LET'S TALK

Expensive weddings pay price

Years ago, I had a discussion with a friend about weddings and how expensive and elaborate they can be. The friend made a remark with which I wholeheartedly agreed at the time.

“The bigger the wedding,” she opined, “the shorter the marriage.”

My friend’s words come back to me whenever I hear of one of those seven-figure Hollywood weddings that turn out to have been a colossal waste of money … sometimes in a matter of mere weeks.

A recent study seems to have borne out my friend’s conclusion, according to MarketWatch reporter Quentin Fottrell.

A story headlined “The larger the rock, the rockier the marriage” by Fottrell at MarketWatch.com puts forth that “a marriage that starts with a lavish ceremony and expensive engagement ring is less likely to succeed.” He cites a study by Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon, Emory University economics professors who surveyed more than 3,000 people in the United States who got married (excluding same-sex couples and people over 60, among others).

After the numbers were crunched by Randal Olson, a computer science graduate research assistant at Michigan State University, it was found that couples who spend $20,000 on their weddings are 46 percent more likely than average to divorce. Those who spent $10,000-$20,000 were 29 percent more likely to divorce. In addition, spending more than the average price (circa $2,500) on an engagement ring didn’t bode well for marriage duration.

On the other hand, couples who spend $1,000-$5,000 are 18 percent less likely than average to divorce, while the extreme cheapskates — the ones who fork over less than $1,000 — are 53 percent less likely to part company later. The researchers blamed the financial stress caused by the fairy-tale weddings for the marital rifts.

In addition to the financial stress factor, there’s the theory that couples who have big-money weddings might not exactly be marrying for love in the first place. “Men are 1.5 times more likely to end up divorced when they care most about their partner’s looks, Olson notes, and women are 1.6 times more likely to end up divorced when they care most about their partner’s wealth,” Fottrell writes.

But this is yet another set of statistics arising from yet another study, so, yes, exceptions are bound to abound.

I had two weddings 15 years apart. Each, counting the honeymoon, cost somewhere around a modest $4,000. The marriage kicked off by Wedding No. 1 lasted seven years, ending despite a bank-account balance many would consider to be quite comfortable. The marriage introduced by Wedding No. 2 is heading toward its 10th anniversary in May, with no end in sight, having survived various financial stresses and a bank account that often produces an echo.

Marriage No. 1 didn’t end because of lavish wedding spending. It did end because of some very unrealistic — and unrealized — expectations on the part of both bride and groom. Marriage No. 2 — despite tumultuous circumstances that have dogged us to this day — has lasted because we were friends first; considered decent character to be a key requirement for a spouse; were very aware that love is a decision, not just a feeling; and knew that a good marriage involves some work on the part of each party.

It’s my belief that any couple who realizes these things (and it seems that most Hollywood A-listers don’t) will stay together, whether they spent $500 or $500,000 on their nuptials.

And you may have to have some extra wedding dollars to keep your marriage together after all. Strangely, the aforementioned study revealed that couples whose guest list is bigger — 200 or more people — are 92 percent less likely to get divorced. Go figure.

Won’t you spend some email on me:

hwilliams@arkansasonline.com

Style on 1/11/2014

Upcoming Events