Single life, financially better off?

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do you know? Have you read the study?

Yes.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

Yes.

Then you've not read it very carefully, I'm afraid, as it does take other areas into consideration; including from past studies.

Indeed, if you read it, it (or the article) doesn't simply argue that men become less attractive when unemployed. It also argues "the stigma some men face for participating in housework and day-to-day childcare... wives’ perception that their husbands aren’t doing enough around the house often ramps up marital dissatisfaction". Nothing about women only being attracted to rich men there.

Indeed, to a great extent, we're all jumping to conclusions as to both the study or article as neither point to any single reason why unemployed men are more likely to be divorced, only that that they are.

But I'm sure you realized this having read them.

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you've not read it very carefully, I'm afraid,

I have.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I have.

Then why did you state something that was untrue?

(Before you choose to respond with another curt denial, I've already pointed out why it's untrue above, so if you don't address that, I'll just presume you're just issuing another, false, denial).

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why did you state something that was untrue?

I don't think it's untrue, it's my opinion.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I don't think it's untrue, it's my opinion.

It's your opinion that you read it carefully, despite getting completely wrong what it was talking about? Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

I'm glad to see that my opinion that the article is unbalanced is accepted.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

I'm glad to see that my opinion that the article is unbalanced is accepted.

I said you're entitled to your opinion; I never said you're entitled to have your opinion accepted or even respected.

riveratom

Unlikely to be better off, much more likely the opposite is the case I reckon!!

I had only been thinking about this lately. Basically, when you're single, you pay for everything. In a couple, you split the cost. That sums it up pretty much.

I was on a holiday recently where the cost of the accommodation was €650 for the week. I would have paid €325 if sharing with someone else, so there's €325 extra I'm paying right there.

Mortgage if I had one would be split both ways, I don't know how you'd even get one on one income to begin with. Deposit for a house - a bit easier if you have double the amount you'd have on your own, or thereabouts.

Then everything else - household bills, etc.

Holidays - these are made for couples (as per the above). Single supplements, paying for all meals yourself, etc, etc.

Another point of note which came to be when I was home alone lately is that not only are there more costs, there is more work to be done in general around the house! It takes as much of a mess in the kitchen cooking for one as it does for two, but at least you can split the clean-up 50-50 when one half of a couple!!

Not to mention other household work, paying for a car, etc...

On the flip-side then of course, if you get married and have kids then it's expense-central then isn't it. Childcare, college, food, clothes... So when it comes down to it, probably one way to have some cash in your pocket is to not marry or have kids and maybe have a good job / income and live in a reasonably priced area

daRobot

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed if you want to live longer and you're a bloke, marry a woman much younger than you.. Though as they point out this may be down to the fact that if you can pull a woman 15 years younger than you it's likely because you've got better aging genes in the first place.

Don't necessarily agree with that.

I would think it's most likely down to them having to up their physical game and keep active in order to (upcoming pun) keep up, with their partner. Not wanting appear "old" in their partners eyes, and holding onto them, being the primary motivational factors.

iptba

riveratom wrote: »

Another point of note which came to be when I was home alone lately is that not only are there more costs, there is more work to be done in general around the house! It takes as much of a mess in the kitchen cooking for one as it does for two, but at least you can split the clean-up 50-50 when one half of a couple!!

Not to mention other household work, paying for a car, etc...

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

Vitaliorange

iptba wrote: »

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

A very good point. If one partner likes the house to have a standard of cleanliness on a par with a microchip lab should the other partner really be expected to meet those standards.

Dickie10

I think we have found the common denominator-KIDS/CHILDREN..... when I started this thread it was a kind of throwaway comment of "single", I think I meant that marriage usually though not always but I suspect around 90% usally is implicated with having children. or children first then marriage later. either way it seems that the s**t hits the fan when you start having sprogs! just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22? looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

zephyro

Dickie10 wrote: »

just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22?

~€250k apparently: http://www.lv.com/assets/pdfs/other/coac-10-report.pdf

Dickie10 wrote: »

looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

Well fwiw it's my reaction too, but we do appear to be in a very small minority!

Dickie10

come again fwiw??! I have a basic theory that the reason I as a 30 yr old shudder at the thought of children/settling down, is that I have loads of stuff to do yet kinda bucket list if you will. During the downturn meself and friends were say 24 -25 and money got scarce very quickly so it kind of clipped our wings , so that now people aged 30 have endured 5 or 6 lost years where most hadn't the money to do the once in a lifetime stuff like travelling etc. I hate the thought of getting a loan to travel id rather save and go off my own back so to speak, im just like that I hate having loans! maybe this is why peple aged 30 ish are running a mile from settling down, with all the horror stories of people dying young through cancer, heart disease etc . people want to live out their lives when the economy gets going again and not be saddled with children, that's what I plan on doing anyway.

pwurple

Well, if you want to have children at some point in the future, but are putting it off just for now, bear in mind that leaving it late to start trying can often hit the very costly infertility situation as well.

ICSI treatment (That's IVF level 2, where the sperm is low quality and needs to be injected into the egg) costs about 5,000 euro per cycle, with several cycles usually being needed. Plus all the investigative tests beforehand. None of it covered by any health insurer in this country.

Not that children are required by any means, but in case people assume it's just as straightforward to have them older in life.

byronbay2

Dickie10 wrote: »

I think we have found the common denominator-KIDS/CHILDREN..... when I started this thread it was a kind of throwaway comment of "single", I think I meant that marriage usually though not always but I suspect around 90% usally is implicated with having children. or children first then marriage later. either way it seems that the s**t hits the fan when you start having sprogs! just wondering how much extra would be spent on bringing up a child to say 22? looking back now and thinking of friends with children it really seems that they disappear from all social outings ,nites out, parties when children come. I shudder at the thought! is this a common reaction from a 30 year old??

Yeah, it's certainly children that put a crimp in your (financial) style. Being late 20s or early thirties with a good income and no major debt is the best time financially of your life - even better if you have a partner in the same situation to share the expenses. Children are expensive and also often lead to a house purchase and one of the couple (usually the woman) reducing their working hours or else having crippling childcare costs.

Your disposable income nosedives and, as well as that, young children are tiring, which means that most couples in this situation would rather chill out at home with a glass of vino than hit the clubs until 3am!

riveratom

iptba wrote: »

Depends. If somebody's partner's standard is cleaning the house (say) four times as much as your own, then you can end up doing more.

True, but I was talking in more basic terms, literally in relation to cooking a meal for yourself and having to clean everything up afterwards, as opposed to two people sharing the work involved.

Pawwed Rig

byronbay2 wrote: »

Your disposable income nosedives and, as well as that, young children are tiring, which means that most couples in this situation would rather chill out at home with a glass of vino than hit the clubs until 3am!

I can assure you that children are not the only reason clubs are not full of 30 and 40 year olds at 3am in the morning.

On your other point I would argue that the best time financially of a persons life is more likely to be retirement than in their 20's.

drumswan

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

On your other point I would argue that the best time financially of a persons life is more likely to be retirement than in their 20's.

Not much point in being rich if you are decrepit or dead. Life is for living when you are young.

D'Agger

drumswan wrote: »

Not much point in being rich if you are decrepit or dead. Life is for living when you are young.

Being retired isn't the same as being decrepit or dead though.

I agree that life is for living when you're young, but when you have a wife and kids or even just other people in your life that you love and who depend on you, then you tend ti put their happiness, dreams, hopes etc. ahead of yours. Now, that's not to say you don't stop living and enjoying yourself, but your universe isn't centred around yourself as much. By the time you retire, you should realistically have children who're grown up and self sufficient, leaving you with time to pursue the things that bring you joy.

With my own father retiring 12months ago I can testify to the freedom of being retired bringing out about a new lease of life. My father lives as much if not more than I do and I'm 25

Gael23

Of course your going to be better off but there's more to life than that.
As a single guy once you pay your rent/ mortgage, utility bills , car costs and food,mother rest is your own.
I know single guys that that would have well paid jobs but don't have nice cars and some live in small apartments that won't be costing a fortune so it's whatever you make of it really.

Balaclava1991

Dickie10 wrote: »

hi im a 30 yr old man, and recently I have begun to believe that being single is a serious advantage. every day I turn on the news or current affairs and listen to reports of the squeezed middle classes.Now I consider myself in the middle classes im a secondary school teacher and part time farmer,although im only temp teaching at the minute.Every time I hear these horror stories I just think , thank God im single and never bought a house, it seems a lot of my friends escaped from buying a house as well, the crash happened when we were about 24- 25 so luckily we were still living it up.Thing is most of my friends have become very wary of getting into relationships the last few years as they don't want to get the missus up the spout or something like that which they all agree would be a disaster! it seems that once you start into the family unit thing then that's the end of the disposable cash. just wondering is this accurate, to me any guy in a family set up seems to be a lot worse off than me ,muddling along on my own. what do people think??

If you have a son call him Sue and then do a runner.
He'll have to get tough or die with a name like that.

Dickie10

wha?

Sauve

Dickie10 wrote: »

wha?

Mod

That post has been actioned Dickie, no need to reply.
For some reason it's not showing up properly though.

ted1

riveratom wrote: »

Unlikely to be better off, much more likely the opposite is the case I reckon!!

I had only been thinking about this lately. Basically, when you're single, you pay for everything. In a couple, you split the cost. That sums it up pretty much.

I was on a holiday recently where the cost of the accommodation was €650 for the week. I would have paid €325 if sharing with someone else, so there's €325 extra I'm paying right there.

Mortgage if I had one would be split both ways, I don't know how you'd even get one on one income to begin with. Deposit for a house - a bit easier if you have double the amount you'd have on your own, or thereabouts.

Then everything else - household bills, etc.

Holidays - these are made for couples (as per the above). Single supplements, paying for all meals yourself, etc, etc.

Another point of note which came to be when I was home alone lately is that not only are there more costs, there is more work to be done in general around the house! It takes as much of a mess in the kitchen cooking for one as it does for two, but at least you can split the clean-up 50-50 when one half of a couple!!

Not to mention other household work, paying for a car, etc...

On the flip-side then of course, if you get married and have kids then it's expense-central then isn't it. Childcare, college, food, clothes... So when it comes down to it, probably one way to have some cash in your pocket is to not marry or have kids and maybe have a good job / income and live in a reasonably priced area

Your a dreamer mate.
Dinner for 1 costs me 50 quid
Dinner for two costs me 100 quid.

Pint for me 5 euro
Pint and vodka and coke 12 euro.

Just cause your a couple doesn't mean your pay 50/50.

Then you have kids, wife stops working to mind kids.
Salary is now divided by 4.