Skip to comments.The Pivotal Role of Marriage in Income Inequality
Posted on 01/20/2014 1:02:17 PM PST by xzins
A Leftist is someone who advocates marriage for homosexuals but opposes it for heterosexuals.
Recently, Ari Fleischer, a press spokesman for George W. Bush, responded to the current administrations newfound desire to fight the plague of income inequalitywhich has spread more under Barack Obama than under any other recent presidentby stating the obvious: that marriage is good economic medicine.
`Marriage inequality should be at the center of any discussion of why some Americans prosper and others dont, Fleischer said. According to Census Bureau information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%.
The response from the Left has been predictable. Carol Gilligan, a New York University professor, asked sarcastically, Does anybody know the word patriarchy?
Stephanie Coontz, a contributor to the liberal Center for American Progresss Womens Nation report, suggests that conservatives want to force women into bad marriages. Trying to shoehorn women whose expectations of equal treatment have been rising into marriages with men whose economic prospects have been falling is no solution to contemporary work and family dilemmas, Coontz says. Women are far less likely than in the past to put up with the kind of behavior that so often accompanies economic loss and chronic employment stresssuch as drug or alcohol abuse and domestic violenceand we should not encourage or incentivize them to do so.
Yet even liberal critics, so suspicious of the motives of those who advocate heterosexual marriage, cant deny the correlation between it and economic well-being. The social science literature is quite clear, writes CAP senior fellow Ann OLeary, that children of single-parent families, particularly those living in low-income households, do not fare as well as their peers living in two-parent families, and that these poorer outcomes persist, even when you control for socioeconomic differences.
Those outcomes are even clearer for married couples. The statistics tell an awkward truth, writes Emma Green in The Atlantic: Financially, married women tend to fare much better than unmarried women. Columnist Kathleen Parker acknowledges that marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.
Sen. Marco Rubio, a possible presidential candidate, is one of the few national politicians willing to speak up clearly for the economic benefits of marriage. During a recent speech, the Florida Republican acknowledged the seriousness of income inequality, and also the existence of factors other than marriage in the problem, such as the lack of educational and economic opportunities. But he didnt back away from the social factors, either.
One of the greatest eradicators of poverty... is marriage, Rubio said. When a kid is being raised in a married family, [his or her] likelihood of being in poverty drops dramatically.
And while marriage makes dollars and sense for women and children, it also helps the overall economy, which continues to struggle. According to a survey last fall by Gallup, Married Americans report a daily spending average of $102, followed by $98 among those who are living in domestic partnerships, $74 by divorced Americans, $67 by those who are single and never married, and $62 by those who are widowed.
Yet despite all the clear economic benefits to marriage, the marriage rate in the United States continues to languish. The National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University reports that the marriage rate has fallen to its lowest level in nearly a century. In 1920, there were about 92 marriages for every 1,000 married women. Today, its only about 31a huge drop of two-thirds. Married couples are now, for the first time, the minority among U.S. households, according to the Census Bureau.
Marriage is no longer compulsory, says Susan Brown of the NCFMR. Its just one of an array of options. Increasingly, many couples choose to cohabit and still others prefer to remain single.
The current economic decline, as many have noted, has been harder on men than on womenand the damage to families has been incalculable. Many couples delay or reject marriage because of their poor economic prospects, making matrimony increasingly the privilege of a few at the top of the economic ladder. Many women generally do better in colleges and grad schools than men, making marriage problematic to say the least. Many blue collar male occupations are disappearing, leaving many men as the modern equivalents of vestigial organs in the new economy.
Even some feminist observers are concerned that this devaluing of the male has dire implications for Western civilization. What youre seeing is how a civilization commits suicide, says Camille Paglia. Marriage can help men every bit as much as women.
No one advocating the role of marriage in poverty and income inequality, to my knowledge, is calling it a panacea. There are many other factors in this multifaceted problempoor schools, a lack of jobs, and so on. But to ignore the pivotal role of marriage, or the lack thereof, is to deny reality and to preclude finding meaningful solutions.
One of the differences between the haves and the have-nots, Fleischer notes, is that the haves tend to marry and give birth, in that order. The have-nots tend to have babies and remain unmarried. Marriage makes a difference.
men don’t want to be married to feminists (ie other men without penises). We don’t want another CAPTAIN to butt heads against. We don’t want someone who believes they deserve the very best of everything just because they are a woman and it’s a man’s obligation to give that to them. We don’t want someone who never really loved us only to divorce us if the gravy train slows down or stops, or we get injured and need help, and takes our kids and half our stuff.
This is the world being molded today by the liberals in charge of many of our institutions, some of our churches and some of our families.
Regrettably people who have kids first get to have everything handed to them and the ones who want to marry have to wait.
” We dont want someone who believes they deserve the very best of everything just because they are a woman and its a mans obligation to give that to them”
This is why I think men should marry women who make their own money. It’s not the job of a man to give his new wife a new lease on childhood, having fun while the only person paying the bills goes from “Daddy” to “Husband.”
I’m a believer in one stay-at-home parent raising young kids. Assuming the presence of at least one decent job — not an easy assumption in the Obama economy — a household should have no more than 1.5 jobs while children are small and should then can adjust working hours higher based on times older children are returning from school.
Just my humble opinion is all.
If they are raising the kids; a lot of affluent housewives pawn the kid off to a nanny and have staff doing the rest.
The affluence probably helps.
Gosh, it almost seems like it was DESIGNED to be the best way to raise children. Amazing, huh?
What a coincidence!
I agree, and my children bear this out. All of them have told me, at some point or the other, that they're sure glad they were born into our family. They've had dealings with their peers, and they can see the difference between what their peers describe as their growing up years, and their own, and are thankful for what they had.
Now these are not teenagers talking about their horrible parents; our kids are all grown, and have attended college. The two older ones are a lawyer and a PhD Computer Scientist, respectively, so they've had dealings with a WIDE swath of the middle to upper middle class population. Their acquaintances don't seem to have had very supportive upbringings, because of what OUR kids described, second hand as their friends' insane or 'helicopter' parents.
Hubby and I decided, while we were preparing for marriage, that I would work while he was in school, furthering his education in Mathematics/Statistics, thus being able to command a larger salary. The plan was for me to quit, when the first baby arrived, which is what happened in his third year of grad school. We'd put some money aside so that we could pay the bills, so when he got his PhD, and got his first job, we had some cash to work with. This was all as a result of planning, and God's timing.
Thankfully, I was able to stay home while they all attended school, and through the homeschooling in Middle and High school of our two younger kids. After thirty years out of the workforce, I finally went back in 2010, because hubby and I had decided, in 2006, that I would work, while he took some time off corporate work to do some research he'd been thinking about for many years. We're just praying that pans out before he needs to go back to work, which will probably be this year.
Far from being the 'patriarchy' that the feminists in this article deride, these were the decisions worked out by two people who love and respect each other, which is what it's supposed to be when a man and woman marry.
Saying one parent should be home seems to defy economic sense. After all, you’d hear, 2 jobs bring in more money. But experience seems to indicate that that “extra” money gets lost in the whirlwind, and really more that that extra money gets lost.
The efficiencies gained by the stay at home parent are immediately seen in the fact that there are no child care expenses. But it goes far beyond that. There is, as you’ve pointed out, strategic thinking that goes into organization of the home, the finances, the kids, their development. Trouble is expensive. Less trouble is less expensive.
Amen, and I totally agree with you. I have said basically the same thing, and as a woman, I find the feminist movement has set back women’s issues 50 years. Because of their idiotic ideas we are cursed for millions of abortions, homosexuality, and the immorality of our times.
Women are still not paid equally, single women have to give their children to others to raise in daycare/afterschool programs (w libnuts), and men have become less manly or uncomfortable in their role as the romantic aggressor.
Some of us long for the days of being treated like women, when men were men... and we had the comfort of our children being raised (especially sons) by real men and not the fluff of this socialistic society.
Endemic poverty in a modern economy has two primary markers: broken families and substance abuse. And those two are pretty closely related to one another too.
Stop that right now! That's RACIST!
Women are paid as much or more than men when they have the same jobs and experience. The inequality only shows up when feminists try to equate clean jobs with dirty jobs.
Wrong...do the research:
It's amazing how this obvious point never gets mentioned in these silly discussions about this subject.
sounds good to me.
Well maybe you aren’t as smart as you think you are, because obviously you don’t research. Maybe you should rethink your work force, if that helps your bottom line! Of course your type of job is relevant, for example...if you own an Alaska Fishing Boat, etc.
This issue is not a left or right issue, it just shows how the left pushing women’s rights in the wrong way has inhibited real wage growth for women in certain upper level positions.
The article is right and you should have read it... to understand the gap that still exists after all the billions spent to create an equality most women will never receive in certain areas and jobs. Nor should they, as some things are a man’s territory contrary to the spinners. I know my limitations, and that the upper body strength of a woman is not the same as a man.
Comparing apples and oranges never proves anything.
If it were as simple as the so-called "feminists" make it out to be, then women would fill every position in every company (and government office), and we'd all be better off because our labor costs would be 20% lower.
The link you posted is not research, it’s propaganda. To further your education, you could start here.
Strictly from a business sense, workers will get paid for what they bring to the table. On average, women work fewer hours than men and take leaves more often. This leads to fewer promotions. You could say that’s discriminatory to women, but it’s also discriminatory to pay the same wage and deny promotions to someone who puts in more uninterrupted hours year after year. It’s not just discriminatory to men but also to the family who depends on that income.
If you’re ready to do more research, check out this carefully documented book.
If you’re a women that thinks you’re getting the short end of the wage gap, the author will spell out exactly what men tend to do on the job that gives them higher pay and women can do the same things.
I have to agree with you there; American men need to take their lives back, discover and maintain their masculinity and grow up. Even conservative men are getting too mixed up in the ‘metrosexualism’ that is plaguing the culture of men. As for intimacy, don’t do it if you don’t’ want a kid with this woman.
I can't imagine her having to look after him on her own and earn money at the same time. Even looking after a kid requires two people. It's difficult
I’m not the one reading propaganda. The official research sites all agree with about women earning 80%-82% of what men earn:
Just remember “garbage in - garbage out”
Thank you...’metrosexual’... that was the word I was trying to think of when I said ‘fluffy socialist society’. It is sad that we even have to have a word for effeminate male behavior. “Too many mothers and not enough wives”, I guess.
As for the intimacy I am the female, but I know what you are saying....its true. I also believe we have ‘babied’ our children to the point that the boys do not want to ‘grow up, or establish that masculinity, with which comes responsibility for the family.
I was a tomboy myself, climbing trees and working on the farm....overhauls and catching night crawlers, but I had a feminine side that developed normally in the teen years. I was in the military reserves for many years, yet in a rate more suited to my gender. That of course explains my fearless, strong, and opinionated posts.
Strong women attract weaker men and that is the downside, imho, of the changes over the past few decades. Which may explain the billions of dollars raked in for romantic movies, books, and the female escape to a more appropriate male-female relationship era fifty to one hundred years ago, etc.....falsely reclaimed through entertainment.
I can’t speak for the males, and what they are thinking.
And to that, I add:
1) Heres [Walter] Williams roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.
Yes but...... that is rejecting the leftist freedom to do what ever you want. Freedom from restraint is what liberalism is all about.
The restraints are systematically being destroyed or rendered ineffective. A million years of human history boiled down to rules must be trashed to provide ACLU like complete freedom of action.
Pay for equal work has been at at least 97% for at least a couple of decades. Even NOW has acknowledged that. Where you get the 70% figures is when you look at all working women compared to all working men without regard to what they are doing. That climbs to the high 80s when you look at the types of jobs each select; into the low nineties, when you look at continuous experience; and into the high nineties when you look at the subcategories within jobs - like did they take the hard math side of sociology, or the “let’s talk about it” side.
This part is pretty well established. What is open for debate is what is the cause of that last 3%, as well as the trend since the 1990s for women to be (slightly) overpaid in large businesses, and in organizations which have been traditionally male dominated. The first appears to be a combination of actual difference in abilities, and a difference in negotiating aggressiveness. The latter appears to be lawsuit protection in a de facto quota system.
Generation B... (astard)
Well, it IS “culturist”, stating the superiority of traditional Western, Judeo-Christian based culture...
Which, of course, IS demonstrably superior to the other subcultures that the left promotes as foils in order to shake their little fists in the face of God.
The primary restraint that the left attempts to circumvent is the restraint of natural consequences.
Natural consequences are REALITY, ie, the way the universe was created. It’s, as others have said, it was DESIGNED AND INTENDED to be this way.
One of the feminists said something like “do you know the word patriarchy” when she was confronted with this information.
That’s a sound bite. I hope she’s proud of it.
But what is being said here has nothing to do with partriarchies or matriarchies. It has to do with simple logic.
Here’s the logic to all the liberals out there: 2 heads are better than one; 2 sets of eyes watch better than one set of eyes; 2 sets of ears; 2 sets of arms. You name it.
This is not any desire to demean widows, widowers, the divorced, and others who find themselves single parenting. In fact, God has a special place in His heart for widows and orphans. But it is a recognition that in most cases, other things being equal, in a game of 2 on 1, the 2 will generally win.
Good decisions. Don’t turn back.
“No one advocating the role of marriage in poverty and income inequality, to my knowledge, is calling it a panacea.”
It’s pretty darned close to one.
“There are many other factors in this multifaceted problempoor schools, a lack of jobs, and so on. But to ignore the pivotal role of marriage, or the lack thereof,...”
And each of these ties back to the breakdown of the married nuclear family as the basic social unit in society.
“...is to deny reality and to preclude finding meaningful solutions.”
Marriage, broadly speaking, is the solution.
Chastity and continence before marriage. Education (at least finish high school). THEN marriage. THEN children.
Folks who do it in that order AND STICK WITH IT nearly always prosper.
Amen, sitetest. Good post.
Is it really too hard to read the research from official sources, and stop talking out of your hat....the 80% is certainly explained in details, and does not lend itself to interpretation, it is interpreted to you. Maybe you are agreeing with the research but the premise statement is true as I made it, period. Closed discussion...I do not make the statistics.
Every single one of those sites is talking about a very rudimentary comparison that does not take into account type of work, experience, hours worked per week, leave time, etc. When these are taken into account, the gap disappears. From the beginning of this conversation, I have noted this difference. You have chosen to keep ignoring the more finely tuned statistics while accusing me of not doing my homework. None of the articles you posted refute this.
For example, people who work 44 hours per week instead of 40, make 44% more than those who work 40. It also happens that men tend to put in the extra hours more than women.
I see you are an argument oriented person, so let me say this....I do not give a rat’s rear end now. Ignore the research...claim victory, just go away. I’ll stick with the facts I know.
I don’t argue, period. Enjoy life, it’s short. Your spouse must be exhausted. Some people are predisposed to the negative and having to be right, oy veh!
“Strong women attract weaker men and that is the downside, imho, of the changes over the past few decades.”
Truth be told, I have seen that too and frankly the flip side is that men who have everything going for them, choose women that are all wrong. I’m tough is a tiger and I too have oddly attracted not the strong masculine men, but the emotionally and psychologically weak. I’ve never believed that it’s the fault of women alone, it’s not easy being a woman in a society where easy early sex is considered a given in society and expected after just a couple of dates. Women, nice women, can’t win anymore.
AS for divorce, there’s little safety for women as well. A man might support the wife after, but it’s little consolation to a woman who has dedicated herself to her husband’s life and home and kids for so long, to then suddenly be traded in for someone else.
It’s odd how the new pattern seems to be that the tough and smart and responsible are expected to pair themselves with losers instead of fellow winners.
Someone told me the same thing years ago, so I know what you are saying is true for many women.
The ones with morals are becoming less and less, and we can never make another person do what they are supposed to do. Men are visual so naturally they are attracted to sexier women, and ones with no substance will make them miserable.
Women must be both smart and sexy now...lol Men have lots of choices as there are a lot of women to every man...I’m afraid to give a statistic, I might get corrected.
Usually a person shows their real character within first six months, but to some it’s a game to be won and deception is strong now. Peoples motives are not easily detected.
Oh, I have read the research material. My summary is reasonably precise. The results have been repeated by many different entities, of many different political persuasions, and dissected ad nauseum where cherry picking and intentional twisting have shown up.
Another genius stating the obvious—for the thousandth time this month, it seems. Fleischer included.
Restating and repeating the statistics is like beating someone over the head.
Use your own head and come up with something helpful, like the Post columnist who pointed out that the Wedding has become the focus, rather than the Marriage. Poor women know they can’t afford the Vera Wang dress and the reception at The Princess Court, so they figure the dickens with it, I can’t get married.
OK, that’s one small part of the problem: we glorify the Queen for a Day aspect of the wedding. But at least she was thinking, and pointing out something interesting that hasn’t been worked to death by op-ed writers and editorial writers who love feeling superior to the poor—and just may help a bit to see what can make things better.
The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 1:9 “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
” the Wedding has become the focus, rather than the Marriage”
Fully agree; oddly women are going backwards in time, when all they thought about was the wedding, not the time AFTER the wedding. It’s the wedding, not the marriage and not the man.
As for the poor, I wonder how different things would be if in fact they would marry at a later age and avoid having kids out of wedlock. I’m a fan of waiting until you have the life you need and want instead of marrying right away.
If I had married young I would have had a divorce and a kid to look after under my felt and likely have a lot more difficulties.
” why some Americans prosper and others dont,”
Avoid promiscuous sex
Avoid kids out of wedlock
Avoid debt if you can
Avoid committing crimes
Avoid making the same relationship mistakes
For me, I’m going to marry someone from a same background and experiences. I don’t tend to trust people who don’t make their own way or at least know what they want.
The real frightening thing is how crazy things are getting. Men are getting more choices, but they keep falling for the same age old tricks and not learning the same warning signals. Women are at fault too, wasting their time trying to change a man or thinking that just because there’s intimacy, that they are entitled to marriage. Women are getting involved with bad types, but also having kids by them, which these days to decent men, is kryptonite.
I think six months should tell you all you need to know. It’s something people would be able to see if they used their stupid brains every once in a while. Being stupid does not make you a good person, in fact it makes you irresponsible.
It isn’t just liberals. So called conservatives are making a mess all their own. They stupidly think a woman will just walk away after intimacy if they want to end a relationship and move on, but go figure, the women don’t want it to end.
No, it’s not entirely new. I’ve thought it my whole adult life, watching the whole ritual that MUST be gone through and if one piece of it is missing, the woman thinks she has failed at getting married.
I was just trying to point out how conservatives love to preach to the poor about getting married. It’s not that easy to just get married. The whole culture is rotten. We have to fix it the best we can, if we can, and do our part not to glorify fornication, royal-style weddings that the poor can’t afford, or machismo, as opposed to real masculinity. Machismo is what leads men to brag about how many women they have, sometimes even how many families.
If we knock it off, it can only help the poor to do the same thing. We don’t have to be preachy. Just stop glorifying the things that our destroying our culture.
I wish you only the best and if you feel uncomfortable in your dating relationship always take a step back and watch for awhile...you are right, we can’t change anyone that has to begin on the inside.
Great discussing this social dilemma with you...Blessings.