Want to strengthen your marriage? You might need to focus not only on your relationship, but also your finances. After all, money problems are the leading indicator of impending divorce.
The 2009 State of Our Unions, an annual report issued by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Institute for American Values, uses statistics about marriages, economics and self-reported happiness collected over the last 40 years to create a portrait of the ways in which American couples are thriving and the problems—new and old—they face.
W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociology professor at U.Va., is the director of the National Marriage Project. He says that protecting marriage is critically important to the health of our society.
“First and foremost, children tend to do best when they are reared in homes headed by married parents,” says Wilcox. “For instance, boys are half as likely to end up in trouble with the law if they are raised by both of their married parents.
“Second, adults who form and maintain successful marriages over the course of their lives are much more likely to enjoy healthy, wealthy and happy lives than are their peers who do not get and stay successfully married.”
In the course of examining the relationship between financial and marital success, the 2009 State of Our Unions report reveals five ways to build fulfilling and lasting marriages.
Make Your Own Homemade Goods
In 2008, national restaurant sales fell for the first time in 40 years. While unsettling for restaurateurs, this reversal reveals a promising revival of the home economy. Media reports suggest that an increasing number of Americans are growing their own vegetables and fruits, cooking their own meals at home and even sewing their own clothes.
Families who craft homemade goods may one day look back at the recession as a blessing in disguise. That’s because research shows that household production strengthens the sense of solidarity between spouses, as well as between parents and children. In short, the family that makes together stays together.
Earn a College Degree
Over the last several decades, researchers have asked husbands and wives to rate their own marriages on a happiness scale and tracked the results. Their conclusion? Marriages in which both partners are college-educated appear better built to last.
The percentage of spouses from this group who rate their marriage as “very happy” has remained stable over recent decades. Meanwhile, the percentage of spouses from other segments of the population has dropped precipitously. Whether it’s due to the increased likelihood of financial solvency or the tendency of college graduates to marry later, higher education is correlated with happier marriages.
Pay Off Your Credit Cards
America’s love affair with credit cards reached new heights in December 2008, when U.S. consumers were carrying nearly $1 trillion in revolving debt. Consumer debt played a well-publicized role in the financial crisis, but recent research spotlights its destructive impact on marriage as well.
Newlywed couples who rack up substantial consumer debt suffer a decline in marital satisfaction over time, according to the data. But newlyweds who pay off consumer debt—or manage to remain debt-free—experience significantly lower declines in satisfaction over the course of marriage.
Reverse the Financial Gender Roles
When spouses divvy up household responsibilities, statistics show that husbands often manage the long-term financial investments while wives manage the day-to-day shopping. But recent research indicates that couples using these roles may be sabotaging their financial well-being.
Men tend to be overly confident, a trait that translates into high-risk investment decisions. Women tend to be more cautious and willing to seek advice from professionals, and thus often make better long-term investment decisions. On the other hand, women who are in charge of daily shopping tend to buy more—and spend more—than men do. Reversing these typical gender roles may be an effective means to achieve financial success and, in turn, longer lasting matrimony.
Work Outside of the Home
More than 75 percent of the recession’s job losses have been among men, especially blue-collar men, thrusting many unemployed husbands into unfamiliar roles with increased childcare and housework responsibilities. While this trend may foster improved gender equality, it may also prove dangerous for marriages.
That’s because husbands with children are 61 percent less likely to report that they are “very happy” in their marriages when they work fewer hours than their wives. On average, when a husband works at least as many hours as his wife, he reports no problems with the idea of working wives and is less likely to contemplate divorce.
Comments
where is religion in your studies?
Great thoughts. I have read in many other studies and have come to believe that spouses who have close knit spiritual basis within their lives are better able to navigate/overcome the "storms" of life together.
The Barna Group, a respected research institute with a Christian bent has long reported that Christians are as likely to divorce as non Christians. So the response to Mr. W.H. Rodgers appears to be that one's religion does not play a role in marital stability. Here's the link http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/194-born-again-christians-just-as-likely-to-divorce-as-are-non-christians
Speaking from 43 years of marriage, I'd make the following comments: I think being intellectual equals is just as important as both partners having college degrees. It also helps to have some common interests like tennis, golf or sailing. We are both active in our church - choir, boards and committees, and Sunday School class. But it has been Marriage Encounter that kept us together when things got really tough.
Also important to financial security is access to the more than 1000 benefits afforded to married couples. Unfortunately, these benefits are not available to same-sex couples, a concern that has eluded this author who discusses only heterosexual couples. Changing our discourse is vital in the attempt to achieve equal marriage rights for queer couples in order that they and their families may enjoy the "marital bliss" championed here.
The first tip surprised me. But the rest—at least for us (after 51 years)—are on target. Married between exams in '59, we both graduated from Virginia thanks to the GI Bill and many part-time jobs, raised 4 extraordinary children, and continue to work and enjoy life. Now running my business from home as Realtor Pat generates most of our income, I appreciated the gender-reversal tip. It's worth a book. As could the subject of religion/spirituality. Thanks!
re: Mr. Crane's comment: I would like to know what the "more than 1000 benefits" are that he alludes to, that are afforded to non-same-sex married people that same sex couples can't get. I want to start enjoying them now that I am married, especially if they affect financial security. I hadn't noticed anything different after I was married. I don't mean to be cheeky, I really don't see more than a dozen or so benefits--like perhaps it is easier to adopt, visit someone in the ICU, inherit a pension, etc, but thousands of benefits? It would be interesting to know more --is this number accurate? I am for ALL peoples' rights, blind to color, sexuality, marital status, etc. In some places a person can put their same-sex partner on their health insurance policy, but not a distant relative or friend that they are not sleeping with. I think this policy is flawed, i.e. I should not have to be sleeping with someone to put them on my health insurance policy. What would be fair is inclusion of anyone I want to include. So in fact, gay couples have rights that many single people don't. It would be nice if people were just for people's rights, not based on ANY kind of subgroup. In essence, to advocate for any special group is prejudiced. Who is advocating for the single people? I guess you can tell I am not a law school grad.
To Marion: The federal government's General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. These and similar state benefits include: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; and judicial protections and evidentiary immunity. You can find an 18-page summary of the federal benefits affected by marital status here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf. As well, advocacy for the rights of queer couples does not diminish advocacy for the rights of non-queer couples. You ask who is advocating for the single people, and though that question seems to me to be unrelated to whether queer couples can marry, I see why you raise it. The best answer I have now is ... perhaps you should be!
Hear, hear to Daniel Crane's comment regarding gay couples. I'm encouraged that some progress towarding equality is being made, and I'm REALLY discouraged with Virginia's governor. Thank heavens he can only serve one term. And we've heard enough from his Attorney General, too.
To Daniel: Thank you for that elaboration. I have a son who is gay (a UVa graduate). I hadn't given enough thought myself to the many things you list. People just have no idea how unfair the typical policies are now, and the effects they have. My son was president of the LGBT association while at UVa, and is still working for equality.
I think they should of mentioned premarital counseling and not shaking up together too! Living together and having premarital sex increases your chances of DIVORCE.
This article claims that men who work inside the home are more likely to contemplate divorce. Its prioritization of marriage over gender equality is unjust. Gender equality is more important than preserving the institution of marriage so long as preserving marriage means supporting the subjection of women. Any man who is not open to staying at home and taking up a larger share of the domestic work is not deserving of a family. Lets face it, the current institution of marriage is an inherently patriarchal and puritanical institution that renders women willing slaves. This whole system needs to be uprooted and reconfigured before equal rights can be established regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Isn't it simple, live accordingly to God's will.
Religious beliefs no matter how comforting to the faithful are not a prerequisite for marital bliss or morality.
I must respectively disagree with the comment that there is a cause and effect between living together and/or having premartial sex and divorce. My husband and I lived together for almost 2 years before marrying and it gave us both an opportunity to see if our habits, values, etc. were compatiable. We have been married more than 11 years and have a wonderful marriage - one built on acceptance of differences, mutual respect, similar values (particularly relative to money), and a similar family background. If people who live together or have sex out of wedlock do divorce at a higher rate (a correlation not a cause and effect), it might be due to a number of differences, such as social circle acceptance of divorce, risk taking, or other factors that would be present whether or not individuals lived together prior to marriage.
Why does a simple informative and potentially useful article obviously intended to intrique and assist normal married couples have to be sabotaged by gay rights advocates who blindly declare the information inadequate. Can't we just take the article for what it was intended?
Don't know how this got to be a discussion of gay marriage benefits. But I would like to say something I haven't heard addressed. I am supportive of gay marriage, but not SS survivor benefits. My children and I lost our health care benefits when Virginia Universities extended them to gay partners. My husbands Va public agency decided they would address the equality issue by making spouse and children pay out of pocket. Social Security is going broke. With some areas in the US having higher rates of HIV than West Africa, can we afford to give life time social security widower benefits to young same sex partners? These benefits we put in place as compensation to protect widows and mothers for years of income lost to child rearing. It is the only benefit that recogizes the importance of, and the cost dedicated to, child rearing and the income inequalities that still exist because of this. Gay unions do not produce children and the overwhelming majority do not raise children.
In response to Jessica's comment: Living together + premarital sex do not inherently lead to DIVORCE. Those who don't partake of such behaviors are most likely religious, and thus more inclined to have beliefs against divorce as well. It's correlation, not causation.
My husband and I just celebrated our 50th anniversary this month. When asked if I ever wanted to throw in the towel during those 50 years, I honestly could answer "NO." We were very young and had very little material wealth when we married in 1960. The things I think are important in a marriage are to be in love in the first place. Make sure the person you are marrying has the same morals and values that you do. Yes, religion is important in our lives. Recognize early on that finances must be discussed and agreed upon and priorities in the spending of money have to be the same. Remember that both of you are in the same boat, and if one end sinks, the other will follow. Have fun and do things together as a family. To me, that is what makes a happy marriage. We have been through "better or worse," and our love has never diminished through it all.
To WLS: The statement that only straight couples are "normal" is exactly why there need to be advocates for gay rights. To annhewitt: I'm sorry that you and your partner have been having such difficulty. With regard to my comment to WLS, though, the answer to social security benefits is not in denying them to same-sex couples. Surely there are ways we can improve social security without discriminating against same-sex couples! Gay unions *can* and *do* produce children, and denying rights to partners because they're "statistically unlikely" to have children sends the message that their love is being judged and measured against the decisions of OTHER people. Since Ezekiel proclaimed the message that children and parents are no longer responsible for one another's sins, we've been free from this kind of unjust punishment.
Hi, Karen -- I'm so pleased that your marriage is strong! But, actually, what Jessica writes is true. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, couples who lived together before marriage have higher rates of divorce than couple who did not. Why is that? We can only speculate about what the statistics mean. One theory (which makes sense to me, with my experience with the couples I've worked with) is that there's a greater assumption that I know the other person, as s/he truly is -- since, after all, we've lived together. However, in fact, even when living together, the couple is still in the courtship phase, and so, not entirely honest with each other. But when the marriage happens, and the person turns out to be not what s/he seemed to be during the live-in relationship, that's very shocking(my theory here) -- "because I've lived with him/her! I was sure that I know what s/he's like!" The couple hasn't realized that they were still in the dishonest courtship phase, and so there was a false sense of security.
To WLS: This article was sent out to every person who subscribes to the UVa magazine. How would you feel if an article was written that explicitly excluded you and your family? And if the article was supposed to "intrique [sic] and assist" what you call "normal" couples--which I presume means "heterosexual," though your word choice was offensive and uneducated--it would have been nice if it had included what I consider normal couples, which are loving, committed gay and lesbian partnerships.
I think the real secret to a stable and long lasting marriage is rooted in realistic expectations. If you marry a person who exhibits tendencies towards being a male chauvinist or a mother earth, it is unlikely they will change once you are married. I personally believe that your spouse should be a friend and that you should treat your spouse at least as well as you do your friends. Finally, as cliche as it may sound, has anyone mentioned 'LOVE'? I offer the following advice to my three sons and their friends, "You should only marry someone if you still love them when you are furious with them." It worked for both my parents and in-laws who were married for over 50 years (each) and for my husband and myself.
Interesting article and comments. I have been married for 26 wonderful years and have three children at UVA. It has been an adventure which has included good and bad. You must be strong and faithful to make it. Anyone in any walk of life can make it with love and perseverance.
REC--thanks for the encouragement. WLS--agreed: why highjack comments? Obviously readers see through it. To Daniel: thank you for elaborating. That is an impressive list, and I can see why you feel the need to advocate. If your efforts included non-discrimination against single people, I would wholly support your view. As it is, if any subgroup of humanity is overlooked, such advocating is exclusive and unfair.
Marion: I am confused by your comment. Single people have the right to get married, as long as they marry someone of the other sex, and then they are legally entitled to those 1138 benefits Daniel mentioned. Are you saying that it is unfair to give any married people these benefits? I think you have some interesting points but I'm having trouble understanding your argument.
Very interesting and practical list to consider ... www.ashortguidetoahappymarriage.com
This study confuses correlation with causation. Just because people who are married are reportedly happier does not mean that getting married increases your happiness. I would say it is equally as likely that happier people tend to be more likely to attract a spouse and get married. This problem applies to the other conclusions as well--marriages in which both people have college degrees are happier, so you should get a college degree? The author actually points out the flaw in this thinking when he says, "Whether it’s due to the increased likelihood of financial solvency or the tendency of college graduates to marry later, higher education is correlated with happier marriages." Therefore, it may have nothing to do with the fact that you have a college degree, and everything to do with the fact that you married later. Some may think this misinterpretation is harmless, but in a time where marriage as an institution is struggling, giving people false advise can be damaging.
Men that don't work as much as their wives have even less say in the relationship than the average breadwinner. That's why they're depressed.
This article appeared to contain some reasonable observations and insights regarding the foundations for a successful marriage. As with and generalized conclusions, they probably don't apply to every situation but they may prove useful for many. It is a bit tiresome, but actually kind of amusing, to see the response dynamic to this article from those with obvious axes to grind. It appears that almost anything nowadays can serve as a nucleation point for airing a grievance. I, for one, enjoyed the article at face value.
Gay relationships have nothing to do with this article. This article is about what makes MARRIAGE last. Homosexuals by definition cannot marry. They can live together, have a relationship together, but they are not marriageable entities. Would you complain that this article does not address how dogs and cats can coexist?
Marriage is often about being tough. Both parties must defend the union even when your partner seems impossible. If you both maintain the attitude that you will not divorce, then you will probably make it through the first rough years, and go on to enjoy each other for the rest of your lives.
Review: 'Til Faith Do Us Part..WSJ 03/23/2013..Enjoyed article by Mr. Wilcox. Interfaith marriage of my parents, mom catholic, dad methodist. We children we " raised " methodist as were both my daughters. One daughter did marry a catholic and has converted. My parents provided us with a strong sense of ourselves, letting us know that if converted to another religion it would be with their blessing, as we were given the basics.
Leave a Comment