The other marriage inequality - Socioeconomic status impacts marriage rates & mobilit

[antimony]

I came across this series of articles, that basically say that there is a socioeconomic divide in marriage rates. Americans in the higher socioeconomic categories choose mates from similar economic and educational status, stay married and reap the economic benefits of being in a marital relationship, such as dual incomes, tax statuses etc. while those at the lower rungs have falling marriage rates or unsuccessful marriages, have children out of wedlock and face all the accompanying problems. Consequently they have less of a chance to move up the ladder.

Not quite related directly to the Gay marriage issue, but interesting and somewhat saddening.

The other marriage inequality: Column

Excerpt:

That's the inequality in marriage rates between the upper-middle-class, and the lower and lower-middle classes. While the upscale college-educated crowd continues to marry at very high rates, marriage rates are plummeting among those further down on the socioeconomic ladder. Unfortunately, the people who are foregoing marriage are probably the ones who need it most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us...nted=all&_r=2&

Excerpt:

Jessica Schairer has so much in common with her boss, Chris Faulkner, that a visitor to the day care center they run might get them confused. Though Ms. Faulkner, as the boss, earns more money, the difference is a gap, not a chasm. But a friendship that evokes parity by day becomes a study of inequality at night and a testament to the way family structure deepens class divides. Ms. Faulkner is married and living on two paychecks, while Ms. Schairer is raising her children by herself. That gives the Faulkner family a profound advantage in income and nurturing time, and makes their children statistically more likely to finish college, find good jobs and form stable marriages.

Numbers Drop for the Married With Children

Excerpt:

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.

[Mihais]

Ok,when this was NOT the case?

It's also one of the way evolution works.You select a viable partner,have good kids to do the same.

I'm half serious(ok,I'm actually 3/4 serious ) that in my lifetime,some group will be high and mighty peddling the idea that we need to equalize folks once more.And pay people to marry downwards,or even more likely, penalizing the successful ones to reinforce failures.

[antimony]

Well, One interesting point that the article makes is that for the past couple of hundred years or so, social mores made marriage and family a desirable institution for all classes and in fact the unwed were looked down upon. So all classes participated in this.

However, in the past few decades or so, family and marriage have lost that sheen so there are no social norms enforcing them.

Also, it is not necessarily about marrying down. If one bus driver marries a waitress (the traditional "working classes" for lack of a better term) they still have access to double incomes, tax breaks, benefits etc. on top of the emotional support. If they just stay together and have children out of wedlock, they will still have each other's support if they are a loving couple, but they may lose out on the economic benefits and also the stability that marriage brings.

Sure, parent can raise successful children (Clinton, Obama) but the statistics works against then.

[dalem]

Marriage matures men. That's advantage enough.

-dale

[Mihais]

Problem with social norms is that the welfare state has destroyed them everywhere.

People work when there is an incentive(i.e tax breaks) but work best when there is both a carrot and a stick.
And I see another problem.There is a model for success,like there is,for example,a ''standard'' for beauty.Seeing the other around is a constant reminder of what you are not.I notice those most unlike the stars of the day are most prone to reading stupid tabloids and watching stupid shows about the most glamorous.Dreams are free,but waking up from an imaginary party with naked top models and seeing the hysteric whale near you is painful.
For women this is probably worse.They need protection and care and the similarly dumb fat slouch can offer nothing of the sort.Particularly when the one near you is compared(and they all do compare) with the male models of success.

[kato]

That's the inequality in marriage rates between the upper-middle-class, and the lower and lower-middle classes. While the upscale college-educated crowd continues to marry at very high rates, marriage rates are plummeting among those further down on the socioeconomic ladder.

Hmmm. This is definitely not the case over here. People of low socioeconomic status tend to marry (and have children) early here, while the upper middle class tends to forego both or only starts in their mid to late 30s. Marriages of people with higher socioeconomic status tend to break up more often too, mostly because due to age factors they tend to consist of people pressured into classic role models.

In my opinion the difference in this is mostly due to the socioeconomically diversified relevance of religion and traditional roles in the USA. That, and certain public letters to Princeton students while being laughed off still containing an inkling of truth.

[zraver]

Ok,when this was NOT the case?

It's also one of the way evolution works.You select a viable partner,have good kids to do the same.

I'm half serious(ok,I'm actually 3/4 serious ) that in my lifetime,some group will be high and mighty peddling the idea that we need to equalize folks once more.And pay people to marry downwards,or even more likely, penalizing the successful ones to reinforce failures.

They already do with the tax code.

[zraver]

Hmmm. This is definitely not the case over here. People of low socioeconomic status tend to marry (and have children) early here, while the upper middle class tends to forego both or only starts in their mid to late 30s. Marriages of people with higher socioeconomic status tend to break up more often too, mostly because due to age factors they tend to consist of people pressured into classic role models.

In my opinion the difference in this is mostly due to the socioeconomically diversified relevance of religion and traditional roles in the USA. That, and certain public letters to Princeton students while being laughed off still containing an inkling of truth.

The affluent here marry later but also have kids later and stay married longer.

[antimony]

Hmmm. This is definitely not the case over here. People of low socioeconomic status tend to marry (and have children) early here, while the upper middle class tends to forego both or only starts in their mid to late 30s. Marriages of people with higher socioeconomic status tend to break up more often too, mostly because due to age factors they tend to consist of people pressured into classic role models.

In my opinion the difference in this is mostly due to the socioeconomically diversified relevance of religion and traditional roles in the USA. That, and certain public letters to Princeton students while being laughed off still containing an inkling of truth.

In the US its difficult raising kids in a good environment and providing opportunities to grow and develop without a good income base. Often that is achieved with double incomes, tax breaks and so on that come along with stable married life.

The data apparently says that failure to settle down into marriage is harming the social mobility chances at the lower rungs of the ladder.