More Older Couples Stay Together Because They Live Apart(wsj.com)
wsj.com
More Older Couples Stay Together Because They Live Apart
https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-older-couples-stay-together-because-they-live-apart-11564311602?mod=rsswn
118 comments
This is well attested over the years with stay at home wives unhappy with the disruption of their routine when the husband retires (especially culturally prominent in the salaryman class of Japan).
Hou can also buy a yacht cheaply in Fiji because of the number of people who think it would be great to Sal together and, after a few months, realize it would be better to stay together than to live on a boat.
My wife and I married after traveling together and I think in retrospect that was smart/lucky....at least it worked for over 20 years.
Hou can also buy a yacht cheaply in Fiji because of the number of people who think it would be great to Sal together and, after a few months, realize it would be better to stay together than to live on a boat.
My wife and I married after traveling together and I think in retrospect that was smart/lucky....at least it worked for over 20 years.
I had a period of time where I had to stay with my folks because of a period of not quite making enough money following Hurricane Katrina, so because of the shift work, I got a first hand view of my mom's routine as a housewife. Basically, she'd mop, do some laundry, and start cooking about 4pm. Her overall labor took about 1 - 2.5 hours a day, maybe a bit more if she needed to go grocery shopping. Essentially, not much more than any single person would do anyway, with a bit maybe shifted toward the weekends.
So then my dad retired, and he expected to behave like a retiree. He helps out: mopping, washing clothes, even cooking occasionally. She's constantly trying to find him extra stuff to do outdoors.
Why?
Because she enjoyed the domestic side of the domestic life of a housewife: spending hours watching tv and / or gossiping with her friends in the comfort of her home. For 30 years, she had a routine, and was essentially married to the routine as much as the man.
So then my dad retired, and he expected to behave like a retiree. He helps out: mopping, washing clothes, even cooking occasionally. She's constantly trying to find him extra stuff to do outdoors.
Why?
Because she enjoyed the domestic side of the domestic life of a housewife: spending hours watching tv and / or gossiping with her friends in the comfort of her home. For 30 years, she had a routine, and was essentially married to the routine as much as the man.
To be fair, things were probably a bit different when she had kids at home.
Well, sure during the summer. But then the fall would happen and she would have the place to herself again. The neighborhood was full of single-paycheck households and the women were almost all the same age with similarly aged kids, so the families basically all bonded through the mothers first, then the kids, and finally the fathers.
The women largely learned how to get along, the kids all did, and the fathers did to a degree but they had the largest separation in personality and past times, probably because they had the least free time / most money and wanted to make it count.
The women largely learned how to get along, the kids all did, and the fathers did to a degree but they had the largest separation in personality and past times, probably because they had the least free time / most money and wanted to make it count.
> My wife and I married after traveling together
I think everyone should spend a week (min) or two traveling with their prospective partner before committing to a lifetime together. You learn so much about people when you remove them from their daily routine.
I think everyone should spend a week (min) or two traveling with their prospective partner before committing to a lifetime together. You learn so much about people when you remove them from their daily routine.
When my now-wife and I had been together for about six months, and she was thinking about moving with me across the country to start law school, my FIL said "Congratulations. To celebrate, I'm buying you a long trip to Disney World."
It seemed very kind, until years later when he and I were talking, and he said that if she was going to follow me to school, he wanted to make sure she could stand me for an entire week at a theme park.
That was ten years ago. Things are going well. I agree with you completely.
It seemed very kind, until years later when he and I were talking, and he said that if she was going to follow me to school, he wanted to make sure she could stand me for an entire week at a theme park.
That was ten years ago. Things are going well. I agree with you completely.
At the end of No Country for Old Men, the sheriff retires and is speaking with his wife who works on the ranch and at home.
He says something like, "What should I do right now?"
"Well, I can't plan your day for you."
"Maybe I'll help around the house."
"Better not. How'd you sleep?"
"Had dreams."
"Well, you got time for 'em now."
He says something like, "What should I do right now?"
"Well, I can't plan your day for you."
"Maybe I'll help around the house."
"Better not. How'd you sleep?"
"Had dreams."
"Well, you got time for 'em now."
Yeah its called 'submarine disease', usually visible after +-1 month of continuous travel / any other way spending 100% time together. People become more irritated by small things that usually wouldn't be an issue.
It happens much more often than doesn't, not only in couples but also among friends. The cure is simple - spend at least few days apart. Not so easy in more dangerous countries. Rather plan ahead with this in mind.
On the other hand, it brings people much more together - backpacking 6 months in india brought us together more than many married couples after 10 years.
It happens much more often than doesn't, not only in couples but also among friends. The cure is simple - spend at least few days apart. Not so easy in more dangerous countries. Rather plan ahead with this in mind.
On the other hand, it brings people much more together - backpacking 6 months in india brought us together more than many married couples after 10 years.
I've worked in a remote location with a small group of people. I found that small annoyances and minor personality traits both become greatly amplified.
In this situation, we didn't have the benefit of a shared mission or sense of purpose. It was just a job, and a more or less random group. The one thing we had in common was that we were all in a place in life where we were willing to take a job in the middle of nowhere for months at a time. Some people were there for an adventure, some for money, and some to get away from their problems. It turns out, their problems followed them.
In this situation, we didn't have the benefit of a shared mission or sense of purpose. It was just a job, and a more or less random group. The one thing we had in common was that we were all in a place in life where we were willing to take a job in the middle of nowhere for months at a time. Some people were there for an adventure, some for money, and some to get away from their problems. It turns out, their problems followed them.
> Some people were there for an adventure, some for money, and some to get away from their problems. It turns out, their problems followed them.
This sounds like a great tagline for a novel.
This sounds like a great tagline for a novel.
I had a similar experience recently with my family- that is my dad, mom, grandfather and siblings. Doing _everything_ together is a socially exhausting experience.
The way I coped with it was to find some bits of spare time to go do my own thing. For me this was something mundane- I wanted to find a popular ruin bar in the area, but in the process I found a backpack I really liked and later purchased. This might be a more complicated situation given it's your girlfriend but taking a bit of time to solo it helped me a lot.
The way I coped with it was to find some bits of spare time to go do my own thing. For me this was something mundane- I wanted to find a popular ruin bar in the area, but in the process I found a backpack I really liked and later purchased. This might be a more complicated situation given it's your girlfriend but taking a bit of time to solo it helped me a lot.
You know how people say you get less flexible as you get older? It's generally true, and not just because you have limitations on adaptability as you age. You also are wise enough to know some sacrifices just don't actually work, no matter how much you wish they did.
Now multiply that by two. Two inflexible people, both unwilling to shoot themselves in the foot for so-called love, trying to find some means to meet in the middle.
Besides, a lot of our relationship expectations are rooted in the idea that a baby will or could be the result. When that stops being true, it gets a lot harder to cave to convention and a lot easier to negotiate whatever terms you two can privately agree upon.
Add in the fact that your parents may be dead. Who do you need to please or seek permission from? Possibly no one.
Your coworkers or what not may have no idea you have some kind of unconventional relationship. You may be well past the age where your social circle is going to actively butt into your romantic life. If they do, you may just dump them as friends rather than accept that.
Now multiply that by two. Two inflexible people, both unwilling to shoot themselves in the foot for so-called love, trying to find some means to meet in the middle.
Besides, a lot of our relationship expectations are rooted in the idea that a baby will or could be the result. When that stops being true, it gets a lot harder to cave to convention and a lot easier to negotiate whatever terms you two can privately agree upon.
Add in the fact that your parents may be dead. Who do you need to please or seek permission from? Possibly no one.
Your coworkers or what not may have no idea you have some kind of unconventional relationship. You may be well past the age where your social circle is going to actively butt into your romantic life. If they do, you may just dump them as friends rather than accept that.
On the note of expecting children - I suspect there's also a broader idea that the current state of affairs isn't permanent.
A lot of the petty frustrations of living together are transient. They change when you change towns, change jobs, have a baby, have that baby grow up into a kid, have your kid move out, and retire. But after all that, there's a long stretch where people's schedules and lives don't necessarily change very much beyond needing more support. That's not universal, people can make all kinds of big changes well past retirement, but it's common enough that people start asking "do I want to deal with this for the rest of my life?"
And that doesn't just mean younger people are putting up with bad relationships out of hope for the future. They could potentially be very compatible, making sound decisions like "your sleep schedule clashes with mine, but I'll deal with it for now and it'll be a positive down the line when we have to take care of kids at all hours of the day". It's just that the standard for a 'good' concession to make is different when you're weighing future circumstances against the present than it is when you're going to keep doing the same thing indefinitely.
A lot of the petty frustrations of living together are transient. They change when you change towns, change jobs, have a baby, have that baby grow up into a kid, have your kid move out, and retire. But after all that, there's a long stretch where people's schedules and lives don't necessarily change very much beyond needing more support. That's not universal, people can make all kinds of big changes well past retirement, but it's common enough that people start asking "do I want to deal with this for the rest of my life?"
And that doesn't just mean younger people are putting up with bad relationships out of hope for the future. They could potentially be very compatible, making sound decisions like "your sleep schedule clashes with mine, but I'll deal with it for now and it'll be a positive down the line when we have to take care of kids at all hours of the day". It's just that the standard for a 'good' concession to make is different when you're weighing future circumstances against the present than it is when you're going to keep doing the same thing indefinitely.
This is part of some cynical narrative on HN. Don't buy into it wholeheartedly. Plenty of couples stay together really long despite living in the same apartment. True love does exist, even though the internet loves to brainwash you into believing it doesn't.
I find it interesting that you assume true love requires someone to prefer to live together.
I didn't find the article cynical at all - on the contrary there were stories of several couples who had found a way of being happy and staying in lasting relationships that worked for them despite differences that might have driven them apart if they'd tried to compromise enough to live together.
How is finding ways of making love work for you "part of some cynical narrative" just because it doesn't fit the conventional pattern?
A more positive reading would be that the article shows that love finds a way.
I didn't find the article cynical at all - on the contrary there were stories of several couples who had found a way of being happy and staying in lasting relationships that worked for them despite differences that might have driven them apart if they'd tried to compromise enough to live together.
How is finding ways of making love work for you "part of some cynical narrative" just because it doesn't fit the conventional pattern?
A more positive reading would be that the article shows that love finds a way.
To be fair I think it depends on the kind of person you are. I'm pretty happy with the person I'm with, but ultimately if I didn't have her I'd probably have someone else and that's fine too.
Not to mention, in the nicest way I can put this, I don't really see how any relationship can last forever. I don't mean this as a criticism of my partner, I'm genuinely very happy with her, but I'm also well aware of just how much I change over time.
Not to mention, in the nicest way I can put this, I don't really see how any relationship can last forever. I don't mean this as a criticism of my partner, I'm genuinely very happy with her, but I'm also well aware of just how much I change over time.
Why do you believe co-habitating is a prerequisite of "true love" (good luck defining that).
Tangentially, you claim there's some narrative trying to brainwash people into believe "true love" doesn't exist, but we're just supposed to take your word for it that it does?
Tangentially, you claim there's some narrative trying to brainwash people into believe "true love" doesn't exist, but we're just supposed to take your word for it that it does?
He said that "they stay together despite living in the same apartment". How would you conclude he thinks co-habitating is a prerequisite?
I've seen that the biggest obstacle is that retired people don't want to be idle, and start bothering their partners for things to do instead of looking for a hobby that relieves their boredom.
Help if asked/needed, but seek new interests that don't involve your partner, and let them find their own. If you coincide, awesome, but don't force it.
Help if asked/needed, but seek new interests that don't involve your partner, and let them find their own. If you coincide, awesome, but don't force it.
> True love does exist, even though the internet loves to brainwash you into believing it doesn't.
Seems pretty cynical to believe that true love requires cohabitation.
Seems pretty cynical to believe that true love requires cohabitation.
How is it cynical? If something, it's wholesome to see people make nontraditional things work for them.
All of this depends on your definition of true love. and if love is something you seek to give or seek to receive. If you think they give love, then just give it. Love has no conditions. And it's available and unlimited supply.
I don't know why you think this is a part of some conspiracy.
Knowing about more types of relationships is extremely useful for designing software. It helps to avoid baking in assumptions about relationship status and the implications thereof.
Knowing about more types of relationships is extremely useful for designing software. It helps to avoid baking in assumptions about relationship status and the implications thereof.
> (...) some cynical narrative on HN
...that Numberwang has just fallen victim of, for sure...
...that Numberwang has just fallen victim of, for sure...
It seems regrettable that after having endless subsidies and encouragements to buy a family home, that people are insisting on keeping them long after there's any point in having a large house. Given the housing shortage in so many markets, this seems like another nifty way for the Boomers to pull the ladder up after them.
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject but I recently read an article [0] that tells another story. You might find it interesting.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.de/millennials-vs-baby-boomers-b...
[0] https://www.businessinsider.de/millennials-vs-baby-boomers-b...
The article also says “Millennials buying their first home today are likely to pay 39% more than baby boomers who bought their first home in the 1980s”.
Real estate inflation has been dramatic over the last several decades. If there were really a glut of old people attempting to offload their paid-off homes on the market, the prices might drop to more historically normal levels...
I’m not sure how the statistics actually work out but if single or married people are staying in oversized homes for longer without kids, it does seem like that could affect the supply of homes for families with children. I know the UK had a controversy over a “bedroom tax” that tried to address this issue.
Real estate inflation has been dramatic over the last several decades. If there were really a glut of old people attempting to offload their paid-off homes on the market, the prices might drop to more historically normal levels...
I’m not sure how the statistics actually work out but if single or married people are staying in oversized homes for longer without kids, it does seem like that could affect the supply of homes for families with children. I know the UK had a controversy over a “bedroom tax” that tried to address this issue.
There’s a glut of homes for sale, in places with either no economic prospects or low desirability to live. More and more higher income people competing with each other in less and less land area = higher sale prices.
This. My Dad's home in a lagging industrial town in the Upper Midwest is probably only worth about 1.5x what he paid for it 40 years ago. He has well over an acre and the house is in great shape. No one wants to move there though, so housing prices are depressed.
He'd like to move, but would have to take on a mortgage in his 70s, so he'll stay put and my sibling and I will sell it for whatever we can get when he passes.
He'd like to move, but would have to take on a mortgage in his 70s, so he'll stay put and my sibling and I will sell it for whatever we can get when he passes.
>The article also says “Millennials buying their first home today are likely to pay 39% more than baby boomers who bought their first home in the 1980s”.
Interest rates were much much higher in the 1980s. So it's probably a wash and/or even less now.
Interest rates were much much higher in the 1980s. So it's probably a wash and/or even less now.
Interest rates can be refi'd at a lower rate, but the amount you paid on the day you purchase it can never be bought down (there is inflation, which can reduce your debt load, but only if wages go up as well. We're seeing real estate and consumer goods increasing and most non-tech wages stagnating. Don't even get me started on the gig economy).
The "bedroom tax" only applies (applied? - I don't know what the actual status is) to state-subsidised/social housing.
I plan on keeping my large house long after the kids leave. I need my space.
Do you really? Have you ever had the pleasure of trying to sell the house of a recently deceased relative? More often than not they are absolutely filled to the brim with literally tons of useless junk. Entire rooms, garages or even floors that nobody has set foot in for years which only serve to store things that were bought and never used.
It seems that once you reach a certain age, a house is primarily for storing all the clutter that accumulated in a lifetime, not for living.
It seems that once you reach a certain age, a house is primarily for storing all the clutter that accumulated in a lifetime, not for living.
Seniors should plan ahead and build a warehouse next to their house.
I bought mine without any subsidies, grants, etc. I have no desire to give it up, nor any good reason. There's new houses being built all the time, so no one must live in mine specifically.
> I bought mine without any subsidies
So you didn't deduce your mortgage interest on your taxes?
So you didn't deduce your mortgage interest on your taxes?
What mortgage interest?
It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities.
People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.
People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.
It's almost like there were good reasons for strict legal and religious positions on monogamy and marriage for thousands of years all around the globe.
Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.
Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.
These traditions developed around families with children.
The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly.
Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required.
Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle!
And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.
The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly.
Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required.
Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle!
And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.
"Long-distance relationships don't work"
I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale)
Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?
I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale)
Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?
Although I disagree with the grandparent post, I'd be fine with saying that long term long distance relationships are harder to make work. Mostly this is because there's a lack of cultural guidelines for how to handle it; if you're living with or near someone there's a cultural script to follow which mostly-works, but in a LDR you can't count on that and you need to put the work in to build your own system.
Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D
Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D
That (harder to make work) matches my anecdata :)
To be clear, I'm not saying "GP is wrong" - I was genuinely curious if maybe they had some data/studies on the subject, since all I have are personal observations, and I'm curious about the issue. I.e. How much harder are LDRs?
To be clear, I'm not saying "GP is wrong" - I was genuinely curious if maybe they had some data/studies on the subject, since all I have are personal observations, and I'm curious about the issue. I.e. How much harder are LDRs?
Well yeah that's pretty much the default, UNLESS they choose to get married with the stipulation of shared ownership and finances etcetera.
the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation.
And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.
the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation.
And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.
Not everywhere. In Slovenia (and some other countries probably), we have a "zunajzakonska skupnost", which rougly translated means "out-of-wedlock relationship". If two people live together for a (undefined) "long" amount of time, and act in a way married couple do, they can be treated exactly as a married couple would be. That means, that one of the partners can claim they lived together in an "zunajzakonska skupnost", and everything acquired during the relationship canbe treated the same as with marriage, and split in half (unless someone proves they contributed significantly more,...). The existance of "zunajzakonska skupnost" iz not well defined and has to be decided in court, but it can bring many many problems.
We also have only recently legalized prenups.
Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...
We also have only recently legalized prenups.
Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...
In the United States (and presumably England) this is called "common law marriage".
I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.
I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.
Here, only one has to claim it, but they have to prove it in court. Usually this is usually done by proving they lived together, bought things together, etc. and if there were other elements of a relationship.
I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
Presumably they end up on Judge Judy. More seriously, sounds like something that could be handled in small claims court if there's really a dispute about it.
It can't be handled in small claims court because the claims aren't small and exceed the limits of what a small claims court can rule on - I mean, if someone has spent 20 years in that 'common law marriage' then that generally comes to the full extent of divorce proceedings - how to divide up the house, car(s), other property and custody of children.
"It" referred to this earlier hypothetical:
> I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
I'd certainly hope the couch would fall under the $10,000 limit for small claims.
> I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
I'd certainly hope the couch would fall under the $10,000 limit for small claims.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to the question about what happens when roommates buy a couch together in order to illustrate it's not quite the same.
It hasn't existed in England for quite some time.
It existed in variant form in Scotland until recently.
Common-law marriage only exists in a handful of states (8 out of 50, plus DC) in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_Uni...
It can bring problems I'm sure, but is not having such a legal concept better? If two people build their lives together then I think they need to be explicitly about what is whose if they want legal clarity when things go wrong.
My wife and I joined our bank accounts a few months before the wedding. We consider that to be our true wedding day. We got to Admiral status with Vanguard much quicker this way. Also, I intend to spend 100% of my time with her once we retire and I can't wait. My parents and her parents have been living like that for years.
They could just, not get married.
In many Common Law countries, you are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example)
Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
> de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example)
I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
Thank you.. you're correct, but there are some nuances.
The defacto status is a qualitative status.
My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances.
In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way.
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/
My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances.
In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way.
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/
In NZ it’s 3 years of de-facto but the “family home” (even if one partner brought it freehold into the relationship) gets split 50/50.
It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”.
The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”.
The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
In Sweden there is a special word "Sambo", if someone lives with you (in a relationship context) for 6mo+ then they're entitled to 50% of your home, it also applies if you buy a home with the intent of living with someone.
Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
No, that is not true. Sambolagen is for when a couple gets a new place to live in, not for when someone moves into the others home. Basically it makes a difference between assets acquired as a part of the Sambo relationship and assets acquired as a private person.
So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
LunaSea(1)
This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.
>This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality?
because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around.
It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around.
It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.
it's also rather frightening
I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.
I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.
Surely the uncertainty is scary for both sides!
Frightening if you contributed less financially but risk to lose your house, etc.
Frightening if you contributed more financially and risk to lose your house, etc.
I wish that me and my wife could live apart. We get along well on a personal level but are terrible fucking roommates.
I genuinely don't understand how people stay together when they see themselves as "terrible fucking roommates". Feels like a completely different universe from the one I inhabit, where totally different properties of human relationships can exist which would never reach steady state in my filter bubble.
I sleep better alone. Wish I could at least most nights without it becoming an issue.
My dream house (kids aside—that makes an already infeasible dream even less realistic) would have my wife and me in separate bedrooms with our own separate bathroom and kitchen and a living space, then one or two shared rooms in between us.
My dream house (kids aside—that makes an already infeasible dream even less realistic) would have my wife and me in separate bedrooms with our own separate bathroom and kitchen and a living space, then one or two shared rooms in between us.
Separate bedrooms are common enough, bathrooms I can somewhat understand, but kitchens ? Why does your dream have this ?
Very different ideas of what and how to cook, where and how to store foods (especially, what goes in the fridge and what doesn't), and so on. Instead of one kitchen with both our stuff in it and little shared, we could have much more orderly separate ones with only a little duplication.
It'd be fine if only one of us ever cooked, and if either of us didn't find the other's methods and tools frustrating to use at best, but that's not the case, so here we are.
Examples: my ideal kitchen would contain a rice cooker and zero crock pots. Hers would have zero rice cookers and at least two crock pots. Mine would have at most two non-stick pans of any kind—really, I could live with just one—but several cast iron pieces, and some steel. Hers would have exclusively non-stick. I'd be entirely content with a single short built-in oven to save space. She'd want a full-size double oven. That sort of thing.
[EDIT] also, whether it's OK to leave any small appliances on the counter full-time or they must all go in cabinets when not in use. We finally, after years, compromised on the stand mixer and we're up to a 4-slice toaster now so it's just too damn big to store, but the rest...
It'd be fine if only one of us ever cooked, and if either of us didn't find the other's methods and tools frustrating to use at best, but that's not the case, so here we are.
Examples: my ideal kitchen would contain a rice cooker and zero crock pots. Hers would have zero rice cookers and at least two crock pots. Mine would have at most two non-stick pans of any kind—really, I could live with just one—but several cast iron pieces, and some steel. Hers would have exclusively non-stick. I'd be entirely content with a single short built-in oven to save space. She'd want a full-size double oven. That sort of thing.
[EDIT] also, whether it's OK to leave any small appliances on the counter full-time or they must all go in cabinets when not in use. We finally, after years, compromised on the stand mixer and we're up to a 4-slice toaster now so it's just too damn big to store, but the rest...
For some reason I’m really curious to hear about the difference in refrigeration preferences.
One of us thinks that pretty much everything that's not refrigerated at the store doesn't belong in the refrigerator at home (onions, apples). The other disagrees.
you shouldn't put apples or onions in the fridge, they go bad faster. Apples also release ethylene gas which makes other produce rot faster.
One with dirty dishes laying everywhere, one neat and tidy.
I didn't want to go for the low blow, besides I hold out hope that mise-en-place and clean-as-you-go will catch on one day.
[EDIT] and actually I bet we'd both do a better job of keeping it clean, with separate kitchens.
[EDIT] and actually I bet we'd both do a better job of keeping it clean, with separate kitchens.
Not the OP, but sometimes I wish that I had a separate kitchen so I could prep like I did back when we lived apart and had date nights. Candles, clean kitchen, and hot food that she hasn't been smelling for the last hour...
Buy a small duplex and knock down some walls. ;)
You could probably achieve that by buying a duplex and lightly de-duplexing it to get a house with two complete living spaces which you can move between without having to go outside.
my wife and I aren’t much better at fucking roommates either...
Which is probably why we don’t have any right now.
Which is probably why we don’t have any right now.
[deleted]
Sometimes I am amazed at the cognitive flexibility of a writer to turn something into a story. Couples that aren't married and live in different houses? So... dating? This is a story about old people dating? Where a lot of them are divorced so they're maybe a little hesitant to move in together and get married? And there are a few long distance relationships as well?
I know this is the kind of pessimism that attracts downvotes, but I can't hold my tongue. The WSJ not only paid someone to write this, but it actually made it into the print edition.
I know this is the kind of pessimism that attracts downvotes, but I can't hold my tongue. The WSJ not only paid someone to write this, but it actually made it into the print edition.
I've seen people "date" consistently with the same person for 30 years, doing joint family events like Christmas and Easter. I think calling them proper relationships is appropriate.
It's disingenuous to refer to their relationships as merely dating, when they have lasted for more than a decade. And when it's not dating, you don't really have a point.
What's disingenuous is the editor's hijacking our cultural assumption that the headline means couples who were happily married for decades have begun living separated in burgeoning numbers. If these are romances that only began in a later life stage, that should be transparent in the headline, not buried in attempted cleverness to get a page click.
In the past these kinds of relationships were called "Living Apart Together", or LAT-relationships [0].
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_apart_together
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_apart_together
You actually proved it’s a story: for some people it’s news that couples can live in different houses and have any other type of romantic relationship than dating.
At a point in life where you include someone as the main beneficiary in your will / on your life insurance policy, you’re definitely not “dating”, even though you might live apart.
So; friends?
Your American-English word 'dating' is inaccurate. Here, and elsewhere. When you are 'seeing someone' (cringe-worthy term as well) and this is on regular terms we call that a relationship. You don't have to live together to be in a relationship, not everyone has to know it, you might still feel insecure; that's all OK in a young relationship. It is a rather old fashioned way of thinking that such is A-OK. It just isn't always feasible or practical. This article is about this phenomenon. That being said I'd like to see the data as 'more older couples' raises questions. For me, the following: more than when? how much more? which areas in the world? The title is intentionally vague and I refuse to read an article to figure that out.
"moving in together and get married"
Are you from 1950?
Relationships aren't only seen as a one-way-escalator anymore.
You don't have to date, move in, and marry.
Are you from 1950?
Relationships aren't only seen as a one-way-escalator anymore.
You don't have to date, move in, and marry.
There OP did not imply this. The OP simply doesn't think that old people dating is news worthy.
"Where a lot of them are divorced so they're maybe a little hesitant to move in together and get married?"
This is a strong implication that OP thinks this is the way to go and only because they had bad experiences in the past they are not following them.
The point that "old people dating" follows from this implication being true.
They had bad experiences => they date longer before moving in => this is an article about old people dating => boring
They aren't "dating" in the classical sense, this IS how their relationship is => this is an article about shifting relationship structure in older people => interesting
This is a strong implication that OP thinks this is the way to go and only because they had bad experiences in the past they are not following them.
The point that "old people dating" follows from this implication being true.
They had bad experiences => they date longer before moving in => this is an article about old people dating => boring
They aren't "dating" in the classical sense, this IS how their relationship is => this is an article about shifting relationship structure in older people => interesting
Hamstering.
I found it endearing that older folks have someone to be with.
It makes me happy - the same way a story about a rescued cat makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Perhaps it is not at all related to Hacker culture, but then again this is a free forum and if some cat rescue stories slip in every now and again, I don't mind :)
It makes me happy - the same way a story about a rescued cat makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Perhaps it is not at all related to Hacker culture, but then again this is a free forum and if some cat rescue stories slip in every now and again, I don't mind :)
I saw some articles somewhere that some people, despite living together in a relationship, sleep in different beds or even rooms.
I honestly can't imagine sleeping in the same bed as someone, personally. For a bunch of various reasons...
1) I need to be very cold to sleep and don't want to be disrupted by someone else's warmth
2) I'd be woken up when the other person shifts around, and vice versa
3) What if my partner snores, has sleep apnea, mutters in their sleep?
4) What if we just have different circadian rhythms? I like to be up at 6am, which means bedding at 10pm. But my partner(s) have historically been night owls.
1) I need to be very cold to sleep and don't want to be disrupted by someone else's warmth
2) I'd be woken up when the other person shifts around, and vice versa
3) What if my partner snores, has sleep apnea, mutters in their sleep?
4) What if we just have different circadian rhythms? I like to be up at 6am, which means bedding at 10pm. But my partner(s) have historically been night owls.
Agreed. I've been keeping a 3:30am-9:30pm schedule for a couple years now and I don't see it working if I had to share a bed, or even a house with a partner. I suppose people have to make certain adjustments if the relationship is worth to them, and most people end up doing so.
More common than you think.
My parents were like that when I was little.
Then again, they split when I was 6...
Then again, they split when I was 6...
>Many couples who begin relationships later in life are keeping separate homes because they cherish private space and financial independence
Where by "many" the author means "some in my affluent circles of the 10 percenters and up".
Where by "many" the author means "some in my affluent circles of the 10 percenters and up".
> * Mr. Demetre, a 63-year-old retired draftsman who spends several nights a week at her apartment because it’s bigger.*
> A roofing contractor, he had repaired her roof a few times... He lives in the big house that he built on 60 acres in the country, with tractors and a satellite TV for watching sports. She lives in a brightly decorated home with no satellite TV in the college town of Columbia, Missouri.
> Mr. Pastoret moved from his family home to an apartment 250 steps from hers. He comes over every evening for a supper of fruit and sandwiches. He washes the dishes. She dries and puts them away. They watch the news and “Wheel of Fortune,” holding hands, then go out to the front porch.
Do those really seem like stories restricted to the upper crust?
These people aren't broke, to be sure, and it's worth recognizing that pressure to live together to save money is part of how income affects divorce rates. But most of the people in this story are widowed or divorced with kids - they have property and maybe savings, but not enormous incomes. A house in Columbia, MO is $200k, and several of the other people have apartments.
> A roofing contractor, he had repaired her roof a few times... He lives in the big house that he built on 60 acres in the country, with tractors and a satellite TV for watching sports. She lives in a brightly decorated home with no satellite TV in the college town of Columbia, Missouri.
> Mr. Pastoret moved from his family home to an apartment 250 steps from hers. He comes over every evening for a supper of fruit and sandwiches. He washes the dishes. She dries and puts them away. They watch the news and “Wheel of Fortune,” holding hands, then go out to the front porch.
Do those really seem like stories restricted to the upper crust?
These people aren't broke, to be sure, and it's worth recognizing that pressure to live together to save money is part of how income affects divorce rates. But most of the people in this story are widowed or divorced with kids - they have property and maybe savings, but not enormous incomes. A house in Columbia, MO is $200k, and several of the other people have apartments.
> Do those really seem like stories restricted to the upper crust?
Yes, most people can barely afford to maintain a single modest home, let alone 2 or 3.
Yes, most people can barely afford to maintain a single modest home, let alone 2 or 3.
And these people are each maintaining a single modest home or none at all.
By my count, the story has four renters, three homeowners, and one unknown. One of the renters even sold his home to make this arrangement more viable. This is an age bracket with an 80% homeownership rate. (That's not the same as % owning homes, but most people mentioned were divorced or widowed, which shrinks the difference.) All of them appear to be either working or retired; no one here is a stay-at-home spouse whose partner bought them a second house for comfort. No couple here even has three houses, so I don't see where that enters in.
If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look at pairs of them as "owning two homes"? This is just a story about people who are staying 'dating' instead of remarrying and moving in together, which is viable for any demographic that isn't living with strangers to save money while single - and that includes most of the middle class.
By my count, the story has four renters, three homeowners, and one unknown. One of the renters even sold his home to make this arrangement more viable. This is an age bracket with an 80% homeownership rate. (That's not the same as % owning homes, but most people mentioned were divorced or widowed, which shrinks the difference.) All of them appear to be either working or retired; no one here is a stay-at-home spouse whose partner bought them a second house for comfort. No couple here even has three houses, so I don't see where that enters in.
If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look at pairs of them as "owning two homes"? This is just a story about people who are staying 'dating' instead of remarrying and moving in together, which is viable for any demographic that isn't living with strangers to save money while single - and that includes most of the middle class.
In the comments I replied to, there was no usage of the word 'sold' just 'left' their family home. So, that implies to me, they still have it, and now the couple have at least 3 homes across them. I realize journalists are exceptionally bad at being explicit, and editors were all fired because nobody can afford to pay them, but it doesn't excuse a basic ability to convey an idea with a minimum level of precision.
> If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look at pairs of them as "owning two homes"?
Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can't afford to have their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory towers.
> If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look at pairs of them as "owning two homes"?
Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can't afford to have their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory towers.
The article itself doesn't have anyone who left their home for a new house. The part I quoted references a single person who "moved from" his home into an apartment; that generally implies sold, but even if he is renting it out, he's in an apartment now, as is his partner. Each of the people in the article have 0-1 home.
> Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can't afford to have their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory towers.
I promise you I'm not surrounded by rich young Harvard grads buying houses. Most of the people I know have roommates, a live-in partner, or both. But looking at high-cost cities is every bit as misleading as looking at rich people; most of the US spent decades subsidizing sprawl and single-family homeownership, with predictable results.
Only 30% of American adults live with roommates (including family) outside romantic relationships. For the 55+ demographic in question, who largely grew up in an era of lower housing prices, that number is 10% (and skewed higher by those who need family care). Meanwhile, 65% of American households and 80% of over-55 households are owner-occupied, so the median American over 55 lives in a home that they or their partner own. 4/3 renters to 3/4 homeowners, none with roommates, is almost exactly what you'd expect for 7 Americans over 55.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/31/more-adults...
> Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can't afford to have their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory towers.
I promise you I'm not surrounded by rich young Harvard grads buying houses. Most of the people I know have roommates, a live-in partner, or both. But looking at high-cost cities is every bit as misleading as looking at rich people; most of the US spent decades subsidizing sprawl and single-family homeownership, with predictable results.
Only 30% of American adults live with roommates (including family) outside romantic relationships. For the 55+ demographic in question, who largely grew up in an era of lower housing prices, that number is 10% (and skewed higher by those who need family care). Meanwhile, 65% of American households and 80% of over-55 households are owner-occupied, so the median American over 55 lives in a home that they or their partner own. 4/3 renters to 3/4 homeowners, none with roommates, is almost exactly what you'd expect for 7 Americans over 55.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/31/more-adults...
We’re talking about older people; the cost of hanging onto a paid off house in a low property tax jurisdiction is minimal.
This is undoubtedly contributory to the housing shortage. People wastefully living by themselves in space which could house 2 or more individuals are selfishly hurting both the younger generation and the environment.
I'd expect nothing less from the Boomers and Gen X.
And I'm only somewhat joking.
I'd expect nothing less from the Boomers and Gen X.
And I'm only somewhat joking.
>>Rather than marry or live together, many of them have separate homes and see each other several times a week, or three times a month; they often say they are highly committed to each other but want personal space and independence.
In other words, they are not couples, just people that date sometimes. Next story please :)
In other words, they are not couples, just people that date sometimes. Next story please :)
"she spent weeks [living] with him after he had surgery"
That's what you do with someone that you date sometimes? My dating life was quite different than yours, I guess!
Also, why so dismissive of how other people structure their lives? They don't describe it as "someone I date sometimes" so why do you?
That's what you do with someone that you date sometimes? My dating life was quite different than yours, I guess!
Also, why so dismissive of how other people structure their lives? They don't describe it as "someone I date sometimes" so why do you?
>>Also, why so dismissive of how other people structure their lives? They don't describe it as "someone I date sometimes" so why do you?
do whatever you want, I just disagree with the label.
do whatever you want, I just disagree with the label.
The root of the problem, I think, is that when you have a job you only really spend 20-50% of your awake time with a partner. When you don't it gets to a 90-100% range, and it is harder. No single person can fill 100% of your time.