Cohabitation: Bad For America?
At a time when the COO of Facebook can suggest women marry women because it makes for a more even split of duties at home, it's time to give some more thought to why people are getting married. And it's especially worthwhile to think about why people who end up getting married are more likely to live together first.
To help us do that, there's a (surprisingly?) critical piece on that subject in the New York Times. But there's also a post from several months ago by Matt Yglesias that, on second read, is much more valuable than I thought back then. He argued that, assuming current economic conditions continue, more divorce is likely to reduce unemployment. Divorce, as he puts it, creates more households.
Though it's probably hard for you to 'root for divorce,' even For America, we can push the logic of his argument to incorporate the impact of cohabitation on 'disappearing households.' If undoing misbegotten marriages would lead to better economic news, wouldn't even better news result from preventing misbegotten marriages from forming in the first place?
And wouldn't it make sense -- even if we can't and shouldn't persuade people not to move in together to increase national greatness -- to take a critical look at the closer links between our changing mores and the kind of economy we've come to take for granted?
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
This issue has been studied in depth by the National Marriage Project, whose studies demonstrate that the enormous growth of non-marital cohabitation is wreaking havoc. The Project’s report “Cohabitation, Marriage and Child Wellbeing” [look for Cohabitation Report here] concludes:
In 1970, 523,000 couples were cohabiting. In 2010, there were 7.5 million cohabiting couples. Over 40 percent of cohabiting couples have children. The true catastrophe is that “children born to a cohabiting versus married parents have over five times the risk of experiencing their parents’ separation.”
Edited on April 16, 2012 at 11:43pmSep '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
I do not wish for equality in legal unions. I don't think the legal union should exist. I come at it from a different angle. Er, I have a backdoor approach-um, I don't understand why the Government is involved in marriage in the first place.
I mean, I do, but I disagree that it should be. If your church has convinced you that marriage is a sacrament, by all means, go be married in your church before your God.
'We don't need a piece of paper from the city hall' and all that.
Too libertarian?
Jul '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Given this logic does it not make sense to discourage marriage all together maybe get rid of it as an antiquated structure and encourage people to live as singles, to just hook up and encourage single motherhood? Is this what you are suggesting?
Dec '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Jimm: I do not wish for equality in legal unions. I don't think the legal union should exist. I come at it from a different angle. Er, I have a backdoor approach-um, I don't understand why the Government is involved in marriage in the first place.
I mean, I do, but I disagree that it should be. If your church has convinced you that marriage is a sacrament, by all means, go be married in your church before your God.
'We don't need a piece of paper from the city hall' and all that.
Too libertarian? · 6 minutes ago
Yes.
May '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Yglesias is a fool. He has restated the Broken Windows hypothesis. Problem is, he probably believes the original, too.
Jun '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
I mean, I do, but I disagree that it should be.
Marriage is the legal institution that creates paternity: husbands are presumed to be the father of children born to their wives, with all the rights and duties that entails.
Marriage is also the social institution that encourages men to make a life-long commitment to protect and provide for their children, and for the mother of their children.
A society that abolishes the legal institution of marriage will, I predict, quickly see the social institution wither as well except among strongly religious subcultures. In the mainstream culture, the normative roles of husband and wife will be replaced by the normative roles of "baby momma" and "mom's boyfriend." And all the available sociological research (not to mention common sense) tells us this will be a disaster for children of epic proportions.
Aug '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
That's one of the problems. We don't live in a culture that understands what "duty" means any more. Eliminate a belief in duty, and much of the traditional structure of society loses its justification for existing.
(That has ramifications beyond just children; marriage is also about the man and woman's duty to each other, so eroding our understanding of interpersonal obligations weakens the institution of marriage itself.)
It also doesn't help that the progressive left has been destroying our conception of "rights" as well, and replacing both duties and rights with a belief in entitlements. Try building a romantic relationship around notions of entitlement and see how badly that turns out. An institution of marriage based on entitlements will not fare much better.
Feb '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Right on, Robert. You beat me to it. This is exactly the broken windows theory, only with broken people instead of glass: take something of value and break it in order to make work for others down the line (landlords, utilities, grocers, etc.). Another way to look at this idea is that the cost of supporting a household doesn't change and no extra jobs are created - it's now just more expensive per person as they have to cover the costs (and household duties) on their own.
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
BlueAnt
That's one of the problems. We don't live in a culture that understands what "duty" means any more. Eliminate a belief in duty, and much of the traditional structure of society loses its justification for existing.
(That has ramifications beyond just children; marriage is also about the man and woman's dutyto each other, so eroding our understanding of interpersonal obligations weakens the institution of marriage itself.)
It also doesn't help that the progressive left has been destroying our conception of "rights" as well, and replacing both duties and rights with a belief in entitlements. Try building a romantic relationship around notions of entitlement and see how badly that turns out. An institution of marriage based on entitlements will not fare much better.
It's also possible that the old concepts have been eroding all on their own, so to speak. Heather Mac Donald's call for a new elite push for fatherhood and parenthood is eloquent. Would it work? Does it matter?
Apr '12
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
It's the "parable of the broken window." If you want to go Bastiat, you could also use his refutation of the myth that war causes economic growth. Essentially, if you're rooting for destruction as a tool for economic progress, you probably haven't accounted for all the variables.
Just some variables I'm sure the uneducated New York Times author failed to account for:
The costs divorce imposes on children: a more negative view of relationships, i.e. a belief that divorce / remarriage is "normal" (mom and dad did it). Also, I've no doubt children of divorce/cohabitation are statistically more likely to have lower education, income, and a higher likelihood of engaging in crime.
What I say about divorce should also apply to cohabitation, since cohabitation --> "pseudo divorce"
I really don't see how Liberals can call themselves educated when all their stupid ideas were refuted in the 1850 by Bastiat's essay "What is Seen and What is Unseen."
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 3:03amAug '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
That is a larger question I've been worried about for a few years. We all agree "virtue" and "duty" are the foundations for great nations, institutions, empires; and we (conservatives at least) agree that such virtues tend to decline at the height of success.
The key question is, can a culture's decline in virtue be reversed, or only monitored?
Is culture a trajectory subject to tipping points of no return; or is it a living, self-repairable organism? The generic question may best be answered by historians and sociologists.
In the specific case of the USA, I think it's uncontroversial that modern virtues are vastly different--arguably, diametrically opposed--to the virtues present during our nation's ascent. So the question is, are modern conservatives calling for a systemic corrective already envisioned 200+ years ago? Or simply doing Isaiah's job, preaching to the Remnant in a culture that already failed Tocqueville's test?
I'm planning a longer post on this once I marshal my thoughts... and edit out enough gloomy fatalism.
May '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
I see it all coming back to the quest for instant gratification in all things. Marriage is not a sacred bond now, it is a tool and convenience for self-actualization- just like everything else.
And George Gilder was right as well, but today it seems as though the distaff side is perhaps even more guilty of destroying the institution.
Nov '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Divorce causes poverty, particularly for divorced mothers and their children, but it can also drive divorced fathers into poverty. How this can be good for the economy I cannot think.
This is aside from the question of the damage done to children, which means in part that, all other things being equal, they will be less productive.
Of course if separate households are somehow good for the economy, Mr. Yglesias and the Council of Economic Advisers ought to be discouraging cohabitation. Fat chance. But the answer to your question, Mr. Poulos, is "yes."
Jul '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
@Duane: I have seen alot of my male friends blindsided by sudden divorce they did not see coming. It usually happens when the kids hit late teens. The women usually give the I no longer love him, he is boring, all he does is work, speech. Leaving out the fact that the reason he works all the time and is boring is because he is putting in long hours trying to provide for the family. When they break up she usually ends up with 75% of the assets and takes a cruise, he usually goes back to work since he has nothing else. When I think about it maybe the best thing is to cohabitate, keep your assets in your name , and don't have children. Oh honey........
Sep '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
there is no real commitment in co-habitation. the relationship is founded on the premise of "we might get married someday."
i think what wesley tells the princess in Princess Bride, after she admits that she and the prince she didn't really want to marry skipped "i do", fits co-habitation so well: "if you didn't say it, you didn't do it."
Feb '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
kylez: there is no real commitment in co-habitation. the relationship is founded on the premise of "we might get married someday."
i think what wesley tells the princess in Princess Bride, after she admits that she and the prince she didn't really want to marry skipped "i do", fits co-habitation so well: "if you didn't say it, you didn't do it."
Isn't there also something to the idea that "if you don't do it then it doesn't really matter whether you say it"? I'm sure we all know of marriages where the commitment is lacking, and many of us know of cohabiting couples who are effectively married (if not factually married under common law rules).
What this points out, though, is that marriage is not foolproof and that it has a specific purpose beyond living arrangements, economic partnership, and emotional ties. In fact, in a practical way if these are the only desired ends of a couple (or larger group) then marriage really doesn't make much sense for them individually; we already have the legal structure required for such mercurial and transactional relationships so that the individuals have maximum flexibility.
Apr '11
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
Joseph Eager posted on the NYT piece yesterday.
And I posted on the Yglesias piece a couple of months ago.
May '10
Re: Cohabitation: Bad For America?
It really comes back to whom you marry, I think; I either got lucky, selected well, or benefited from Divine Guidance.
And, indeed, the only real means of understanding the virtues of deferred gratification is religion (for me Christianity). If we are all extinct upon departing this mortal coil, there is no reason at all not to behave in the most hedonistic fashion desired, morality and convention be damned.