= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
9eB1 comments on Open thread, 21-27 April 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (346)
Even if your combined income decreases, your combined consumption probably increases, because many goods are non-rivalrous in a marriage situation. See here for a discussion.
I believe you meant decreases.
I think he means increases. If your consumption decreases, then your standard of living is falling and that doesn't sound good at all.
Good point, but doesn't that also apply to unmarried cohabitation?
EDIT: BTW, the bottom of your post says “[...] marriage makes family income go up via the large male marriage premium minus the small female marriage penalty”, which answers my question upthread.
It also applies in interesting ways to communal living.
In fact, given the magnitude of the effect, the question becomes "Why would anyone ever live alone?". And the fact that a lot of people do this, by choice, leads into interesting directions...
Yes it does, so it's not really an argument for the act of marriage itself, but on marriage-like behaviors.