The Economist—Marriage in America: The frayed knot

Posted by Kendall Harmon

There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into “a nation of separate and unequal families”.

A large majority—92%—of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents (including step-parents). At the bottom of the income scale—families earning less than $15,000—only 20% of children live with two parents. One might imagine that this gap arises simply because two breadwinners earn more than one. A single mother would have to be unusually talented and diligent to make as much as $75,000 while also raising children on her own. And it is impossible in America for two full-time, year-round workers to earn less than $15,000 between them, unless they are (illegally) paid less than the minimum wage.

But there is more to it than this. Marriage itself is “a wealth-generating institution”, according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, who run the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Those who marry “till death do us part” end up, on average, four times richer than those who never marry.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-WatchMarriage & Family

6 Comments
Posted May 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Timothy Fountain wrote:

Great article.  Well worth the read and worth keeping around for premarital counseling.

May 30, 3:24 pm | [comment link]
2. Deja Vu wrote:

I agree. Recommended reading. I did note the obligatory denial that gay marriage was a threat to the instituion:

Most American politicians say they support marriage, but few do much about it, except perhaps to sound off about the illusory threat to it from gays.

However, the article makes clear that we have a problem with the changed understandiing of the purpose of marriage and who is is intended to benefit:

Americans expect a lot from marriage. Whereas most Italians say the main purpose of marriage is to have children, 70% of Americans think it is something else. They want their spouse to make them happy. ….

And that the culture does influence this:

At the end of the day, says Ms Squier, the government’s influence over the culture of marriage will be marginal. Messages from movies, peers and parents matter far more.

So, although the editorial policy at the Economist is to support gay marriage, the article presents the reality that a culture that has shifted to a narcissistic understanding of marriage damages the welfare of its children.

May 30, 5:00 pm | [comment link]
3. bob carlton wrote:

striking to me that John Edwards’ 2 americas theme is so evident in this data

May 30, 8:19 pm | [comment link]
4. Chris wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that their church contains usually married couples?  And by and large they are doing pretty well?  And the same goes for private clubs generally speaking (at least the one I belong to), marriage rate is in th 90% range.

May 30, 8:45 pm | [comment link]
5. Chris wrote:

perhaps Kendall or someone could chime in on the baby boomers - using the parents of his daughter’s Hill School classmates as a random sample?  Probably a little more divorce as compared with my examples, I’m guessing, but less than the national average.

May 30, 8:48 pm | [comment link]
6. azusa wrote:

Good article - useful info on deleterious effect of co-habiting - how it’s destructive of marriage, not really a trial run.

May 31, 11:26 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Polls: Most believe Bible as God’s word

Previous entry (below): Lambeth Conference won’t look like past gatherings, design team member predicts

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)