Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
Well who could have ever imagined that marriage is a huge factor of success and stability? That this comes from the New York Times is what makes it most noteworthy:
The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.
But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.
Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.
This is an Arthur Brooks-type of discussion. Traditional conservatives have long emphasized family values as key to American success. They have been derided by media elites as sour-pusses who hate (sexual) freedom. And yet if the distinction between the haves and the have-nots is marriage, is it more loving and compassionate to denigrate marriage or to encourage it?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
I encourage it and always have, including extending it to homosexual couples.
Jun '12
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
"But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos."
That quote could almost have come straight out of Charles Murray's "Coming Apart," which also also explores this dynamic too.
Sep '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
Why is it that the people who are most obsessed with the idea that a certificate of graduation-- preferably from an Ivy League school--equates to superior intelligence, are the most contemptuous of the idea that a certificate of marriage equates to a superior family life?
Especially since there's so much evidence for the latter, and so little for the former....
Edited on July 16, 2012 at 5:41pmDec '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
Both sexes have a stupid side that comes out in marriage. Luckily a good spouse brings wisdom and balance to the relationship to correct these foibles. I don't know why but the smarter the person is the bigger the blind spot. Wives seem to always helping husbands see the "obvious" and sometimes the husband actually listens. I am a pretty independent guy so I could get along without my wife. I just need her to survive daily life and not become a bum other than those two things I would be okay. Anyone know how to make instant ramen? :-)
Dec '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
I hope the NYT doesn't think this is new data. Heritage has been banging this drum for a while now.
Mar '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
That's not marriage, no matter how you try to stretch or warp it to be so. Marriage is not just a contract between two people. It's not about romantic love. It's a unique institution for continuing families (and if any one thing has caused us more social problems, it's the breakdown of families... especially the lack of a father).
Simply getting two people of the same sex together is not the same thing, and never will be. There is no substitute for mothers and fathers.
Sep '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
10 cents: ...
Wives seem to always helping husbands see the "obvious" and sometimes the husband actually listens. I am a pretty independent guy so I could get along without my wife. I just need her to survive daily life and not become a bum other than those two things I would be okay. Anyone know how to make instant ramen? :-) · 10 minutes ago
Agreed. Presumably, men also bring something good to a marriage, though it's hard to think of anything offhand. Maybe Mollie or some of the other women here could enlighten me. In the meantime, I'm grateful for all the help I get.
To the main point of Mollie's post, it astonishes me that the advantages of marriage come as a surprise to anyone. Both from a historical and personal perspective, it's clear to me that having a partner affords great benefits to both parties. I guess it takes some people (e.g., NYT writers) longer to figure this out. Finding the right partner is nontrivial, however.
May '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
DrLorentz: "It takes some people (e.g. NYT writers) longer to figure this out?"Notwithstanding their own opinion of themselves, what does this say about the intelligence of the NYT writers? Or of the NYT editors that they would consider this news? Or about the people who actually read the NYT and consider it an authoritative source....for anything?
Sep '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
It occurs to me that the Left would come up with a different solution to the 'problem' of inequality between married and unmarried. Instead of encouraging and supporting marriage, remove the advantages marriage confers or try to bring the perceived advantages to everyone. For example, provide single moms with better child care, more money, etc. On the other side of the coin, perhaps increase the marriage penalty in the tax code to make it more fair to lower-income single parents. Note the use of the word perceived.
You guys have underestimated the creativity and capacity for tortured logic on the part of the Left by assuming that the arrival of these facts in the brains of the NYT intelligentsia will lead to the same conclusions as they do in your brains.
Nov '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
sigh, it takes them a while to catch up. I think it was over a decade after the vicious mockery of Dan Quayle that The Atlantic finally ran a story conceding he was right about Murphy Brown and the importance of a stable two-parent family.
problem is, by the time they finally come around to relearning the obvious, it's too late, and the social institutions they giddily destroyed cannot be rebuilt.
Sep '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
My libertarian side says yea verily. However, if you grant the premise that men and women are different in more than superficial ways, then homosexual unions are intrinsically different from heterosexual ones. Men and women bring different sensibilities to a relationship that cannot be replicated if the two partners are more similar. Of course, any two people bring different ideas and approaches to a relationship, including child-rearing. This point turns on the premise that men and women have unique differences. If you don't think that's true, then there's nothing here.
Disclaimer: This argument does not argue for or against homosexual unions. It merely raises the possibility that the same degree of diversity may not be replicated in relationships where only one sex is represented as it is where both are.
Aug '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
When the redefinition of "marriage" is complete the focus will turn to "parent." After that? Well, I was setting up an email account very recently with a major provider and I was asked if I was male, female or "other"!
Dec '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
Douglas
That's not marriage, no matter how you try to stretch or warp it to be so. Marriage is not just a contract between two people. It's not about romantic love. It's a unique institution for continuing families (and if any one thing has caused us more social problems, it's the breakdown of families... especially the lack of a father).
But marriage goes beyond children - its intended to provide a stable foundation for a relationship, and thus a stronger foundation for society as a whole. No question children matter, but last I checked two gay men or gay women can't have a child on their own. For me, having a society recognize and support a stable relationship -whether you call it marriage or a civil union or whatever - is a separate issue from deciding who should raise children. It is logically indefensible to change the definition of marriage and then assume that all prior rules and regulations tied to marriage (such as adoption preferences) should likewise incorporate the change.
Dec '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
drlorentz
My libertarian side saysyea verily. However, if you grant the premise that men and women are different in more than superficial ways, then homosexual unions are intrinsically different from heterosexual ones. Men and women bring different sensibilities to a relationship that cannot be replicated if the two partners are more similar. Of course, any two people bring different ideas and approaches to a relationship, including child-rearing. This point turns on the premise that men and women have unique differences. If you don't think that's true, then there's nothing here.
Disclaimer:This argument does not argue for or against homosexual unions. It merely raises the possibility that the same degree of diversity may not be replicated in relationships where only one sex is represented as it is where both are. · 39 minutes ago
I think we're arguing semantics here - what to call the gay union.
Oct '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
We should throw a party somewhere every time the NYTimes does a pro-marriage piece. I feel like hell has frozen over every time I read one.
Nov '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
Liberals satisfy their egalitarian passions more by reducing what's higher than by elevating what's lower. Therefore, their solution to inequalities associated with marital status will be not only to create government entitlements (e.g., daycare) to try to serve as substitutes for advantages arising from marriage, but also to diminish marriage itself (e.g., gay marriage).
Oct '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
I find the gay marriage discussion comes in two flavors: the "rights" flavor, and the "moralistic" (in the positive sense of the word) flavor. People who view marriage as a fundamental right believe gays are entitled to it also, while people who believe the purpose of marriage is to force adults (especially men) to be adults think marriage could be used to fight the persistent moral problems in the gay community.
I fall in the second camp. Most of the gay marriage proposals in the past five years have been pushed by the first. Just the other day I got a liberal to admit he wouldn't vote for a "moralistic" version of gay marriage that had, say, monogamy requirements, or made divorce more difficult for all married couples. I asked him if that made him a bigot. He didn't seem to think so.
Oct '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
I don't know if daycare really affects incentives to marry. Let's face it: most people in this country cannot afford to raise children on one income. If anything, daycare helps young single mothers get off of welfare by allowing them to work; once they start working, there's a lot of incentives to find a husband to secure that needed second income and help raise the children.
And don't forget, welfare programs themselves tend to discourage marriage, so anything that helps people get off of welfare should increase marriage rates.
Dec '11
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
What this article proves is the little know fact that there are a lot of fish bicycling around this country and doing well at it. Those who have thrown the bicycle away are not doing so well. Maybe somebody should ask Gloria Steinem for comment. :-)
Drlorentz, I think men often bring support to the marriage by looking at things more simply and not getting caught up in all the nuances. Some people may call this a bug but I think it is a feature. Often times the man also brings support by keeping quiet at strategic times. In life what you don't say is often as important as what you do say. What don't say you? :-)
Edited on July 16, 2012 at 8:38pmOct '10
Re: Hate Inequality? Love Marriage
It's not often noted that feminism, in a marriage context, has contributed to inequality. When only men were in law or medical school, they were content to marry blue-collar women. By contrast, female professionals usually look to marry someone whose earnings match or exceed theirs, meaning that marriage is not the venue of upward mobility it once was, at least for low-income women.