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?