Marriage and Money
On March 20, 2013, the New York Times ran an article about the declining incomes of men, of the fatherless, and (in particular) of fatherless men; later that day the Times posted an entry in the Motherlode blog commenting on the article, noting that while fatherless men have rough times, so too do fatherless daughters and husband-less wives. Apparently the phenomenon of missing men is hurting everyone, from the men themselves to the women and children that would otherwise rely on them.
The articles note that while the fact of the vicious cycle is not disputed, the appropriate policy response is. Conservatives view marriage as a cause of stable, economically-successful people, but liberals view it as an effect. The article quotes a Harvard professor enunciating the liberal view:
“Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess,” said Christopher Jencks, a professor of social policy at Harvard University. “You have to ask yourself, ‘Suppose the available men were getting married to the available women? Would that be an improvement?’” Instead of making marriage more attractive, he said, it might be better for society to help make men more attractive.
This difference of opinion nicely illustrates the red-state/blue-state social policy battles that our country has been fighting the past few decades. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Stable marriages = financial stability = happy people. But which of those features are causes and which are effects?
Of course, they may all be both. But if we want to investigate, we should look at how our society has responded to this problem in the post-war period. We have undertaken numerous social policy changes in the past fifty years which have reduced the prevalence and stability of marriages. For example, we have reduced legal hurdles to divorce, and we have minimized the role of fault (including adultery) in adjudicating property and custody disputes relating to divorce. We have become very accepting of pre-marital sex and of co-habitation, so that now marriage is seen not as the first step in a couple’s sexual journey, but its final (supposedly tedious) stage. We have minimized restrictions on pornography, strip clubs, public obscenity and other sexually-suggestive material. We have encouraged and accepted the liberalization of sexual norms on television, in movies, in advertising, in clothing, everywhere. And we have encouraged the view that sexual attraction is the fundamental premise of romance, and that romantic attraction is the fundamental premise of marriage — so couples should split when they’re just not 'feeling it' anymore.
Over the same fifty year period, we have done much to assist the poorest members of society. We have greatly expanded health care to the poor through Medicaid, alleviating that great disruption on personal finances. We have significantly expanded financing for higher education, so that in many states any child with good grades is guaranteed a free college degree. We have created programs like the earned-income tax credit, which provides a cash payment to many working individuals to supplement their wages. We have created a variety of 'safety nets,' such as expanding the availability of Social Security and other disability programs, all of which disproportionately benefit the poor.
And what has this combination – pouring money into aiding the poor while reducing social incentives to be married – done for us? The marriage rate among the poor has plummeted, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and the prevalence of illegitimacy has increased to levels unimaginable a generation ago — yet the poorest members of society seem to be stuck in a rut economically. That suggests to me that when we pushed on one lever (economic empowerment) and took our weight off the other (sexual and marital conservatism)… we got it backwards.
Are there any prosperous, thriving societies anywhere in human history that did not promote long-term, stable marriage as the key building block to social development? But our society has taken deliberate steps to undermine marriage, and now wonders why we are suffering the repercussions. We should return to policies which encourage people to remain in the permanent, monogamous, mutually self-sacrificial arrangement that has defined human society for thousands of years. We should return our public policy focus to honor, support and promote the institution of marriage.
If you wish to discuss this post with me, I'd welcome receiving an email from you. Please email me at language.on.holiday@gmail.com.