Are economic principles a reason why two-income families divorce?

Question

There is much speculation as to why a couple is more likely to divorce if the wife works fulltime. Conservatives will say it's the additional stress on the family, or forcing an "unnatural" role onto the woman. Liberals will point out that having her own income gives a woman greater freedom to leave a bad marriage. But here's a thought for anyone interested in economics:

Role specialization. Every business partnership benefits greatly when roles are specialized. For instance, instead of two people each sewing a whole suit, one cuts the patterns and one runs the sewing machine. Could it be that marriage itself is less valuable when there is no role specialization? If you do not benefit intrinsically because of your "partnership" - if you are not more efficient together than apart, is there less reason to stay together when the chemistry fades? If you can do it all yourself, are you less motivated to find that marriage itself benefits you?

I am not saying that this is THE reason. I'm speculating that it may be *A* reason that the scale tips in favor of divorce in a so-so marriage. We'll have to leave love out of it to really explore the idea, I think.

Rio, I'm not really talking about the first part of the question, I was just setting the stage for the question about specialization. What do you think about the specialization idea? Yay or Nay?

Scuba, aren't at-home moms or dads BETTER equipped to pick up extra money? They after all have the time to do it. They can bring in "new" money, whereas a working spouse's paycheck is already part of the budget. Perhaps you are advocating *the ability* to make a living, not actually having both work fulltime, is that accurate?

Answer 1

I admire you for asking such a mature and important question. And if others are inclined to give you disrespectful answers, please block them from having another chance to do so.

This question will likely offend those who are only capable of one point of view, and are intimidated by anything as substantial as this to challenge their thinking and hypothesis. There comes a point where redundancy is not beneficial to any organization, but only tends to create irreconcilable inefficiencies in the functioning of that organization. Now here's where the complaints will start.

Feminists seem to want to assert that role specialization is a detriment to women as a whole, and refuse to recognize the benefits societies have experienced because of it. Role specialization in NO way diminishes the necessity of women to have legal autonomy from and equality with men. But those who are unwilling to accept anything other than what supports their beliefs, will not have consciously acknowledged the previous sentence. So let me put it in bold print. ROLE SPECIALIZATION IN NO WAY DIMINISHES THE NECESSITY OF WOMEN TO HAVE LEGAL AUTONOMY FROM AND EQUALITY WITH MEN.

Shingoshi Dao
2007.Nov.09 Fri, 19:39 --800 (PST)

Answer 2

No cable, nothing fancy, and a modest two bedroom apartment for us (we have two kids and two more every other weekend). We need two incomes to keep up though, just with rent, fuel, electricity, phone, daycare and car insurance. Not blaming anyone, just a simple fact that at this point we both need to work to have what is quite basic. Basic to the point that my wife finds it unacceptable, though she also finds it unacceptable for me to pick up an additional job. I am always fighting to advance but I think that it's very safe to say that inflation over the past four decades has made it nearly impossible for the average worker to raise a family on a single income. Whether that's because feminism gave corporations the opportunity to exploit a "two for the price of one" opportunity is debatable, but the fact that working families generally require two incomes in the west is really not debatable. If I achieve a promotion that allows me to raise my family on my income alone (especially with over $1000 monthly going to child support) it will be because I am fortunate enough to be earning well above what the average employee earns, not because of any remarkable feats of frugality on my part. When you're already renting at less than $800 a month there's only so much additional money pinching you can do. Even a rice and fish diet would be expensive these days.

Answer 3

Well, to stick with your example, a business partnership would benefit even more if the partners were cross-trained and the one who can cut the pattern also knew how to run the sewing machine and vice versa. If one of them became sick, you couldn't produce the suit. The same applies to relationships. If you have a distinct role division and one party becomes unable to perform in his/her role, then the model falls apart. (i.e. if the husband works and loses his job or becomes disabled or sick).

The best chance of survival for the business (and the relationship) is not role specialisation. Specialisation leads to segregation. What you want in a small business (aka family unit) is integration and enabling each member to pick up the slack when something goes wrong so that the business/rel.ship can continue to function as a unit.

I'm a ret. business consultant and I can tell you from experience that no business survives when you have highly specialised jobs without a back-up or cross-trained personnel. So if you wish to make an argument for women and men occupying different and distinct roles in a relationship, you may wish to think of a different analogy than business because that teaches precisely the opposite.

Answer 4

I sure don't think it is from a couple working, wife and husband have jobs. People have just put too much less value on marriage. They don't take their vows serious. More should think of the words they swore to uphold as a married couple. They use anything they can for divorces and children don't even matter. They feel the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. A sold marriage and family working as a team is the greatest and most rewarding.=======

Answer 5

This claim is more correlation than causation. It could be that the marriage was already bad, and the wife is using her work to be able to divorce without worrying about finances. A wife who isn't working and has little money of her own would be more averse to the idea of divorce, and would therefore be more likely to remain married to the guy. The real problem isn't financial, but emotional. Claiming that it isn't is just an excuse to keep married women at home.

EDIT: No, I'm with scubalady01 on this one. You might be better at doing one thing and your spouse might be better at doing something else, but you should know how to trade off if necessary.

Answer 6

First off I don't money is an issue, or whether or not both couples are working; many couples work full time; they get along beautifully. The best marriage is when both; not just one fuses with the other; when both fuse together becoming as one solid unit. That's what kept my hubby and I together; we fused as one. I'm sure other couples know the feeling. When the chemistry fades is akin to the seven year itch; just got to hang in there and spruce it up a bit; never give up.

Answer 7

I more or less consider that both partners looking at there marriage married because they felt equal, and if one is overly doing more then the other lots of negative thoughts happen.
I mean some men love house wives because there taking care of the home while the man works and there okay with that they view each other equal, its really only when one is unhappy and the other dosent know that fights and problems really come about.

Answer 8

No- this is not the reason for divorce.
No matter one or two-income but main thing is understanding & adjustment in couple can lead to good life without divorce.
Life is to live happily and without stress/tensions or keeping any kind of ego. Life partners should think of each other.
Work together to meet both ends is key to happy family.

Answer 9

It should be noted that, when surveyed, women strongly indicate that they want to divorce for reasons of removing psychological constraints or of removing levels of psychological unhappiness, i.e. lack of sufficient happiness (Burns 1984; Cleek & Pearson 1985; Gigy & Kelly 1992; Greif & Pabst 1988; Thurnher, Fenn, Melichar, & Chiribota 1983). Across the six surveys, "financial problems" ranked 5th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 3rd and unranked.

Obviously, it is a factor but most commonly, mothers cite such reasons as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated.", as the main reasons for divorce. (Braver, Popenoe, et al), and mothers make up the huge majority of who files.

In one study, over ninety percent of couples that responded to polls admitted to arguing over money at least once, while only thirty-four percent cited money as their major problem, but most of the thirty-four percent conceded that other problems did exist in conjunction with their monetary woes.

As far as I know, no studies have been done on one vs. two income families and the reasons for divorce.

Answer 10

It is certainly true that money is a major reason cited for divorce in all break ups, but I am not sure if it applies more to dual income families than any other.

To the role specialisation part of your question, that moves from a general trend to questions as they apply to specific couples, and I'm sure there are many different answers to it.

Answer 11

interesting. I don't see marriage as filling a deficit but more like a positive function of having a "backup." cops don't go on duty without their "backup" & successful marriages run on "backups" as well.

what do I mean by that? i.e. if one falls victim to unemployment the other still retains the family unit together. an engine that keeps going even if one cylinder is down. perhaps we should all follow the mormons & get mulitiple wives to achive a V6 engine! lolol