Are large weddings worth the money?

[NT!]

this whole '50% of marriages fail' statistic is misleading. 50% of all first marriages do not fail. the numbers are distorted by people who get divorced like seven times.

[Bork]

Meh, I imagine there are also tons of horrible marriages that don't end until death that I would consider 'failed' as well.

[Los Feliz Slim]

This is pretty simple. Like most discretionary purchases, the amount you spend should bear some relation to the amount you have. That said, lots of people live beyond their means in many unnecessary ways, I'm not sure why people get so fired up about engagement rings and wedding costs around here.

[gumpzilla]

The failed marriages bit seems like a red herring to me anyway. How is that at all relevant to whether or not you should throw a big wedding? It's not like having a great wedding until the end of time justifies dropping 50k on the ceremony, either.

[Bork]

Yes, but the fact that marriages often fail is reason not to spend so much money on a largely symbolic gesture to please others. You might not have those people in your life for as long and you might end up having to pay for another wedding! Better save [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If you are already in the no effing way would I waste money on that camp then it isn't needed to convince you.

Personally I'm never going to invest much money (as a percentage of what I have) into a party, or a symbolic gesture like a ring. I just think I could improve my life and others by spending the money more efficiently on practical and fun things. (investing, toys like sports cars and computers, good food, vacations, etc.)

[Tweety]

[ QUOTE ]
For some people, they are.

Some people want to have a big party and invite all of their near-friends and co-workers and Great Aunt Ethel's nutritionist and 3rd cousins 12 times removed. They want a big reunion of everyone they've ever met. Good for them. This can actually be a lot of fun for all the remote connections that don't get to see each other very often.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't spend 30K on your "desitination wedding" either. What I'd really like is to decorate my house in white and silver and blue at Christmastime, invite a few close friends and family over for a holiday party, and at about 10:30 after we've had food and wine have the officiant come out, announce that we are getting married, have vows and rings (and a veil...my one absolute requirement is a floor-length veil...and they are NOT cheap).

No deluge of wedding gifts, no showers, no hair appointments for 6, no hours spent haggling with caterers and florists, no $20,000+ bill. Just we get married, and then everyone hugs us and leaves.

The point is, you had the wedding you wanted. As long as they can afford it, everyone should have exactly the wedding they want.

And personally, I find this paragraph hilarious:

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is worse than a big wedding that is painfully cheap and adhering to a strict budget. Cash bars, a lack of food at the cocktail hour, chintsing out on tents, no bands, etc., is just lame. If you can't afford it don't do it at all. Nobody is going to care 2 years later. People are way too obsessed with appearances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypocritical much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. If you're going to force hundreds of people to witness your special day, don't make them pay for drinks because you can't really afford the wedding in the first place but still feel compelled to have one just because other people do. Better off just having a very small wedding, or no wedding.

If you have another couple over to your house for dinner, do you bring them a check at the end of the meal? Of course not. If you're destitute, you probably shouldn't be throwing a dinner party in the first place.

That's all I'm saying.

[Tweety]

[ QUOTE ]
this whole '50% of marriages fail' statistic is misleading. 50% of all first marriages do not fail. the numbers are distorted by people who get divorced like seven times.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there are also plenty of marriages that are terrible, but the couple stays married anyway (for any number of reasons). Terrible marriages in which the couple stays married would have to be considered "failed marriages" even though there is no divorce; separations, for example, don't go into this 50% statistic, so that ramps the true number back up and probably at minimum balances everything out against your multiple divorce example, if not overrides it.

[NT!]

as long as people know what they are getting into at a wedding (cash bar, or light food, or whatever) there is nothing wrong with making whatever arrangement you want. nowhere is it written in stone that you have to feed people at your wedding, or get them drunk, or whatever.

personally i have been to several weddings that featured a potluck-style meal afterwards but copious free booze, this was great.

my own wedding, i would prefer to spend a bunch of money on food and booze and not much on anything else.

[Tweety]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty simple. Like most discretionary purchases, the amount you spend should bear some relation to the amount you have. That said, lots of people live beyond their means in many unnecessary ways, I'm not sure why people get so fired up about engagement rings and wedding costs around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big difference between overpaying for a ring (as a percentage of what you have) and overpaying for a wedding.

You can't get the money that you spend on a wedding back. It is gone forever.

In a pinch, you could sell your ring and get a large piece of the money back, perhaps all of it if you got a good deal.

This is also true for a number of other purchases Americans make when they "spend beyond their means." If you buy a Porsche 911, and you couldn't really afford it, and 3 years later you come to your senses, you may not be able to get the full 90 grand back , but you can at least salvage a good bit of it. Same with a plasma television, a house, or any other tangible possession.

Weddings are one of the few things that you can spend hundreds of thousands on and not get a penny of it back. The same applies to vacations, but very few people spend anywhere near on a vacation what they spend on a wedding.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this whole '50% of marriages fail' statistic is misleading. 50% of all first marriages do not fail. the numbers are distorted by people who get divorced like seven times.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there are also plenty of marriages that are terrible, but the couple stays married anyway (for any number of reasons). Terrible marriages in which the couple stays married would have to be considered "failed marriages" even though there is no divorce; separations, for example, don't go into this 50% statistic, so that ramps the true number back up and probably at minimum balances everything out against your multiple divorce example, if not overrides it.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? are you just making up a number of 'bad marriages' and assuming it is greater than the number of first marriages that succeed? i am talking about an actual statistic that is thrown around all the time. 50% of marriages end in divorce, which in itself is a very sloppy and flawed statistic.

[ QUOTE ]

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.

[/ QUOTE ]

link - from a NY Times article.

So all this 'a lot of marriages are unhappy anyway and people are miserable so that's just as bad' is a bunch of speculation at best.