[Xichekolas]

I'd guess that the reason is actually the opposite. The marriage wasn't doing that well to begin with, but there was a financial incentive not to rock the boat (the money).

Once you lose that salary, the woman has less incentive to put up with a marriage she is unhappy with. If people will marry someone just for the money, I don't find it much of a stretch to assume they will stick together as long as the funds keep flowing.

[electromagnetic]

You also have to question the nature of the marriage to begin with. If he was doing a high-paid job when they got married, then I would likely say that she was a gold-digger to begin with. The marriage would end in divorce solely because he lost the reason why she married him in the first place.

[Xichekolas]

While that is certainly possible, I wouldn't argue it's required.

Consider a couple that is living together. They might be unhappy, but bearing it anyway because they have a lease and moving out and separating all your stuff is a pain in the ass. However, once that lease comes up for renewal, suddenly the burden of breaking up isn't so heavy, which might be just enough to make it happen.

What I was proposing for marriages->jobs is analogous.

[electromagnetic]

There does seem to be a lot of people (males and females) looking for an excuse to escape a relationship. Honestly I believe many of these relationships are already failed because both parties have essentially quit but are 'going through the motions' and when the 'motions' change then it becomes easier to quit than adapt, just like it was easier to stay together than split.

This behavior just reminds me of the concept of a philosophical zombie. They seem to make the choice not through conscious thought but through unconscious programming.

[time_management]

Right. That most divorces follow economic troubles does not imply most economic problems lead to divorce. It's easy to ignore this and make a converse fallacy.