Boston Gal's Open Wallet

BostonGal,

Thanks for bringing my attention to a great article. While I agree that some of what is said may not be politically correct, I would have to agree with some of the conclusions that the author has made. I went to a good state school. I definitely see the sorting where my friends end up marrying others that also went to "good school". I think if you differentiate between a "good school" like Harvard, Princeton, Yale,(HPY), etc. and a community college (especially those that don't go on to earn a 4 year degree), you see the differences more starkly. But if you compare graduates from HPY to someone who went to a state college, the differences might not be as apparent. There are a lot of people who go to state schools even if they gain admittance to a more "elite" school.

 

Interesting article, and definitely a political hot potato. You could find some fur flying if these comments get going.

To be fair: I don't think the author of the piece is saying is single mums go to any particular school. What they're saying as I read it is there's a basket of attributes that all *tend* to go together with being a single mum.

Some of these attributes (a less swanky college degree, lower earnings, poorer housing) are also correlated with social mobility.

i.e. The kids of these mums will probably not advance upwards through society.

That said, isn't the idea that women need rescuing ("Cinderella") is more than a little patronizing? Support, perhaps, but not rescuing by a man. (I also don't recall Cinderella as having a child...)

Also, I think by 'less elite' the author was trying to be less controversial than saying "bad colleges" or whatever. A case of good intentions perhaps leading to more confusion.

 

Sorry there everyone. The party is over.

Slightly off topic: Politically correct = never reveals the truth.

I am a Penn State grad, and a Vet of the USNavy and now with a 6 figure salary in NYC. I have achieved all of these things my self. And to be honest, getting married puts everything at risk. Why should I invite the state into my personal life? The modern women is just not a match for the modern man. The marriage strike is on! I have a g/f that really knows that there will be no wedding. I make jokes in front of her family saying "I have an announcement to make!"

So ladies keep making those lists about what your hubby must be like. Not to worry feminism will always be there for you!

Great blog BTW. I alwasy read it along with 2mill.

 

Boston Gal, you bring my attention to the BEST articles! I check out your blog every day because of it.

I think that saying that laying the income inequality that exists in America at the feet of marital status overlooks much more fundamental problems in our country. How about the outsourcing of the most lucrative blue collar jobs overseas, the decline in the number of union jobs, the enormous gap in income between top earners and the rest of the populace (a greater imbalance than existed even during the Great Depression)?

 

@Thoughts of Nixon,

When I first read your comment I was offended. Upon re-reading I was sad. You are withholding from entering marriage because of money?

I am married with a child. I went to a community college as did my husband. I am a disabled veteran. My husband is a veteran. We both had single mothers without college education. We were both poor.

We each make 6 figures a year in a part of the country that is less expensive than NYC. We are both under 35. We pool our resources to create more resouces as a team.

Being a member of a team is the best part of being married. We arrange our work schedules around our child's schedule. He goes to work early to be home by 3:30 everyday. I go later to get the child off the school. We have a cleaning person come once a week so we spend weekends camping instead of scrubbing the floors.

I do understand we are a statistical anomaly. We have good incomes because we both value hard work. We also have a strong desire to provide a better life for our child than we were afforded growing up in broken homes.

Marriage plans should include wealth-building. It should not be a wealth-draining experience.

 

To Anonymous @4:20, you are missing the point. In an unequal marriage (financially) there is extreme risk for the high earner, and zero for the low earner. Also if you are male you have a higher burden of proof in any argument (in divorce court). Add this together for high earning men and the risk to them if they marry outside of their strata is extreme. I could go further into this, but the laws written to punish a few men have in fact hurt many men, and the collateral damage to women even more. This is the reality of the American court system today.
From what you wrote your marriage is a marriage of equals with equal drive & ambition. It goes along with what was written in the article, not against it.

 

I'm thinking "maybe do some community college" versus "go to state university" when I read the thing about less elite colleges.

 

I went to a prep school and I am black from a poor family and it was very clear in my friends parents behavior that I was a decent, respectable and likeable person but being in a dating relationship with their sons was not okay and not because of my race but because of my family and economic background...one mother I remember repeatedly saying that I was their adopted daughter I think as an attempt to make it awkward for me and her son to date... the tricks parents pull! not much harm done though except for the bias of distrusting the elite social classes with my emotions.
Everyone has different challenges socially but I don't think this article gives enough credit to the idea that maybe people want to get married but have a hard time finding a dating experience that is enjoyable and not like a grueling interview process, what do your parents do, what do you do, how much do you make, type of process...

 

To me this sounds like the author is saying people who go to less elite colleges are more likely to be single parents.

I don't think so. What the author is saying is that kids of single parents are more likely to go to mediocre school, more likely to become single parent themselves, OR both (just like their parent). This makes sense, since a mother is child's most influential teacher (whether the mother wants or not).

Nowhere it is mentioned that people who go to less elite colleges are more likely to be single parents. In any case, going to a good school doesn't guarantee that one wouldn't become a single parent either. After all, this is AMERICA :)

All that is required is good parenting, which is a very difficult thing to do in a society like America (let's be truthful to ourselves).

 

Sounds like social evolution to me...

 

I teach the children of those single mothers living in the inner city who don't marry.

I wish the author had chosen to write this article with more compassion and less disdain. Done in less condescending style, it could have been a wonderful "teachable moment" that becoming a millionaire practically requires us to be married to the same person our whole lives.

I skipped the money myself and picked the freedom. But I'd at least like to let kids know what they're missing. Then they can make an informed choice.

 

But just because a child of born out of wedlock doesn't mean the mother doesn't have a life partner? I know a few couples with kids who have decided not to get married. I wonder if these couples are skewing the stats by being mistaken for single parents?

 

The title of the article is misleading. I thought the author would talk about marriage overall; instead, the article is about marriage for the sake of the children. While childrearing is probably easier when there's someone to share the job with, what about those of us who don't want to have children? Are we expected to marry anyway? That's the piece that was missing from the article.

 

Nah, I totally went to a non-elite college and now I am faculty at an elite one.

people decide if they are going to hire you based upon your talent and your interview, not where you went to school.

BTW- I am a woman and I make 6 figures, so my husband stays home with our kid.

Thoughts of Nixon: Marriage stike? Get over yourself.

 

I also tend to think that this article was written to stir, rather than to explain. That being said, I caught the nuance that "less-elite" college might mean community college or trade school, particularly with all the "get your degree in less than 12 months" programs.

However, I don't agree that people of equal backgrounds/status need to marry each other. A friend of mine swore in college she would never marry someone with less than a master's degree; I encouraged her to marry a man she fell in love with who had no degree at all. It worked out fine; she's a doctor, and he is a mechanic with flexible hours, so he can help take care of their son and does a terrific job.

There's no good formula, really, but maybe what the article missed was the "Cinderella" part. Another friend of mine is in upper management in business; her husband is a schoolteacher. She makes more than 3x what he does, and they've been together for over 10 years. So really, economic disparity isn't always a relationship killer, regardless of the sex of the person.

What is absolutely true is that women who have children with no partner (married or otherwise) when they are young and unprepared really kill their chances of being economically successful. Children tend to follow their parents (although I did not; I was the first to get a degree in my family) and yes, a single woman who is economically unstable doesn't have the resources to help her children go to good schools and/or colleges, and they often share the same fate.

What I want to know is, what's the deal with all the single men? Why is the focus always on women, and what they do or don't do? Some of those single men happen to be daddies who've ditched their girlfriends (or wives) and kids. Can't someone write a scathing diatribe about them every once in a while, rather than blame women for not making marriage happen?

 

Oh, and Thoughts of Nixon -- I give your girlfriend my earnest sympathy. If you pulled "jokes" like that with me, I'd dump you in a heartbeat.

Not to worry, though. Your cold, hard cash will always be with you, even when nobody else will be.

 

I am witholding from state sanctioned marriage because of money.

The wonderful women I spend some of my free time with has seen the light (or paid attention to me) that the current marriage/divorce system is just unfair to men in many many ways. I am sure she has discussed this with her family, so yes, its seen as a joke when I did say that.

 

Nixon dude, you are missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether you are male or female, everyone will perceive divorce as unfair when they have to split half of their assets, especially when one party brings more wealth or earning potential to the union. The point is to be selective and insightful enough that you pick a spouse/partner that you are compatible with, so you don't split up.

 

The law should just be that the person who initiates the divorce, or causes the divorce through illegal activity (including cheating), gives up half of his or her possessions to the other.

If it's a no-fault divorce, then nobody gives up anything. Why should one person be punished by losing assets if, in theory, nobody is at fault??

Oh, and there should be a way of keeping finances separate after marriage. A lot of PF bloggers advocate keeping finances separate, at least to the extent of having your own checking account and paying your own bills. Why not extend that so that your own checking account, investment account, car, etc can't be touched in a divorce (without just cause)?

 

Good article. The point about not marrying someone outside of your economic strata is very real. I know I would never marry a woman without a college degree or some type of equivalent success (started own business, author, etc.).

I have to side with Nixon on this one. There is no financial downside for women to marry. However, men stand to lose a lot if it doesn't work out. Obviously there are exceptions, but the courts generally side with the woman financially.

Indio is right that both parties feel like they lost, and both parties did emotionally. However, men usually lose a little more financially.

The risk/reward equation for marriage is all screwed up.

 

I am amazed that people are still rebelling against the strong case for marriage and intact families. Marriage, properly understood, is the most stable environment for building wealth, health and personal happiness.IF the couple is mature. Maturity is key for both singles and marrieds to live well but no marriage has the potential for joy if one or both spouses are immature emotionally, financially, spiritually or mentally. It therefore becomes the duty of each spouse to grow in virtue and be committed to this growth. Each person's plan of life should include frequent examinations of conscience and discernment of the faults and defects that need correction. One does not need a superb education, nor childhood perfection, nor the good example of one's parents, nor the fantasy of having a prince charming/cinderella to love in order to develop into a man or woman of integrity.
Marriage is certainly not the only vocation to choose but it is the normal vocation for most of us and it seems idiotic to keep pretending otherwise. The article is simply stating that life- long, responsible marriages are going to bring more stability to the economy than a nation of singles will.

 

Interesting, but married couples are on the decline with single households are on the rise. So learning to accomplish financial security as a single is the best course to take - regardless of current marital status. Afterall we all enter this world single and all exit in that state. How many years in between we stay single is a toss-up.