Shelly Lundberg, Robert A. Pollak, and Jenna E. Stearns write,
We argue that college graduate parents use marriage as a commitment device to facilitate intensive joint investments in their children. For less educated couples for whom such investments are less desirable or less feasible, commitment and, hence, marriage has less value relative to cohabitation. The resulting socioeconomic divergence has implications for children and for future inequality.
What is the non-snarky take on academics discovering marriage?
So, the other thread implies there is an income loss due to the two-earner problem. It is probably difficult for both partners to take an equal percentage hit to their income. So, one partner probably has to choose to take a higher hit to their potential income. So, increasing the investment and incentive for commitment for two high earners having kids could reduce the risk to the partner taking the larger income hit. That’s the best I could do.
Why is anyone concerned about marriage rates? Statistics correlate marriage with more stable, wealthy, and caring households, with better outcomes for the kids.
Socialists see this and reverse cause and effect, as usual. Plan: Let’s encourage more marriage, to produce better outcomes for the kids. (Fail)
The cited study is on the right track. People who are more stable, wealthy, and caring get married in order to enforce better support of the kids. Marriage is not magic in itself, but is a result of these other favorable factors.
The study says “The resulting socioeconomic divergence has implications for children and for future inequality.” This returns to Socialist theory. Maybe we can pay, nudge, or force people to marry, to get that favorable outcome for the kids. There also should be more taxes in there somewhere.
Basing policy on correlation and the reversal of cause and effect is the most wonderful invention since Marx spun his socio-economic theory for central control. Correlation is science, and peasants cannot argue with science.
Most of the dials the technocrats have for marriage to increase commitment also increase costs. This would seem (and the paper suggests) to reduce its availability, especially for those with lower resources.
So, maybe get ready for marriage subsidies.
Wouldn’t those investments in children be less unfeasible for people further down the income scale if they were married? I’m sticking to the Caplanian view that staying single is a luxury until I hear a better argument to the contrary.