As part of Slate's special Weddings Issue I make the case against wedding presents.
The main pushback I've gotten is that the article seems written with a relatively educated relatively affluent audience in mind (i.e., Slate's audience) and things may look different if we're talking about a more financially strapped couple. Maybe so, but, of course, if you want to talk about poorer people then the gift-givers are going to be poorer as well, and fundamentally I think all the same points carry over mutadis mutandis. More broadly, part of the point of the article is that wedding presents are a tradition that doesn't look as good at a time when a relatively large share of the population never marries. Married people are, on average, substantially more financially secure than unmarried people and the causality seems to run in both directions. An aggregate wealth transfer from never-marrieds to marrieds doesn't make much sense.
TODAY IN SLATE
One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.
The Extraordinary Amicus Brief That Attempts to Explain the Wu-Tang Clan to the Supreme Court Justices
Amazon Is Officially a Gadget Company. Here Are Its Six New Devices.
Do the Celebrities Whose Nude Photos Were Stolen Have a Case Against Apple?
The NFL Explains How It Sees “the Role of the Female”
Amazon Is Now a Gadget Company
How to Order Chinese Food
First, stop thinking of it as “Chinese food.”