Hacker News Reader

Comment by combatentropy | Hacker News Reader

"Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all. . . . Marriage is becoming a more durable, but far more exclusive, institution."

How is it exclusive if it is by choice?

View on HN

It's not entirely by choice. Getting married can have a significant impact on the benefits you are eligible to receive. Anecdotally, I knew a woman who lived with her boyfriend and children in section 8 housing through benefits she received for being low income. The boyfriend worked, but his income was not counted as household income because they weren't married. They eventually got married, and between his income and hers, their income was high enough to disqualify they for the section 8 benefits.

I don't know how common of a situation that is, but it is very possible to impact your public benefits with marriage.

I think this is quite common. Public benefits are a strange thing and have really odd loopholes at times.

For example: I had a friend that lived with her boyfriend and they had a child. The state wanted to take child support from his check to give to her for the child even though they lived at the same address.

I worked with a woman that kept below a certain amount of hours per week while working. This was simply because working any more meant that her benefits were cut so much she couldn't survive. The cut was more than the money she earned from working.

I'm guessing I've known a few people that weren't married for similar reasons as well, I just cannot think of a concrete example.

Yes, this is a very real problem. I’m close to someone who has to actively turn down freelance work past a certain point because they will no longer qualify for Medicaid and still be far short of affording an ACA plan. Obviously the “solution” is to get a lot more work all at once to get out of that financial gap, but it’s hard to do.

Definitely is difficult and I personally think it is ridiculous to expect. The better solution would be to rework laws so that folks working come out ahead. I imagine this would include having benefits reduce more slowly than small income gains. If anything, the benefit losses should mirror the gains as it makes no sense to punish making $50 more with a $100 loss.

Across the whole spectrum of income, you'll find people using loopholes.

I think they are referring to people excluding potential partners due to their lack of money or education. But I agree, their writing insinuates the institution itself is discriminating.

I doubt that is it.

Two poor people can be really hurt by the way marriage is set up. Benefits get weird. The income might put them over the threshold for receiving benefits. And if the marriage goes badly - for example, if a spouse winds up being abusive, develops a drinking problem, and things of that sort - the poor person is stuck in the marriage simply for not being able to afford a divorce.

It isn't just that, but marriage costs time and money. It varies by state and county - and the services the courthouse offers varies as well. If you cannot afford the initial fees, the entire institution is off-limits.

not being able to afford things is not a "choice"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com