Marriage is for suckers

A loyal reader of the Curious Capitalist has asked me to post a story I wrote for Time.com. Since I’m here to serve:

Conventional wisdom says if you want to be richer, a useful thing to do is get married. Life is cheaper when there’s only one mortgage to pay and someone else can do certain tasks — cooking, say, or car repair — more efficiently than you. Research by Ohio State University’s Jay Zagorsky shows that married baby boomers increase wealth by an average 16% a year. Those who are single increase their net worth at half that rate.

Yet the economic benefit of marriage isn’t what it used to be. In a chapter of a book just out from the Russell Sage Foundation, Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, two social scientists show that since 1969 the marriage premium has subsided. Maria Cancian, a professor of public affairs and social work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Deborah Reed, director of research at Mathematica Policy Research, set out to study how the changing make-up of American families has affected the number of people below the poverty line. Considering how the rate of marriage has fallen and the rate of divorce has risen, the researchers expected the number of people living below the poverty line to grow by 2.6%. But when they looked at the data, poverty had increased by less than half that amount.

You can read why here.

There was a great graph in that book chapter which I didn’t have a chance to discuss in the Time.com story, so I’ll reproduce it here:

fertility_rates

This very coolly shows that the jump in the proportion of children born to unmarried mothers in the 1960s and 70s didn’t have all that much to do with unmarried mothers. Married women started having fewer and fewer babies—so it felt like there were all these new single mothers running around. There weren’t. Though that doesn’t mean we haven’t been talking about them every since.

[Here are the other things I have to tell you about that graph. Sources: Author's compilation. Measures for the period 1960 to 1979 are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1995); measures for 1980 to 2006 are from Martin et al. (2009). Copyright: Russell Sage Foundation 2009]

Barbara!

Related Topics: fertility rate, marriage, poverty, Russell Sage, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    LM Otero / AP

    Senate Approves Hike in Airline Security Fees

    (WASHINGTON) — A Democratic-controlled Senate panel Tuesday approved a $2.50 increase in airline security fees that would double the per-passenger fee for those taking nonstop flights.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Associated Press

    Stocks Rally Further in Run-up to EU Summit

    MOSCOW — Global stocks enjoyed one of their best days in weeks on Tuesday ahead of a summit of European leaders that’s expected to be dominated by calls to boost economic growth.

    Europe remains the focus of attention across all financial markets in the run-up to the June 17 Greek election that could go a long way to determining the country’s membership of the euro as well as the future of the single currency zone.

  • curmudgeon57

    That is a pretty fascinating graph, Barbara, because it is contrary to the accepted wisdom that the number of single mothers increased substantially, although there seems to have been a mild increase over the last 10 years.

    Because I was the, um, loyal reader, I’d like to quote from my email to you on your story:

    “I’ve always wondered about cause and effect here . . . It is not at all clear to me if marriage produces economic benefits, or if those who are brighter, more motivated, or harder working also make more desirable partners.

    In other words, don’t get married if you want to improve your economic lot in life. Rather, work to improve the skills that improve your economic prospects – education and training, critical thinking, decision-making, flexibility – and you may find that as a side effect that you are more likely to get married.”

    And since you (nor anyone else) are most decidedly not here to serve me personally, thank you for posting this.

  • http://www.rodgermitchell.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Marriage is cost-efficient. Having children is cost-deficient. More so.

blog comments powered by Disqus