then again, could be it just feels that way.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

            The main character in a recent movie was a longtime auctioneer, never married or in a real relationship. A client had him hooked so he asked a fellow auctioneer, long married, what it was like. He wearily replied, "everyday is an auction. Some days you win, some days you don't."

            (file under "What Do Women Want?")

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hey Pal, Let's Get Hitched

              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
              I heard somewhere that married men live longer.

              Then again, could be it just feels that way.
              I cover life expectancy in one of my presentations. In the Q&A a nice lady asked me if I knew of any scientific or genetic reasons why women live longer than men.

              I paused, and said that I had come to the conclusion that there weren't any scientific reasons - just religious ones. (pause & wait for puzzled looks). "I believe it's God's gift to men. 3-5 years in Heaven before their spouse arrives."

              Comment


              • #8
                Lifetimes: it's genetic!

                Originally posted by Fiat Currency View Post
                I cover life expectancy in one of my presentations. In the Q&A a nice lady asked me if I knew of any scientific or genetic reasons why women live longer than men.

                I paused, and said that I had come to the conclusion that there weren't any scientific reasons - just religious ones. (pause & wait for puzzled looks). "I believe it's God's gift to men. 3-5 years in Heaven before their spouse arrives."
                Even if you correct for everything, occupation, social status, family history, etc, women still outlive men.

                There is a genetic explaination. The mitochondrial DNA only passes through the cytoplasm of the ova, hence only maternal descent.
                Something in the mito which is bad for men doesn't get weeded out by selection. So, over time, something like "testosterone allergy" accumulates in the mitochondrial DNA, and it selectively shortens the male life time. That's the one reason i've heard on "BBC science hour".

                Comment


                • #9
                  companions and lovers

                  Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
                  I just can't help but notice, the absence of any discussion of children, family, culture, etc. - just pure unadulterated "what's in it for me" as a reason for marriage. No talk of commitment through thick and thin, the romance of the decision and commitment to "bind oneself to another", the importance of stable families on transmission of culture. Of course, having a stable friend in middle and old age is a no brainer, but you don't need to be married to have good friends.

                  I think the reality for many people is that the nuclear family are the only really close relationships. If you move for work (or any other reason) you are not in one place long enough to put down real roots. Plus, people are so busy with work and stuff they can't dedicate enough time to build strong friendships. So the reality is you have family and then a collection of relatively superficial friends.

                  Interesting, the argument hardly touched on sexual satisfaction, which is not very good for most married people because of the Coolidge effect. In that sense, it is a bit of bait and switch: marry for passion, get companionship. I am not sure young people would settle for that if they understood that from the beginning.
                  Last edited by Polish_Silver; January 12, 2015, 01:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: companions and lovers

                    the Coolidge effect
                    The President and Mrs. Coolidge were being shown [separately] around an experimental government farm. When [Mrs. Coolidge] came to the chicken yard she noticed that a rooster was mating very frequently. She asked the attendant how often that happened and was told, "Dozens of times each day." Mrs. Coolidge said, "Tell that to the President when he comes by." Upon being told, the President asked, "Same hen every time?" The reply was, "Oh, no, Mr. President, a different hen every time." President: "Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lifetimes: it's genetic!

                      Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                      Even if you correct for everything, occupation, social status, family history, etc, women still outlive men.

                      There is a genetic explaination. The mitochondrial DNA only passes through the cytoplasm of the ova, hence only maternal descent.
                      Something in the mito which is bad for men doesn't get weeded out by selection. So, over time, something like "testosterone allergy" accumulates in the mitochondrial DNA, and it selectively shortens the male life time. That's the one reason i've heard on "BBC science hour".
                      All I know about genetics between the genders is that I recall being told in class that the female XX is "more genetically perfect"(paraphrasing) than the male XY.

                      But isn't most of the life expectancy difference between males/females often attributed by insurance actuaries to behavior differences by gender?

                      Such as differences in risky behavior that lead to differences in car insurance premiums.

                      Aren't the majority of fatalities in conflict men?(even with the horrible casualties suffered by non-combatant women/children)

                      Don't men filling the majority of the high physical risk(death and risk of joint injuries) occupations?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lifetimes: it's genetic!

                        Contrary to popular belief Men and Women are different!

                        We mortals always need to compare two unlike things and try to understand why one generally wears out earlier than the other.

                        Greatest athletes in the world are Men (although Serena Williams is certainly up there - but, even she can't beat the top 100 men tennis players in the world). Most of the great inventions in mankind have been a result of men and none of these great minds would have been possible without their mother.

                        Its impossible for two human machines each with its own advantages and disadvantages to last the same amount of time.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X