First Comes the ‘Marriage Gap,’ Then Comes the ‘Baby Gap’

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 15, 2015 | NEIL SHAH

[reaganaut1]

There’s a widening gap between the baby-having of married women, who tend to be more educated and more affluent, and their less-educated, less-financially-secure, unmarried peers.

A growing body of research, including work by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin, raises the possibility that because people like to feel financially secure before taking the marriage plunge, the rise of income inequality has divided Americans into those who marry and those who don’t.

Now this could be playing out with childbearing, too.

America’s recessionary “baby bust” has clearly leveled off now, but we’ve yet to see the birth recovery one would expect as high unemployment falls and growth picks up.

...

For decades, birth rates for married women fell as women had fewer children. Birth rates for unmarried women rose, with more women having children out of wedlock or in cohabiting unions.

Roughly four in 10 U.S. births are now to unmarried women, and the majority of “nonmarital” births (58%) are to cohabiting couples—not women on their own.

Since the recession ended, these trends have flipped. Now married women are having more kids, and unmarried women are having fewer. Birth rates for unmarried women have fallen for five straight years.

One contributor to this drop is the phenomenal decline in teen births. Birth rates for teenagers aged 15 to 17 dropped a whopping 13% in 2013 from 2012.

But that’s not the whole story. While birth rates for married women aged 25 to 29 are up 3% since 2010, there’s been a 4% decline for unmarried women of the same age.

Among women aged 30 to 34, the married birth rate rose 5% from 2010. Unmarried? 0%.

[reaganaut1]

Good. Not so long ago, most Americans thought unmarried people should not have children. If unmarried people did not have children, lots of our social problems would diminish. The GOP should NOT push for an expansion in the earned income tax credit, which likely goes disproportionately to the unmarried, because they have lower incomes.

[GraceG]

[ Good. Not so long ago, most Americans thought unmarried people should not have children. If unmarried people did not have children, lots of our social problems would diminish. The GOP should NOT push for an expansion in the earned income tax credit, which likely goes disproportionately to the unmarried, because they have lower incomes. ]

Oh but we cannot have those “social stigmas” against single parents.... that is just so mean....

[PGR88]

Fishtown vs. Belmont

The poor will continue to exhibit social behaviors that will cement them in poverty and government dependence.

[txrefugee]

Wonder how much of this is due to mm wishing up and deciding they are better off with a dog instead of a wife. They have met women who marry for a living and leave a trail of broke exes in their wake.

Married or unmarried women who are morally deficient should not be rearing children, who would be prone to repeating the life style they observed growing up. This generational failure has been devastating to our nation.

[Steve_Seattle]

"the rise of income inequality has divided Americans into those who marry and those who don’t."

The problem is not "income inequality" per se, but the declining wages of the middle class. The existence of millionaires and billionaires does not prevent ordinary people from having babies, but when you need two incomes (in most cases) to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, babies are likely to be fewer.

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, very few of the women on my middle-class street worked outside the home. Shoe salesmen could afford to buy a house on their income alone. Those days are long gone. The question is, why?

[roadcat]

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, very few of the women on my middle-class street worked outside the home. Shoe salesmen could afford to buy a house on their income alone. Those days are long gone. The question is, why?

And that was normal. My dad raised us five kids on a meager low salary (less than $1000 a month), was able to afford owning a house. My mom took part-time jobs here and there, but most of the time was a housewife. Very common to see households near my home with four to eight kids and a single wage-earner. I attribute it to the rise of taxation of all forms, and government waste.

[WinMod70]

“The question is, why?”

The automatic transmission came along, that’s the root cause.

[wolfman23601]

The feminist movement doubled the labor pool and the flood of illegals adds even more to it. Simple supply and demand. I can hire a smooth talking shoe salesman/saleswoman for $10/hour. I alone make over $20k over the median HOUSEHOLD income. We still couldn’t make it in our modest, middle-class house with only one child without my wife’s $40k per year job.

[Blue Ink]

Yes, taxes are higher.

No, that’s not why both parents “have” to work.

I bet your family life looked like this growing up: one family car; smaller house than is common today (what’s a walk-in closet?); your mom had three pairs of shoes and a fancy Sunday outfit; you rarely ate out; you drove to a family vacation once a year where you camped. And if you went to college, you didn’t borrow a hundred grand to pay for it.

There is NO REASON one person can’t support a family in this country... except for hundred dollar cable bills and two hundred dollar cell phone bills.

[MrB]

A growing body of research, including work by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin, raises the possibility that because people like to feel financially secure before taking the marriage plunge, the rise of income inequality has divided Americans into those who marry and those who don’t.

---

Cause and effect inversion, anyone?

Thinking themselves wise, they blatantly expose themselves as the obviously biggest dumbasses imaginable.... (a paraphrase)

[wbill]

There is NO REASON one person can’t support a family in this country

I do it. But there aren't any $100 cable bills and $200 cell phone bills in our house. And it's still hard to do, a second income would make things much, much easier. But, it's also easy to have Mrs WBill home with WBill Jr. .... and her job, by far, is more important than mine.

#1 expense, by far, is taxes. Between income, property, gas, and sales tax, the amount I pay is ridiculous. And that's just what's out there where I can see, never mind any and all hidden taxes.

Mom and Dad had to pay taxes too, though. I'm not sure if it was to the same extent, but would guess that they're in the same ballpark.

Nope, where the money goes is to numbers 2 and 3, and these are expenses Mom and Dad *didn't* have, at least not at the levels that I do.

#2 expenditure is insurance. Health insurance is a huge bite out of my paycheck, and has gone up at a ridiculous rate. It could be argued that's a tax due to Obamacare, but since it's a separate line....I'll separate it out. Add in Car (required to drive), Home (required if you have a mortgage), and Life (required if you're responsible for supporting others) ... and it's a serious chunk of change.

#3 expenditure is retirement. No pensions anymore. And frankly, I'm not real optimistic on Social Security. So, I save. And Save. And save. And hopefully, when I can't work anymore, I'll have enough. We'll find out in 30-ish years.

[Pietro]

"The question is, why?"

Might have something to do w/ over half of your income going to one government or another.