# Job loss and divorce



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

My turn to stir someone's pot:

When It Rains, It Pours: Under What Circumstances Does Job Loss Lead to Divorce

"Specifically, displacement significantly increases the probability of divorce but only if the husband is the spouse that is displaced and his earnings represented approximately half of the household’s earnings prior to displacement. Similarly, results show that the probability of divorce increases if the wife is employed and as her earnings increase. While the mechanism behind these asymmetric results remains unclear, these results are consistent with recent research that finds a destabilizing effect on marriages when a wife earns more than her husband."

We see all these noise plots in the graph and they all converge on to a singularity: the game theory (specifically, the 'traditional' dominance in relationships)

(Just something I googled out of boredom today)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

It's fine to want to earn more than your wife and stick to traditional gender roles. Women advancing in their careers takes the financial burden off of men and is the main reason lifetime alimony is a thing of the past. It goes both ways though. If you want to stick to traditional roles, don't complain later when you have to pay alimony for the rest of your life.


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

BookOfJob said:


> My turn to stir someone's pot:
> 
> When It Rains, It Pours: Under What Circumstances Does Job Loss Lead to Divorce
> 
> ...


Yup. This was the catalyst for the most difficult 3 years of our marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

BookOfJob said:


> "Specifically, displacement significantly increases the probability of divorce but only if the husband is the spouse that is displaced and his earnings represented approximately half of the household’s earnings prior to displacement. Similarly, results show that the probability of divorce increases if the wife is employed and as her earnings increase. While the mechanism behind these asymmetric results remains unclear, these results are consistent with recent research that finds a destabilizing effect on marriages when a wife earns more than her husband."


I'm thinking that maybe a woman who earns more than her husband would be much more likely to divorce him because she's less likely to put up with too much crap from him.

A lot of times women tolerate stuff from their husbands or stay in bad relationships because they're unable to maintain themselves financially , or the prospect of a lower standard of living is less appealing than what's pissing them off in the relationship.

Logically, in a situation like that, if she begins to earn more , she would see it as her ticket to independence.

Nobody likes to feel trapped in any circumstance.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm thinking that maybe a woman who earns more than her husband would be much more likely to divorce him because she's less likely to put up with too much crap from him.
> 
> A lot of times women tolerate stuff from their husbands or stay in bad relationships because they're unable to maintain themselves financially , or the prospect of a lower standard of living is less appealing than what's pissing them off in the relationship.
> 
> ...


Nonsense. It's hypergamy.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

wilderness said:


> Nonsense. It's hypergamy.


Well not every woman leaves her husband to marry someone richer per se.
She wants to be with someone who's her equal [ whatever that means to her] .

And I've seen a few cases where women left and never got themselves with another man for years afterwards.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> Well not every woman leaves her husband to marry someone richer per se.
> She wants to be with someone who's her equal [ whatever that means to her] .
> 
> And I've seen a few cases where women left and never got themselves with another man for years afterwards.


Right. The system allows women to leave their husbands and still force him to support her and the children. Said another way, the system is set up to exploit men at the expense of hypergamy.


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

I am living proof of an uber successful woman leaving her husband of lesser means.......I would not go down that path again......It gives women less incentive to put the effort into marriage.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Not many pots being stirred, apparently. I was actually alluding to the same thing that is being discussed in this thread (harsh-reality-women-make-more).

This is just something that's been brewing in my head for a while and it turned out that there were surveys/statistics/numbers out there that gave an idea on this subject. Take it (interpret the numbers) as you like. I don't think we're here in the business of convincing people to change their position. We gather here to educate ourselves.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> ..... It goes both ways though. If you want to stick to traditional roles, don't complain later when you have to pay alimony for the rest of your life.


I am actually in the mindset of searching of ways to avoid getting to deal with a bad marriage (first) than to minimize the impact of bad marriage/divorce (second). Prevention is always a better option in my thinking. Thank you for pointing out the other side of the blade, though.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

RClawson said:


> Yup. This was the catalyst for the most difficult 3 years of our marriage.


RC, I can imagine what you've seen. Eventhough I haven't seen all your posts, I think my story shares some of the same reverberation in yours. It was an eye opening experience to say the least.

To paraphrase comments posted by the next poster (see if he remembers this) that a man's job is to

"be thankful of what he has and to set an objective and to achieve it"​
is pretty much a good recipe to follow. I think I will go by that formula.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> ...., or the prospect of a lower standard of living is less appealing than what's pissing them off in the relationship.
> 
> Logically, in a situation like that, if she begins to earn more , she would see it as her ticket to independence.
> .....


I am not sure. I have always thought that there's gotta be some kind of incentive to try to work things out. Marriages will never be perfect and there will always be problems. The fundamental question, as suggested in MMSL, is whether that is the 'one thing' that you strive for the marriage (he brought up the example of a 'kosher home' e.g.) All other problems may be peripheral to the most important thing of keeping the marriage intact (I may sound a bit traditional in this); "problems must be worked out first, no matter what".

Opening up a door to easier divorce option (e.g. to find a richer man) creates a disruption to the idea above and is completely disruptive to a marriage, whatever the reason is.

The more academic question is, is everyone a subscriber to this idea? What happens to ' for rich or poor, in sickness and health'? (I am just saying these questions not necessarily looking for an absolute formula. I think we all know this.)

ps. it is your comment that I quoted above


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Betrayedone said:


> I am living proof of an uber successful woman leaving her husband of lesser means.......I would not go down that path again......It gives women less incentive to put the effort into marriage.


I haven't read your story, B, but your comment shows that an awareness to this issue is a good thing to understand for everyone, man or woman. I am sure it will not solve everyone's problem but this awareness will allow us to steer our course in a path as to be careful where dangers may lie. Thank you for the insight from a female perspective.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

BookOfJob said:


> RC, I can imagine what you've seen. Eventhough I haven't seen all your posts, I think my story shares some of the same reverberation in yours. It was an eye opening experience to say the least.
> 
> To paraphrase comments posted by the next poster (see if he remembers this) that a man's job is to
> 
> ...


:iagree:


----------



## Kahlil Gibran (Jan 27, 2014)

As I stated in the bloated thread about the same subject. I can think of no time in human history where its more difficult to be a man in terms of marriage/relationships than it is now.
Everything has to be clicking on all cylinders, from the man’s end, for it to have a chance to work. Otherwise, get ready for a boatload of anguish. 

It will reach a point where of most of them will give up trying.

A bachelor with a sailboat, motorcycle, golfing, bowling, etc. sounds a lot better than what the majority of men on this site are going through.


----------



## Applejuice (Feb 21, 2014)

In fairness job, the baseline for these studies is hardly balanced is it.

I'm no apologist and I'm certainly no advocate of positive discrimination but if women are genuinely outperforming their male counterparts then good for them. If their success becomes a catalyst for some sort of destructive marital break-down then clearly one or both parties weren't sufficiently committed in the first place.

I've never had much time for materialists and I've never understood how proponents of true meritocracy can so easily substitute money for dignity. If my wife (assuming I had one ) was so pitifully insecure that her only measure of self worth was the contents of her bank account, I'd just conclude that I was a congenital imbecile for marrying her.

Incidentally, I'm not unsympathetic towards those men who have suffered the humiliation of such betrayal but maybe, in view of these inevitable social developments, it's time men became more discerning about their choice of partner.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's fine to want to earn more than your wife and stick to traditional gender roles. Women advancing in their careers takes the financial burden off of men and is the main reason lifetime alimony is a thing of the past. It goes both ways though. If you want to stick to traditional roles, don't complain later when you have to pay alimony for the rest of your life.


Lifetime alimony is not a thing of the past.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

I remember 'them older folk' telling me, in the early 70s

the husband worked, mom raised the kids, maybe worked

p/t if they were in school and everyone seemed to have cash

to spend. Fast forward 40 years, both work and couples are

struggling.


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Applejuice said:


> In fairness job, the baseline for these studies is hardly balanced is it.


I am only trying to scratch the surface and a deep discussion of this subject could possibly lead to the same 'Holy thread derail, Batman' thread. I am just thinking, on the surface, the raw numbers are just that, raw numbers. You draw your conclusion yourself in an attempt to understand and better yourself (for the future).



Applejuice said:


> If my wife (assuming I had one ) was so pitifully insecure that her only measure of self worth was the contents of her bank account, I'd just conclude that I was a congenital imbecile for marrying her.


At this point, reading through the lines of those who post here, one thing kinda pops up in my mind; there has to be a socio-economic background compatibility between the boy/girl to better their chance of surviving economic hardship in the marriage. It is probably time to hang out more in the 'long term success in mariage' section. (You're like in a hospital of marriages, lots of scary scenes of people being rushed into the ER, the LTSIM section may be like the theme park of marriages, lots of beautiful things to see).

I think my story might fall under the data set of my observation above. Unfortunately, negative data sets do not prescribe a positive scientific conclusion. (OK, just totally a gut feeling, right now, then, not a scientific conclusion).


----------



## BookOfJob (Jul 6, 2012)

Chuck71 said:


> I remember 'them older folk' telling me, in the early 70s the husband worked, mom raised the kids, maybe worked p/t if they were in school and everyone seemed to have cash to spend. Fast forward 40 years, both work and couples are struggling.


We can probably start another thread on things like this, Chuck. My late grandpa said, one evening, that

"don't you worry about women, you just work. If you can find a job, women will come to you."

I mean, coming from an old man like him (maybe 80's, and that's pretty old in this country), hardly able to see and stand, that's like a 'digest' of what life is like from his eyeglasses. Back then, it didn't make sense to me, but now, I kinda begin to understand why he said that.

I have other examples, in which simple people, just barely educated but end up being a village head (for example) who gave another advice about life. The translation will be something like, 

"just be reckless (don't plan too far, don't worry too much), life adjusts itself and you will find a way".

He was talking about not making enough money in life. I mean, what could be a more alpha approach in life than that? Life happens (NMMNG). He's uneducated but the people in the village entrust him to be the top elder. A stamp of approval on how he leads his life.

We may think that life nowadays is being transformed by this technology and that technology, but remember, humanity has been around for millennia. Changes today is just a dot in time and a successful guy a century ago, would probably be successful too in this century.


----------

