Divorce to Marriage Ratio
Quote: ZenKinGI cant stop but laugh at all these young couples who are 'madly in love' and express their 'amazing love' on social media and then 15 years down the line, it all comes crashing down and they die-vorce....
About 50% of marriages end in divorce and virtually all western folks who have free will to choose who they marry go through a swoon phase where they proclaim their love for each another in social media. Animals go through that and procreate, and depending on their species may mate for a long time or may may go their separate ways. For humans, because raising the children takes a long time and requires a lot of effort we have been wired both to bond and yet have desires for others based on our wanting to have fun, and sex (mostly) is a great form of "free" entertainment.
When you marry (or even common-law) in some places the ceremony gives most couple equal possessions over net assets. After a marriage dissolves, support payments (spousal + child) become due from one party to the other according to state law.
Marriage should not be considered lightly. Hopefully it is +EV to both parties.
Marriage is not easy. You have to work at it and manage expectations. There will be health, social, financial, location, child-rearing issue and tons of other things. Character will be tested. The ability to compromise, to reason, and to look at the long term are tools that will help a marriage last longer.
Of course women can have careers. It takes maybe about two hours a day to keep my house in order, and that includes all non-working chores. This is an empty-nest household. So what is the other non-working party supposed to do with the other 14 hours that they are awake? Assuming a couple has two children that are 4 years apart you are talking about 23 years max, from conception to independence where that responsibility takes over. A career can last over 42 years (age 25 to 67) is what is the spouse supposed to do with 19 years of potential? Knit? Join a social club? Watch Oprah?
Adding children to the mix absolutely changes things, but every marriage with children has to figure out what's best for them to make it work. It's just another challenge.
True love of course exists between couples. Of course it is different with children - but that bond is not indestructible either, and you have the opportunity as a parent to have your children turn out to be somewhat like you.
Marriage is not for everyone.
Question for the mathematicians here. While roughly (the percentage goes up and down) 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I have heard that the statistics are somewhat skewed. From what I understand, the calculation is made by simply comparing the number of marriage licenses issued in a given year to the number of divorce filings. It doesn't, however, consider people who get married more than once. So...Quote: boymimboAbout 50% of marriages end in divorce...
Mr and Mrs Smith have four grown children. Three of them get married and stay married for life. The fourth child isn't so lucky in love, getting married and divorced three times. A statistician comes along and notes that the Smith family has generated six marriage licenses and three divorce filings and concludes that if you're born into the Smith family, your marriage has a 50% chance of failure.
Does a new Smith child actually have a 50/50 chance at divorce? Or are the odds actually a 75% chance of lifelong marital bliss?
Quote: boymimboAbout 50% of marriages end in divorce and virtually all western folks who have free will to choose who they marry go through a swoon phase where they proclaim their love for each another in social media. Animals go through that and procreate, and depending on their species may mate for a long time or may may go their separate ways. For humans, because raising the children takes a long time and requires a lot of effort we have been wired both to bond and yet have desires for others based on our wanting to have fun, and sex (mostly) is a great form of "free" entertainment.
When you marry (or even common-law) in some places the ceremony gives most couple equal possessions over net assets. After a marriage dissolves, support payments (spousal + child) become due from one party to the other according to state law.
Marriage should not be considered lightly. Hopefully it is +EV to both parties.
Marriage is not easy. You have to work at it and manage expectations. There will be health, social, financial, location, child-rearing issue and tons of other things. Character will be tested. The ability to compromise, to reason, and to look at the long term are tools that will help a marriage last longer.
Of course women can have careers. It takes maybe about two hours a day to keep my house in order, and that includes all non-working chores. This is an empty-nest household. So what is the other non-working party supposed to do with the other 14 hours that they are awake? Assuming a couple has two children that are 4 years apart you are talking about 23 years max, from conception to independence where that responsibility takes over. A career can last over 42 years (age 25 to 67) is what is the spouse supposed to do with 19 years of potential? Knit? Join a social club? Watch Oprah?
Adding children to the mix absolutely changes things, but every marriage with children has to figure out what's best for them to make it work. It's just another challenge.
True love of course exists between couples. Of course it is different with children - but that bond is not indestructible either, and you have the opportunity as a parent to have your children turn out to be somewhat like you.
Marriage is not for everyone.
Thanks for making another one of my points that I forgot to mention in the OP. Marriage is completely 'UN-NATURAL'. The fact that you mention 'You have to work at it to make it work' makes my point that it's not natural to be with someone your whole life, which is another reason for divorce, but it ties in with the point I made about both partners being in it really for 'themselves' the whole time and that true love doesnt exist.
Just look at the animal kingdom, you think they care about their partners or want to 'marry' each other and profess their love for the world to see? For example, lets talk about dogs. A male dog and a female dog have sex and eventually puppies. A day later, the male dog starts wandering around for a walk and sees another female dog. What do you think he tries to do? Do you think he starts wondering about if he should cheat or not? You think the female dog even cares? He goes after the other female dog without thinking twice. The dog doesnt care about the female who he had puppies with. To the dog, its just natural to f*** every female he sees. It's the same with humans because our instincts are very similar to that of other animals if not exactly the same. It's just that this societal stigma of finding the 'one' has been forced down our throats by religion and society and basically brainwashed everyone that 'cheating' on someone is such a bad thing when it's not.
Im not saying im some kind of 'player' or anything or endorse cheating, cause im not and im very loyal, but when you look at it logically, being married to someone for eternity is completely not natural and explains another reason why divorce rates are 51% and climbing. I think this is actually the main reason people divorce because they think this 'cheating on their partner' phenomenon is such a bad thing and creates a lot of animosity with their partner and end up splitting up. Imagine if both partners didnt give a damn if they found the other cheating? I bet the divorce rates would be maybe 20%. Another reason everyone is brainwashed by society and even religion.
Quote: GialmereQuestion for the mathematicians here. While roughly (the percentage goes up and down) 50% of all marriages end in divorce, I have heard that the statistics are somewhat skewed. From what I understand, the calculation is made by simply comparing the number of marriage licenses issued in a given year to the number of divorce filings. It doesn't, however, consider people who get married more than once. So...
Mr and Mrs Smith have four grown children. Three of them get married and stay married for life. The fourth child isn't so lucky in love, getting married and divorced three times. A statistician comes along and notes that the Smith family has generated six marriage licenses and three divorce filings and concludes that if you're born into the Smith family, your marriage has a 50% chance of failure.
Does a new Smith child actually have a 50/50 chance at divorce? Or are the odds actually a 75% chance of lifelong marital bliss?
The 50% statistic still stands. If the population were changing, one could argue about the divorce to marriage ratio, but it's fairly level. The 50% statistic doesn't say that every marriage has a 50/50 chance of success. Show me an 18-year-old couple who had an unwanted pregnancy and was pressed into marriage by their church, I'd give that marriage a 10% chance at success. Show me two professional people over the age of 30 who have dated for at least 3 years, I'll give it at least 60%.
Quote: WizardThe 50% statistic still stands. If the population were changing, one could argue about the divorce to marriage ratio, but it's fairly level. The 50% statistic doesn't say that every marriage has a 50/50 chance of success. Show me an 18-year-old couple who had an unwanted pregnancy and was pressed into marriage by their church, I'd give that marriage a 10% chance at success. Who me two professional people over the age of 30 who have dated for at least 3 years, I'll give it at least 60%.
While I don’t disagree with anything you say above, it was news to me to learn that the 50% statistic is calculated by (i) counting second/third/fourth marriages and (ii) comparing divorces in year X to marriages in year X.
(i) should maybe be obvious if you think about it, but I think that it makes the statistic incorrect as it is typically applied. IMO, people use the statistic going into a first marriage and thinking that it has a 50/50 shot of lasting vs divorce. A more appropriate statistic, as it is most commonly applied, would be the % of first marriages that end in divorce. And today is the first day I realized it must be less than 50%.
(ii) if true, skews the statistic. I assume the general trend is increases in marriages every year due to population growth, which would mean that the 50% statistic under represents the chance of divorce because it compares divorces from marriages in a time period in the past (when there were fewer marriages) divided by marriages today.
Quote: unJonWhile I don’t disagree with anything you say above, it was news to me to learn that the 50% statistic is calculated by (i) counting second/third/fourth marriages and (ii) comparing divorces in year X to marriages in year X.
Yes, that is how they do it, which I think is reasonable in a stable population.
Quote:(i) should maybe be obvious if you think about it, but I think that it makes the statistic incorrect as it is typically applied. IMO, people use the statistic going into a first marriage and thinking that it has a 50/50 shot of lasting vs divorce. A more appropriate statistic, as it is most commonly applied, would be the % of first marriages that end in divorce. And today is the first day I realized it must be less than 50%.
The way I've heard this argument expressed is looking at a snapshot of marriages to divorces, you're looking at marriages over a short period, and divorces over the whole population of married people. However, you're also looking at marriages over the whole single population. In the end, if you had a stable population and half of marriages end in divorce eventually, then you would expect to see a 1 to 2 ratio of divorces to marriages in a specific period of time.
Quote:(ii) if true, skews the statistic. I assume the general trend is increases in marriages every year due to population growth, which would mean that the 50% statistic under represents the chance of divorce because it compares divorces from marriages in a time period in the past (when there were fewer marriages) divided by marriages today.
I already gave the assumption of a stable population. I agree that if the population were growing, then the ratio of divorces to marriages in the present would be too low.
In researching my response, I found I was not correct about a stable US population:
Graph source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Census_Population_Graph_from_1790.svg
Never let it be said that I don't own up to it when I'm wrong.
While that graph may look like the population is growing out of control, on a percentage basis, it is dropping.
Also, a growing population is healthy for the economy, as you have plenty of working young people to support fewer old people. Let's just keep that growth up when I'm told (or am I already?)
So, yes, with a growing population 50% would be too high of an estimate. Perhaps I'll make an "Ask the Wizard" question over this.
This is a good topic, perhaps I'll at least split it off.
Quote: Wizard
This is a good topic, perhaps I'll at least split it off.
Ask the Wiz would be great, or splitting it off at least.
Would be interesting to know if first marriages have a higher, lower or equivalent divorce rate to second or third or fourth marriages.
Would also be interested in hearing why this statistic is quoted as a snapshot of divorces over marriages in a particular year rather than a longitudinal study that follows marriages to divorce and corrects for the tail of the future. Maybe just ease of calculation with existing data?
What would really be interesting would be to model the hazard function of the probability of divorce over time (as a function of how long you have been married).
Quote: unJonAsk the Wiz would be great, or splitting it off at least.
Done.
Quote:Would be interesting to know if first marriages have a higher, lower or equivalent divorce rate to second or third or fourth marriages.
I'd easily hazard to say that the probability of success goes down with each subsequent marriage. You don't hear about people whose second marriage just took very often. Usually it seems that someone gets married once and is done or gets married over and over, like Trump. It gets more complicated if the two people in the marriage have a different number of previous marriages.
Quote:Would also be interested in hearing why this statistic is quoted as a snapshot of divorces over marriages in a particular year rather than a longitudinal study that follows marriages to divorce and corrects for the tail of the future. Maybe just ease of calculation with existing data?
I could write a short book in response to this, knowing a thing or two about government statistics on such things. The short version, is there is no central authority in the federal government about who is married to whom. At Social Security, if you file for spousal or widow benefits, then show us the marriage certificate. We have nothing to prove it.
That said, we could only use data of deceased people. Who knows how many of the current population will eventually divorce. People dying now or already dead were from another time where divorce was more taboo.
Quote:What would really be interesting would be to model the hazard function of the probability of divorce over time (as a function of how long you have been married).
That would be interesting.
I would love to write a book on the mathematics of marriage. It would look at the optimal strategy for finding the optimal mate. How many people should you date before? How long should a trial last? I think it would say that you should date about seven people, and then take the best one, if still available, or, if not, wait for the next person to come along who is equal or better. You can err both ways -- settling too easily too young or being too picky and dying alone. However, nobody would buy such a book. Young people think they are immortal and know everything. Older people would have already figured out that my points were more or less correct.
Divorce (My jurisdiction): $200
So, that’s pretty easy.
Computer simulations to follow.
Good topic.
