The average Australian with a partner has savings of $50,192, whereas a single person has $30,932 — a gap of $19,260, according to Finder, a financial comparison site.
That where the magic $20k number comes from.
The startling discovery is that couples can share fixed price components of costs like utilities and share the opportunity costs of things like childcare.
Thanks. That so far removed from the headline it actually makes me mad
It could also be a correlation rather than causation. People with more money might be better at finding partners.
You’re hearing hooves and thinking zebras.
A couple that splits expenses will be better off than someone who carries the load by themselves.
“also”. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn’t control for either.
fair, but you’re kinda wedded to the idea that “People with more money” more readily get partners in a weird way.
I mean, by inspection, it seems easily true. If you’re working 100 hours per week, you’re probably not taking much time out for dating.
It is true that it’s harder to date when you’re poor. Try taking a woman out to dinner and asking her to pay for you. See if you get a second date.
If these are the only dynamics you think possible in dating, then money ain’t the reason you’re not getting a second one.
“also”. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn’t control for either.
That would suggest almost all people are superficial, which doesn’t track. Contributing factors to couples having more money (opportunities etc) are things like, one person can work longer hours, while supporting the other to upskill, therefore eventually bringing in a higher income. One person can do school drop offs, the other pick ups, therefore offering less impact on one individual job spoiler, jobs are not child friendly, so needing to leave too often for a sick kid, can and does lose you a job. learning facilities, arr similarly not child friendly, your access is hugely lowered, to which, if any, courses you can study, without significant informal (free support) child care. Actual child care centres are unbelievably expensive, to the exclusion of most single parents. And that’s not even counting sharing the other typical living costs. Being single has become a huge barrier to climbing the ladder.
Dating also costs money, which excludes some people. and people are less datable if they’re unemployed.
Both can be contributing factors.
so , just news a room mate then, share rent etc.
Some crazy math…they could turn it around and say the couples lose 10k by sharing expenses. 50k / 2 = 25k…vs 30k x 2 = 60k
How to make the narrative fit.
50k per coupled person, so 100k per couple vs 30k single person
Ah, well that kills my inverted math lol
If you eliminate food and shelter you too can be a millionaire.
It’s articles like this, that ignore the systemic governmental issues, in order to focus on individual behaviours these articles act as a cover for Australia’s chosen systemic inequalities.
The cheapest lifestyle in Australia is to own multiple investment properties and be the daughter of a mining magnate who buys off and lobbies most of our politicians.
Just do that.
She’s not single. She has a kid. If she were on her own she’d probably be doing as well as the hypothetical couple. Since she has a kid where is the father in all this? Why isn’t there child support payments?
