The most incisive guide to issues facing the American family today . . . An invaluable resource for anyone wishing to stay on the cutting edge of research on family trends.
-W. Bradford Wilcox
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia
July 25, 2018
The Topic: Cohabiting Well, but Losing Net Worth
The News Story: You Must Talk About These Five Things Before Moving In Together.
The New Research: Cohabitation—the Long-Term Financial Damage
The News Story: You Must Talk About These Five Things Before Moving In Together
“Living with a romantic partner without marriage – cohabitation – has become increasingly common,” opens a story from Psychology Today. In fact, the story continues matter-of-factly, cohabitation in the U.S. has become a “normative step” on the way to marriage.
The story authors advise their readers of five topics that must be discussed before moving in together: commitment, children, birth control, splitting the chores, and dividing the bills. “Communication is key,” they close. Many cohabiters find themselves drifting into the arrangement without having a clear idea of where they are headed. “Some hard conversations now can truly help couples set the stage for more successful relationships once they are sharing a home.”
What this story leaves out, however, is a far bigger picture: cohabiters of all types have less financial security than their never-cohabited, married peers. It seems that no matter how much communication is involved, some realities—the superiority of marriage and instability of cohabitation—simply cannot be changed.
(Source: Sharon Sassler and Amanda Miller, “Want a Healthy Relationship?
You must talk about these five things before moving in together,” Psychology Today, July 18, 2018)
The New Research: Cohabitation—the Long-Term Financial Damage
Despite mounting evidence concerning the ill effects of cohabitation, more and more young people are turning to this living arrangement as a precursor to—or substitute for—traditional marriage. But a new study out of the field of financial planning reveals yet another danger to the practice of cohabitation—significantly lessened financial wealth.
Highlighting that “[c]ohabitation—or living with a significant other outside of marriage—is the most common way young adults form their first residential relationship in America today,” researchers from Kansas State University and Iowa State University seek to understand how this practice affects couples’ long-term financial well-being. Whereas marriage used to be considered one of the marks of entry into adulthood, things like career and higher education are today considered to be more important. “What is more,” the researchers continue, “many young adults today have taken on debt, which may be a reason for the increased cohabitation rates and delays in marriage.”
The researchers acknowledge that it is “well-known” that married couples “accumulate the greatest wealth over time measured by both financial assets and housing.” But with the increasing prevalence of cohabitation—now about two-thirds of couples who marry have lived together first—“[u]nderstanding how young people are accumulating assets is important for long-term financial security and stability.” To conduct their study, the researchers use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 cohort, to study the “financial implications of cohabitation” amongst those young people born in the period of 1980 to 1984. Specifically, the net worth and both financial and nonfinancial asset accumulation of this sample once they reached 30 years of age were weighed against the experiences of cohabitation, marriage, and singleness.
The results should give pause to any couples considering cohabitation. As the researchers expected, “those with the highest net worth were the married respondents.” What may be surprising to some, however, is the extent to which cohabitation dampens material prospects even once the cohabiters then marry. In this sample, those who had married without any prior cohabitation had an average of $16,340 more in wealth than one-time cohabiters, and $18,265 more than those who had cohabited more than once. “Serial cohabiters” who remained unmarried had a whopping $33,809 less, on average, than those who were married without prior cohabitation. Single respondents had the least net worth of all—those who had never cohabited had $39,945 less than their peers who were married without prior cohabitation.
The research also shows that married respondents who had never cohabited had greater financial assets—investments, savings, etc.—than both those who had cohabited and single respondents. “Specifically, among married respondents, when compared to married, never-cohabited respondents, those who had cohabited one time had $4,783 less in financial assets, while respondents who were serial cohabiters had $6,930 less in financial assets.” First-time cohabiters (who were still cohabiting at the time of the survey and had not transitioned to marriage) held $9,645 less in financial assets as compared to their married, never-cohabited counterparts, and serial cohabiters had $8,763 less in financial assets. Single respondents again fared the worst, with $13,852 less in financial assets than their married, never-cohabited peers.
In terms of non-financial assets—houses, cars, and other possessions—the differences were much less glaring. Among married respondents, there was no difference in non-financial asset value, no matter how many times they had cohabited prior to transitioning to marriage. First-time cohabiters had $6,859 less in non-financial assets when compared to marrieds, and serial cohabiters “reported statistically no less in non-financial assets as compared to married respondents.” Single respondents were the most disadvantaged in this category as well.
The researchers summarize their findings: “Individuals who had ever cohabited, regardless of current relationship status, had significantly lower net worth and financial assets than those who had married directly without cohabiting.” The cohabiters also tended to prefer the accumulation of non-financial assets—including consumer goods—than financial assets like savings and investments. The implications of these findings, the researchers remark, are important particularly for financial planners. Such planners need to be aware of the likelihood of their young clients having cohabited at least once, and be prepared also to counsel such clients on the importance of accumulating financial assets versus things like houses or cars. So serious are their findings that the researchers close with the warning: “A client who has cohabited just once in their life, or who maybe are cohabiting for their first time, may not have significant financial consequences, but clients who are frequently cohabiting with significant others may be a sign that a discussion is warranted around the negative impact of such decisions on their financial assets and overall net worth.”
It seems that as in so many other areas, the instability of cohabitation bodes ill for the long-term well being of couples.
(Source: Bryce J. Christensen and Nicole M. King, forthcoming in “New Research.” Study: Sonya Britt-Lutter, Cassandra Dorius, and Derek Lawson, “The Financial Implications of Cohabitation Among Young Adults,” Journal of Financial Planning 31.4 [April 2018]: 38-45.)