Julie DelegalSecond of three parts.
We bristle at the idea that marriage is closely associated with economics, but, as the studies tell us, it is: Men wait to marry until they’re financially ready, and women see it “as a sign of having arrived rather than a way to get there,” as “The New York Times” reported in a 2012 piece on children born out of wedlock.
Marriage has become something many individuals work to “afford,” and in turn, its benefits ease the road to building even more wealth. Experts say that combining salaries and sharing costs provide economy-of-scale advantages. That is, it’s cheaper for two adults to support one household than two. In addition, marriage enables two people to share household and childrearing duties.
Wouldn’t unmarried parents who live together reap those same economies-of-scale and labor-sharing benefits? Not necessarily.
Judith Erwin, a Jacksonville family law attorney, thinks she knows why: Marriage affords individuals the security to take risks that unmarried individuals might not take.
The experts agree. Ohio State University researcher Jay Zagorsky has studied wealth and marital status, and argues that many cohabitating couples are “living together as a sort of trial.” Essentially, they’re holding back on a lifetime commitment, which curbs their willingness to fully combine resources
It’s what Erwin calls the “everyone looks out for himself” phenomenon.
“I was taught that you have to sacrifice — everyone has to compromise and give up certain things,” Erwin says. “You’re dooming it if you don’t have teamwork.”
She gives the example of a military family with two working spouses that relocated to advance the husband’s career. To make the move, the wife chose a pay cut and a relatively stagnant career path.
“After 25 years, you can’t possibly think she can jump back in,” Erwin says. What’s more, the average marriage lasts only 10 to 15 years. “How can anyone sacrifice for ‘that’?”
In Erwin’s view, alimony reform that the Florida Legislature is expected to address this session further curtails a partner’s willingness to go all-in for marriage. Instead of looking out for the marriage, partners will look out for their own interests.
Last year, lawmakers passed a reform bill, but Gov. Rick Scott vetoed it, calling the bill disruptive to existing divorce arrangements.
Women’s rights advocates cheered. But the reformers haven’t given up. They’ve now created a group called Family Law Reform, and have re-emerged with a documentary in tow, “Divorce Corp.,” a self-described “shocking exposé of the inner workings of the $50 billion a year U.S. family law industry.”
State Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, is on record saying that the revamped legislation wouldn’t end permanent alimony per se, but might include language that warns both spouses to expect a standard-of-living decline after their divorce.
Women’s rights groups are skeptical, and have vowed to fight any legislation that would hurt women and children. Since wives have historically made more sacrifices for the family unit than husbands, women arguably have more at stake in this fight than men.
Tomorrow: Did Feminism wreck marriage?
Julie Delegal is a writer who lives in Jacksonville.
