Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Love And Money: Marriage The McArdle Way



It's Valentine's Day and Megan McArdle's thoughts naturally turn to love, which means money. Join me as I mock the woman whose rat-fucking is screwing with my life. Remember, as we rummage through the crystal ball of her head, that McArdle's interests, experiences, and speculations begin and end with herself.
This Valentine’s Day, if you’re in a long-term relationship, resolve to do something really romantic: talk about money.
Megan McArdle, M.A., MBA, FU, ignores the fact that outside of the top 10% or so, most couples discuss money every time they go out. Can we afford to go out, where can we afford to go out, what can we afford to eat or drink, what about a babysitter, is there gas in the car, and so on.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that my husband spontaneously proposed in the middle of a household budget meeting. You may therefore conclude that the McSuderman household has somewhat … unusual … ideas about what constitutes romance.
So what you're saying is that P. Suderman saw your income, bank balance, expenses, and assets and proposed on the spot.
But what’s more romantic than “until death do us part”? And substantial research shows that fights about money are one of the most common stressors on couples, and a very good predictor of divorce. One recent study found that it’s not having money troubles that send couples to divorce court, but the inability to agree on what to do about them.
Then that study ignores the stress of poverty and is useless, which is why McArdle later points out that lack of money creates stress.
In a consumer society such as ours, money is fundamental.
Yes. Yes, that's very true. We are in a "consumer society." Money is fundamental to consumerism. McArdle has a fine grasp of the obvious. It's not "Consumerism, according to Webster's Dictionary, is-" but it's very close.
Our purchases aren’t just about stuff we’d like to have; they’re about signaling who we are, to ourselves and other people. Money is one of the most important ways we shape choices about our lives. Naturally, when someone else gets involved in those choices, there’s going to be conflict.
Not so fast, missy. If your sense of yourself depends on the amount of money you have, you are very confused about both money and identity. When people base their identity on their wealth, they must convince themselves that wealth confers an abundance of positive characteristics on them, even when this is obviously untrue. If your self-esteem depends on your wealth, you are really in trouble. Such people could become greedy beyond words, because adults with no self-esteem almost never are satisfied. Nothing material can feel such a void, although not for lack of trying.

Which brings us back to Megan McArdle.
Those conflicts are obviously made easier when you have more money. There’s margin for error and disagreement without catastrophe or stress. But as financial advisers can attest, a dedicated spender can easily find ways to run through 20 percent more than he or she earns, regardless of how much that is. That spending isn’t necessarily on flat-panel televisions and speedboats; it may be on a house in a good school district. But no matter where the money goes, if you strap two spenders together, they’re both apt to end up in financial disaster. And if you strap one of those spenders to a saver, you end up with years’ worth of fiery arguments.
I think we can conclude that P. Suderman, spender, is strapped to M. McArdle, saver. Forever.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that that budget meeting has been the foundation of my marriage in more ways than one.
I believe you. 100%.
We do not agree on all money matters. There is considerable divergence in household views, for example, on the relative merits of high-end stereo equipment and expensive kitchen appliances.
I'm not a expert on technological matters but I think "guys spending money on expensive stereos" is passé, although it probably sounds a lot better in her head than "guys spending a lot of money on video cards, speakers, microphones, games, virtual reality equipment, and combustible 'snacks.'"
But we did agree that we had to agree on how the money would be spent. And having already had those discussions, through some hard times (Peter was laid off a few weeks after we moved in together) we knew even before we tied the knot that we could come to such agreement.
Two libertarians, self-selected for selfishness and mistrust, with the tendency to see those with less wealth as looters and moochers. They can exist both in perfect agreement and inevitable conflict.
Too many courting couples have a delicate reluctance to get down into the nitty-gritty of how they’re going to arrange their money: how much to pool, and how to spend those collective funds. Like a Victorian bride picturing her wedding night, they have only the vaguest notion of what is supposed to happen, but they imagine that money matters will sort themselves out easily as they drift along on a cloud of ecstatic love.
To make her unnecessary advice seem more urgent, McArdle invents a narrative of virginal, naïve Mid-Century teenage spouses, shyly opening their purse and wallet to each other for the first time.
What they often get instead is glorious fights when one party wants to put aside 15 percent of their salary for retirement and another 5 percent for emergencies, while the other wants to live for the day and let the future take care of itself.
I TOLD YOU SO.
My sympathies are naturally with the careful saver. But we’re not talking about retirement planning today; we’re talking about love. And if you want that love to last, what you do with the money is less important than being on the same page about it.
And that page says that they'll save for a rainy day and pay off the mortgage early and put away a lot away for retirement, when the spender is far too old to enjoy it.
Which means that if you’re considering marriage (or a functionally equivalent long-term partnership), you should have that conversation as soon as possible.
That conversation should include near-term budgeting. But it also needs to lay out the long-term goals that you both want, whatever they are: a big wedding, nicer cars, education for the kids, travel, a cushy retirement. You need to try setting a plan.
And since the saver has more money than the spender and has already drawn up the budget and spreadsheets and has the MBA while the spender has a kick-ass stereo and an English degree with a concentration in movie reviews, the saver usually gets her way.
And then you need to see if your partner can keep to it, or if they do as so many people end up doing when these plans are attempted: sheepishly confessing that they stopped trying to keep to the budget four days into the month, making secret purchases, blowing through the money that was supposed to go into the car fund on a spontaneous night out with the boys.
Oh, P. Suderman. You shouldn't have. That must have been a very awkward budget meeting after your The Hangover weekend.
Someone who repeatedly cheats on you with money can reform, to be sure -- but you should see strong signs of that reformation before you tie the knot, rather than hoping that marriage will somehow change them into someone they haven’t been.
He learned to be a good boy.
And what if you’ve already married that special darling who can’t seem to stick to a financial plan? What if you’re already having those fights?
Well, that’s an even better time to have that conversation. If you’re already fighting constantly about money, you need to stop blowing up over individual purchases and crises, and start hammering out a long-term plan that both of you can live with. The more distance there is between you two in how to handle money, the more detailed that planning needs to be, because you can’t rely on inertia to do any of the work for you. It is not the naturally thrifty who need a microscopically attentive monthly budget; it is those who look up at the end of the month and wonder where all the money went.
"How much do you need for coffee?
"I don't know, $6 a day?"
"Can you get by on $5 a day? Now let's talk about your cab fare."

It might not seem like the most idyllic way to spend your Valentine’s Day. On the other hand, it might ensure that you have plenty of happy Valentine’s Days to come.
And if not, DC is a not a community property "state." McArdle wins either way.

9 comments:

Clever Pseudonym said...

I used to lumber through your exerpts of Megan's twaddle for the joy of your snarky response. I got about 1/3 of the way this time without thinking "what a sad, soulless person." Couldn't read further. And I thought Hallmark and the diamond industry stole romance. We just treat each other nice and split the bills.

Susan of Texas said...

Which sounds ideal.

I can't believe how much McArdle reveals. I suppose the lure of talking about herself is irresistible.

Anonymous said...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atlas-shrugged-updated-for-the-current-financial-crisis
Pretty much this.

Susan of Texas said...

Lol!

Lawrence said...

I wonder what he spends the money on? Kitchen appliances or gaming PCs can't cost much more in DC than they do where I live. Amazon sees to that. And they have to have money. Media people are bought off. That's why they don't care about us anymore. Sounds like a terrible relationship. At least figuring out how the subtext of all David Brooks columns lately is his divorce is a fun game. That was just grim.

Susan of Texas said...

McArdle bought a $1500 Thermomix, which weighs, chops, and cooks, we were told. I'm not sure what Suderman buys. She'll tell us sooner or later.



Skinny Little Boy from Cleveland, Ohio said...

When I first encountered "Jane Galt" back on Tabletalk she had a tendency to speak in a voice that I associated with maiden aunts from a long ago time. Her Valentine missive oddly conjures that up even more than most of her columns. This coming on the heels of her divorce column makes one think that things are not happy in the land of the McSudermans and that hey just had a fight about "stereo equipment" (which does seem like something a person of a pre-internet generation would use to describe a multi-media entertainment system). Her maiden aunt voice sounds very WASPy or at least wannabe lace curtain Irish (I know both voices) and I'm guessing Megan comes from deeply shanty but lace curtain aspiring roots.

That her proposal came in a budget conference should be no surprise. Friends who've dated liberatrian shake their heads and say that their social circles all seem to have Aspargers. What she misses is that even young libertarians probably are not interested in their 401ks. They like money and judging people who don't have it or want to tax it, but they're not necessarily savers, esp. if they are "young"--the rude shock of saving is for middle agers like McMegan. If their fathers were community college teachers like P's, then there probably was either a lot of credit card debt or a lot of penny pinching while they were growing up.

McMegan clearly doesn't know that most couples endlessly discuss if not argue about money and that outside of affairs, the major way they cheat is by breaking budget/spending agreements. It might be a lunch here or there or splurge at the super markets, or perhaps a new Blue Ray player, but it's what couples do. The idea that some "agreement" will solve this suggests that perhaps McMegan doesn't have much experience with relationships or perhaps this is where they fell apart in the past. OTOH, given her divorce column maybe P Suderman is cheating both ways.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess it's a good time to bring this piece up again.

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/13/385948508/how-sunk-cost-fallacy-applies-to-love

GOLDSTEIN: She spent a lot of time playing video games and thinking back to what she'd missed in the relationship. One moment in particular stood out. She and her boyfriend were at a bar, and they were talking to someone they just met.

MCARDLE: And somehow the topic of saying I love you came up. And so the three of us are talking and he says to the stranger, well, I won't say I love you until I'm totally sure it's the one. You know, like I've never said I love you to her. I've no intention of doing so any time soon.

GOLDSTEIN: The boyfriend is saying this right in front of Megan to a stranger, and Megan says after the breakup, she couldn't figure out why she had let this moment slide.

MCARDLE: I should have had it out that night. And I didn't, and the end result was that I wasted three years on a relationship that I should've known pretty early on wasn't going anywhere.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-13/happy-valentine-s-day-now-cut-your-losses

I'm not going to say it was all wine and roses, but my dance card was full, and 18 months after my move, I started dating the amazing guy who is now my husband. About 11 months in, as we were drinking wine on our patio, I felt moved to be clear and straightforward about what I wanted, in a way that I hadn't dared to with my previous boyfriend, because what if he said "No"?

"I don't want to string along for years," I told him. "I'm not demanding a proposal or anything, but I'm just letting you know, that eventually, I'll want to get married, or we'll have to end it. If you don't want to marry me, hey, fair enough, and we can still be friends. But I just won't do it again." A few months later, he proposed, spontaneously in the middle of a household budget meeting, which is a great story to tell at cocktail parties and, hopefully, a nice memory for us to laugh over in the nursing home.

skinny little boy from Cleveland, Ohio said...

Love the "spontaneous" proposal, coming not long after the passive aggressive "non-ultimatum".