Verified by 
Social Life
Character and Caricature: Two Stories About Singles and Money
Same topic, two very different portrayals of singles
Posted November 8, 2010
Recently, readers have been sending me links to stories about singles and their spending and financial challenges. I was about to write about one of the articles, which was wonderfully enlightened, when I got another, which was drenched in singlism. Taken together, they provide a telling comment on the place of singles in contemporary American society. That place is a disputed terrain. The competing stories suggest that we are living in a time of transition. It is not just when people discuss financial matters that this is evident. Previously, I wrote about two stories about the children of single parents, both in high-profile publications, both published around the same time, which offered sharply different assessments and attitudes.
The Enlightened Story About Singles and their Economic Challenges
The positive story, published in the Canadian magazine MoneySense, started strong. The title was "Single and Secure." Here are some excerpts from the first few paragraphs:
"If you are currently living the single life, you already know it has lots of advantages...You can move to a new city on a moment's notice to pursue the career of your dreams. You can live the life you want...
"Except, perhaps, when it comes to your finances...When you go grocery shopping, everything seems to be packaged for two (or more). There's no family discount at the zoo..."
The author acknowledges that the magazine is addressing singles issues in part because "dozens of readers" have written to complain that the focus has too often been on couples. Then she goes on to offer strategies she hopes will be helpful "whether you choose to be single, you're divorced, or you have lost a spouse." Hats off to her for acknowledging that some singles choose to be single.
Getting down to specifics, the article notes that compared to couples, "singles devote a larger percentage of their income to basics such as food."
Now consider this, from one of my favorite paragraphs:
"Singles of all ages face discrimination in housing, taxes, child custody and even travel and entertainment...The cost of a single hotel room or cruise ship reservation is often little different from a double."
It is from that perspective that the author goes on to make recommendations for maintaining financial security for people who are single.
Drenched in Singlism: The Other Story
The story at Bundle.com was titled, "The cost of being single: Why shacking up leads to saving money." The author described the spending habits of single men and women and married couples in New York City in 2009 and 2010. There was little detail about the methodology - for example, how the participants were recruited, whether they were a representative sample of people in the city, and so forth. The singles were described as between the ages of 26 and 35 so maybe the married couples were the same age, but that's not specified.
After an introductory anecdote about a married couple taking advantage of two-for-one sales at the supermarket and heading to an early movie to get a matinee price - and their single friend who is complaining about that - the author spells out his biases even more clearly:
"While New York's singles are burning holes in their wallets footing their date-night bills, New York's married couples are managing to keep their spending in check."
There is a graph showing the various categories of expenses for which singles are paying more (e.g., dining out, groceries, clothing) but none of the categories on which couples are spending more. (According to the article, there are some, though only one is described.) So if you are a reader just skimming the visuals, all you see is a big graph showing that single people spend more than couples in every category.
So, yes, if the data can be believed (which is hard to assess with so little detail), then singles do spend more on dining out than married couples do. But I bet it is the writer's bias, rather than anything specific he learned from querying his participants, that led him to assume that those restaurant bills were all date-night bills. What, New York City singles never dine out with their friends? On their own? With relatives? Co-workers? Clients not covered by expense accounts?
Here's another place where I think the author has let his matrimania and singles bigotry run wild:
"Obviously, things change when two people marry and settle down. The motivation for heading out in the city to meet people is greatly diminished once you've finally found someone you want to be at home with. Goodbye Lower East Side bar scene, hello Netflix and carton of Ben & Jerry's (two spoons)."
On second thought, I take it back. This is not just insulting to singles, it is also dismissive of those married people who actually do like to socialize with someone other than their spouse now and then.
Of the categories for which the couples spend more than the singles, the one the writer acknowledges is home improvement. That "makes perfect sense," he assures us: "if you're spending time staying in streaming movies on your flatscreen with a tub of ice cream, you want your home to be pleasant, appealing, and comfortable."
If you are single, I suppose you want your home to be unpleasant, unappealing, and uncomfortable.
In a patronizing parting shot, the author offers this: "You are not sentenced to a life of overspending if you decide that you're not the marrying kind. It may just be that the motivations to be frugal for certain savings goals - a new house, a second car, a future child - don't come as easily when you're single and looking."
Because obviously, if you are single, you are looking. In Mr. Myth-Man's mind, they are the same thing.
[Thanks to Wendy and Joy for the links to these stories.]
