I generally agree, but they're focused mostly on 65+ age group. That would make more sense around 45-55 if people are having kids in their 30s.

▲ Swizec a day ago | parent | next [-]

> I generally agree, but they're focused mostly on 65+ age group

Another aspect possibly driving this: In USA a lot of people get divorced immediately after a cancer (or similar) diagnosis. That way only one of you goes bankrupt and you get to keep half your lifetime savings.

▲

dottjt a day ago | parent | next [-]

On the contrary, you may get paid out a massive life insurance claim.

▲

abirch a day ago | parent [-]

You don’t have to be married to be the beneficiary of life insurance policy. I believe you only need a financial interest.

	▲	LorenPechtel a day ago \| parent [-]
		And a divorce will not cancel an existing policy even if it puts you in a position you couldn't get a new one.

▲

kortilla a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is not happening in any meaningful volume.

▲

mhurron a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

codeulike a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure if it was that paper, but there was a similar paper showing this phenomenon which later turned out to contain an error:

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-...

People who left the study were actually miscoded as getting divorced.

After the adjustment the correlation was less but was still there.

▲

mhurron a day ago | parent [-]

No, they're not referencing the same paper.

	▲	daymanstep a day ago \| parent [-]
		The paper that you cited is the 2009 study: Glantz, M. J., Chamberlain, M. C., Liu, Q., Hsieh, C. C., Edwards, K. R., Van Horn, A., & Recht, L. (2009). Gender disparity in the rate of partner abandonment in patients with serious medical illness. Cancer, 115(22), 5237-5242. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10... That paper has been debunked. Its conclusions were based on a coding error. When the coding error is corrected for the gender disparity disappears. Please stop citing this paper without adding that it was debunked. See for more details: https://www.benjaminkeep.com/misinformation-on-the-internet/

▲

daymanstep a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If the wife gets ill, the marriage has about a 20% chance of ending because of it. If the husband becomes ill, there is only a 3% chance.

Wrong. That paper has been debunked already. See: https://www.benjaminkeep.com/misinformation-on-the-internet/

▲

bdangubic a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

don’t fall for this type of nonsense :)

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲ quesera a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A few trends which might be relevant:

  - First-time parenthood is frequently occurring later in life
  - Couples are more often having (additional) children at later ages
  - Children are sometimes not "launching" until later in their 20s.

So, ~35yo first-time parents and/or ~40yo youngest-child parents, plus ~25-30yo children moving out ... That can get you to 65-70 years pretty easily.

▲ jacobolus a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Alternately, it might be that the cohort now age 65+ was more likely to divorce than the previous generation at every age throughout their lives, and there were some kind of generational effects involved.