Villainous Company

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Before I was married I spent no money on jewlery, braces, horses, prom dresses or handbags. I don't remember what I did spend money on, although that could be part of the reason why I didn't have any money. But now that I am married and have all these expensive things to buy..I mean to pay for... How is it that I have more money than I did when I was single? It's a mystery.

I like the idea that "selflessness" is measured by giving money away to friends and relatives. Do we count the money spent as spd mentions as "given away"? Of course not -- that's spent for selfish purposes, taking care of one's wife and children.

Redo the study to account for money spent on the upkeep and happiness of "relatives" within one's own family, and see how the numbers turn out.

Apparently it is far more "selfless" to father a whole slew of children you cannot afford, then apply to have them supported by your fellow taxpayers.

/snark

"...men who remarry; they worked 7.4 weeks less than they had when they were divorced."

7.4 weeks more per year??? Not likely! Who (in Amercia, not France or Germany) has just shy of two months of vacation a year??? These guys are not only headed for divorce #2, they will also soon be unemployed!

Doh! More = less in the above. I hate Mondays.

Update: Can you say unclear on the concept, boys and girls?

Back atcha. Oftentimes it's helpful to engage in an analysis prior to adding snark, and then adding snark as necessary. Such an analysis would include the question (e.g.) "What were the two or three main points that the author was apparently intending to make?"

Unclear on this concept, girlie?

As applied to the DePaulo piece, I think a fair reading yields the following answer to that query: (1) Singles are, in some employment-related ways, treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner, which adversely impacts on their financial net worth; and (2) The Post article failed to adequately explore this angle in an article in which such exploration would be reasonable and perhaps expected from a national publication; and (3) the linkage of less affluence to singleness and marriage to more affluence is employed by some
as a meme whereby/within which higher overall value is assigned to marriage and lesser to singleness.

Unclear on this concept?

On the other hand the Princess' syllogism (not benefiting from such analysis) rather misses the point. Inter aliaIt doesn't address the question of disparate employee benefits treatment impacting on the relative affluence of otherwise similarly situated singles/marrieds (which, of course, is mentioned in the DePaolo piece), nor, for example, does it address what (apparently) is DePaolo's assertion that there is adverse "salary" discrimination going on as well ("When single and married men are equal in their job-related contributions, are married men still paid more? * * * [apparently] Yes")

This type of confused thinking/dishonest exposition speaks volumes.

Wanna take on DePaolo? Have at it. Fairness, however, does matter. Clear on the concept?

DePaulo:

The implication is that married men are more selfless and devoted workers than single men, presumably with more accomplishments to show for their dedication, and that's why they are paid more.

The Post article gave no reasonable grounds for any such inference. There was no talk about selflessness or devotion. The only thing the Post talked about was the fact that married men work longer hours (which DePaolo does not dispute) and a stable long term relationship is... well... more stable. Thank you Captain Obvious.

There was absolutely no talk of devotion, achievement at work, nothing. Just plain longer hours. Period. If Ms. DePaolo wishes to read things into the article that aren't there so she can "rebut" them, that is fine.

But it's kind of a pointless exercise and I'm certainly not going to waste my time "analyzing" her failure to read carefully.

Or yours, for that matter.

It's all about responsibility.

I think there may be an uncorrelated relationship between "singleness", "married" and chronological age. Most people (careful now, exceptions abound) become more responsible as they get older. There is an unspoken correlation between being single and young. I was single when I was young (16 is younger than I am now), and make a lot more money now (at the present unspeakable chronological age I am at) than when I was 16 (or even 30, for that matter).
Earning power also generally increases with age (to a point), and it is more likely that a 50 year old man (careful now) will be married than a 25 year old man.
Spd rdr became a more motivated person once the innumerable harem started to arrive, lo, those many years ago, so he went back to school, to law school, graduated, became a highly paid lawyer and lobbyist, stopped spending ridiculous amounts of money on himself, and now spends ridiculous amounts of money on his harem of red heads.
And of course, he's older now. Aren't we all, and more's the pity.

In one study of identical twins, the married twin was paid an average of 26% more than the single twin.

Well, I make nearly twice what my divorced identical twin makes. I would say that having a built in cheerleader (something he didn't have even when he was married) probably has a lot to do with it.

I think I had better clue dgf in on the concept of "salary discrimination," girlie.

It all very simple, girlie, employers try to get their employees to take a little salary as they can afford to take. For example, girlie: Let's say that Big Co. has an opening for Job X in High Rent City. The upper limit on the salary is $100,000 a year to the qualified candiate. Two candiates emerge as equally qualified: Candidate A is married with children. Candiate B is single. Big Co, offers candidate A $75k a year. Candidate A considers his/her expenses and refuses to take anything less than 95k. Now he/she either wins the bargain for higher pay or turns the job offer down. Candidate B is also offered $75k a year. But Candiate B's expenses are much lower than Candidate A's, so while he/she may also bargain for a higher wage, it is also more likely that Candidate B will take the lower wage rather than walk, because his/her standard of living permits it. Even if Candidates A & B are identical twins.

Not much of a mystery concept, is it, girlie?

By the way, my kids will be supporting you singles when you start collecting Social Security. You're welcome.

Don -

You just reminded me of a request I got here at work last week. One of my co-workers asked me to query a database to prove an idea that he had: certain volumes have increased steadily over the last two years, and he wanted a straight count of those volumes on a per-month basis for the last two years to prove his theory.

I told him that I didn't even have to run a query to prove that - a simple examination of our membership growth (1800 two years ago, 3300 now) would have nearly doubled the volumes, all other things being equal. Now, in this case I just have to modify the search terms to test his theory, but this "study" is more flawed that that.

Am I making more than when I was single 15 years ago? Do I work longer hours? Of course! But it has naught to do with being married, and everything to do with the increased reponsibilities and the consequently increased remuneration that results from the increased responsibilities.

Non-scientific "studies" based on non-scientific, anecdotal "evidence" are worse than useless.

When I was single, I was borrowing thousands of dollars just to pay rent and buy food. I was living well beyond my means. I earned minimal amounts of money, often working only during the summer and maybe 10-20 hourse per week, are relied on government and private grants to help make ends meet.

Once I got married, the month after I graduated law school, I became a full time worker and my income has grown every year since.

Clearly, the results of the study are accurate.

I'm sorry for the responsible single people that are discriminated against - assuming such discrimination exists (not just a consequence of age or inexperience or seniority), but sometimes family men are not treated fairly either. Their demand for more money (high cost of living) or for better benefits (need to insure the younguns) is seen as a burden by singles who don't appreciate the sacrifices that we make for providing for their retirement (thanks spd for pointing that out). My husband also worked at a place where you were expected to work lots of overtime and were very annoyed with family oriented employees who would like to at least get home before their kids were in bed. Of course, my husband didn't work there long, but I could see the rationale for some companies to discriminate against the "family man".

I had meant to say something more here, but I see spd has it covered. Good work, man.

Nicely done, spd. One more thing: While the Engineer doesn't make nearly as much as he did while on active duty, he makes enough that I am able to be a lazy stay at home mother, lolling on the couch eating bon bons and staring at my laptop.

I don't know why even that cut in pay is still enough for us, but were I to go and get my CPA,
I would make double his current salary. It has long been my Sekrit Ambition to be either a forensic accountant or a tax lawyer or both.

heh.

When I was single, I drove a delivery truck, I stayed in my parents' house, laid on the couch in my free time and read comic books.

Then I met the woman who would become my wife.

She made me (in the words of Jack Nicholson) want to be a better man. I ditched the comic books and while I was driving the truck during the day, I went to community college at night to earn my Associate's degree in Computer Science. When we were married, I then increased my skill level, went to work in my field, and learned to program computers.

I am a much better man married than single. Is there some sort of correlation? You tell me. :)

"I am a much better man married than single. Is there some sort of correlation? You tell me. :)"

I have to agree with Tony here, having gone through the same type of conversion when I married my wife. Much more responsibly minded even after we... um... are no longer together. Especially since I'm still on the lookout for a future Mrs L.

So, in that manner I think that daveq has a point. It came down to going into another stage of maturity. Gone were the days of bachelor flakiness where if I missed a day of work, oh well. Instead now, its more about dependability. And with dependability, increased responsibility, more money and further and farther we go.