From the git-go, the OP & everybody following has been mixing wealth = assets versus income = spending ability. Those are two very different things and any thinking which inadvertently mixes the two is useless.
Wealth comes from an excess of income over spending over time. A person/couple who spends every dollar of income will never be wealthy, even if their income is $1 million/year.
The [combined expenses] effect of marriage produces an enhanced *opportunity *for combined income to be in excess of combined expenses. Whether the couple spends or saves the excess determines whether they become wealthier over time.
Most marriages consist of two people who have differing attitudes towards saving vs. spending. The more long-lasting marriages are the ones where both the difference is small, and the saving-oriented spouse carries the day. IOW, wealth-generation is correlated with longer-lasting marriages. I can’t say which is cause & which is effect, although perhaps there’s good research out there to answer this.
Pretty much sums it up. 5 & 6 go hand in hand - my experience with (other) younger singles was that they blew a lot of money going out to bars, etc. A lot less money spent after marriage on going out for entertainment, more sitting at home watching television.
Also disciplined in general. I used to spend a lot on things like books, now she moderates what I spend in that department, I probably moderate what she spends for clothes, shoes, etc. So, less impulsive buying. One of two is more likely to be a moderator for spending, or they control each other’s spending.
The cost of housing is important. For a single, childless couple, the cost of housing is about the same as for a single person… a one-bedroom apartment or a smaller house. Especially, a married couple with two incomes is better able to afford a house - they don’t make many studio houses. They can pay off a condominium much faster.
The other point is as others mention - the issue is not income, but disposable income. Two times $40,000 is $80,000 - let’s say. But expenses, instead of $35,000 are let’s say about $55,000 (about 1.5x). Disposable income has gone from $5,000x2 to $25,000.
Also, don’t forget the cost of divorce - many single people today used to be married. Many people have said the divorce “cleaned them out”. If it’s acrimonious and there’s plenty to fight over, it can cost a fortune for lawyers. With kids, suddenly there’s child support payments and two households; often the assets like the house have to be sold quickly at fire-sale prices so everyone is starting over.
Last of all, given that something like 60% of US households have zero or negative net worth, *any *statistics about wealth are dominated by the so-called upper class. i.e. the relatively more stable folks with non-chaotic lives.
As well, wealth is strongly age-correlated. The old are *much *wealthier than the young. And the current generation of oldsters is particularly likely to be more married than the current generation of youngsters. I still can’t say which is cause & which is effect. Maybe somebody else can.
Based on the OP, the answer to the question is no.
The OP is using the definition of “wealthier” by accepting the simple measure of money. An easy but simplistic measure.
Then the OP adds in a non-monetary measure-freedom to use money without external controls to the measure and says it reduces the wealth of the couple. Great idea, but not part of the simple money definition of wealth. Until the OP expands the definition of wealth, thinking about non-monetary contributions won’t change the value of the wealth.
As to the advantages of being married, one way is fewer mistakes. In any long-lived marriage each partner will discuss as least some expenditures in advance with another person (the partner). That gives each person a chance to avoid mistaken expenditures (blowing a grand at the strip club comes to mind…). Perhaps not many mistakes are avoided, but some are. Since we start by assuming each individual would make the mistake unless a discussion would change the outcome, over time this ability by itself adds to the wealth of the couple over that of two individuals.
Doctor Bella DePaulo has written extensively about what she calls “singlism,” or discrimination against single people. She mentions many of the issues other posters have mentioned above (reduced fixed costs such as housing, greater flexibility in time usage). She also investigates many smaller, insidious issues (from a PDF summary of her book “Singled Out”): “Single people subsidize married people in many smaller ways, too, as, for example, when married people get discounted rates on auto insurance, club memberships, and travel packages, while single people pay full price.”
And now for anecdote: As a woman who’s paid her own way while single, married, and divorced, married was by far the cheapest lifestyle I’ve ever enjoyed. Two people living together don’t need twice as much space, and they certainly don’t need two of every appliance. Insurance is shared and food gets used more economically. The time savings is enormous too: having a spouse means you can share household tasks and errands instead of always cutting into your own time. I have far less disposable income and time than I did in a couple, even though my salary has gone up over time for working the same hours.
That’s what “economies of scale” means. For a variety of reasons, increasing your family size from 1 to 2 does not double your costs. A two bedroom doesn’t cost 2x as much as a one bedroom (otherwise no one would have room mates). You don’t use 2x the heat and electricity. Groceries don’t cost 2x as much.
There may be intangible factors as well. The traits that make someone more likely to settle down and get married are probably similar to the ones that make someone successful professionally.
Whether you spend that wealth on yourself or your family is not really relevant.
Another factor would be the ability to take career risks. One stable income makes it much easier for the other person to quit a stable job and join a start up, go back to school, or take a lower paying job that provides unique experience.
It doesn’t have to be half the cost. A much smaller saving (say 20%) in outgoings could easily allow you to double the rate at which you accumulate wealth.
Another factor is peacocking. Remember, men have to display wealth in order to prove they are worthy to potential mates. This isn’t always true but it is generally true. Married men don’t have to do this as much - they already have a mate. So, they don’t need to spend as much money on expensive flashy cars, expensive clothes, chocolate, flowers, jewlery, etc etc etc.
There is also the benefit of specialization around the household. It is similar to the “guns and butter” law of economics learned on the first day of Econ 101. One person fixing the leaky faucets while the other cleans the house accomplishes more than twice the efficiency of one person doing both.
Seems like there are a lot of factors: Lower combined base cost of living, the distribution of risk, a bit of redundancy which can smooth over tough times, lifestyle changes and a different attiude towards money, etc.
It’s worth remember that just poverty can create nasty little spirals of debt, health issues, broken social networks, etc, which can cause that poverty to compound. A dual-income (or potentially dual income) family is much better able to avoid those “traps.” A family that falls on hard times has a better chance of having at least some income, whereas a single person can easily end up with no money at all coming in. And staying afloat on a small income is a totally different game than keeping afloat with no income.
Kids do eat into your $$$. Especially if you do things like choose housing based on the school system – that gets damned expensive.
Not all of us; I opted for a STEM field because of the money and the ability to get jobs. Now to meet a single guy in his late 40s or so who also works in STEM.
It makes me sad that I still hear women opting for fields that don’t prepare them for good jobs. Yes, sociology is interesting. No, it won’t pay you much. Take the sociology classes and some public health classes, and some programming classes, and become an informaticist.
Still – trip down a rabbit hole aside – I do think that married people are able to save more over the long term than single people, for the reasons mentioned. If I put 10% of my money into savings/retirement, that’s one thing. If two of us do it for shared savings/retirement, that’s twice as much money (or so), no?
There was a time they were called Dinks. (dual income, no kids)
Yes, they had half the expenses, and twice the income of a single person. Or thereabouts.
Same for women. Even those who do spend a lot on looks for other social reasons, spend less than when they were single and on the prowl. There are exceptions to this, but they exist in all genders and orientations.
Perhaps another point is the stratification of American society. This may be more relevant in America than Europe, but I saw statistical analysis that said more so than ever before, people marry the same socioeconomic group. Much of this was attributed to suburbs and automobile. People now live in groups roughly according to income, thanks to large suburbs of ticky-tack where all the houses were built at the same time and cost roughly the same. Therefore people grow up and socialize with those in roughly the same income bracket and education level, meaning professionals with good income marry the same. As a result, some households are even more well off (That discussion about combined disposable income - if both salaries are above average, disposable income is much larger). Rich marrying poor or single income families is a lot less prevalent now.
I couldn’t tell from the article whether they controlled for age. At 20, just about everyone is single and just about everyone has little in the way of wealth. At 40, a lot of people are married, and most folks have accumulated some wealth. At 60, many are still married (a few have gotten divorced, a few others remarried or got married for the first time), and most folks that age have accumulated even more wealth.
So if you divide people into “married” and “not married” groups, the former will skew older and wealthier. Financial factors related directly to being married (reduced expenses, more financial wisdom, etc.) may cause some of that wealth disparity, but “married” and “wealthier” may both be caused in part simply by becoming older.
I’ll agree with you on flashy cars, but my chocolate, flowers, and jewelry expenditures are much higher now that I’m married.
For all those speculating on the statistics, the marriage wealth correlation definitely exists even if you control for age, education level, race. I think the causality runs the other way, though. People who are healthy, well-paid, able to delay gratification, are much more likely to get married than people who are sick, poorly paid, or spendthrift. Married people are wealthier mostly because people who are going to be wealthy get married, not because getting married makes you richer. There are cost savings to cohabiting, and sometimes additional cost savings to marriage, but I doubt they are the dominant effect here.
