May 27, 2007 3:36 PM
The Economist: the relationship between marriage and success
Barbara, I received this Economist article from a public health mailing list I'm on. I thought you'd also enjoy reading about the evidence on the benefits of marriage.
J (persimmon)
Marriage in America: The Frayed Knot is worth reading to understand how the weakening of the institution of marriage is widening the gap between haves and have-nots in this country.
Some excerpts:
Marriage itself is "a wealth-generating institution", according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, who run the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Those who marry "till death do us part" end up, on average, four times richer than those who never marry. This is partly because marriage provides economies of scale—two can live more cheaply than one—and because the kind of people who make more money—those who work hard, plan for the future and have good interpersonal skills—are more likely to marry and stay married. But it is also because marriage affects the way people behave.American men, once married, tend to take their responsibilities seriously. Avner Ahituv of the University of Haifa and Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute found that "entering marriage raises hours worked quickly and substantially." Married men drink less, take fewer drugs and work harder, earning between 10% and 40% more than single men with similar schooling and job histories. And marriage encourages both spouses to save and invest more for the future. Each partner provides the other with a form of insurance against falling sick or losing a job. . . .
Most American politicians say they support marriage, but few do much about it, except perhaps to sound off about the illusory threat to it from gays. The public are divided. Few want to go back to the attitudes or divorce laws of the 1950s. But many at both ends of the political spectrum lament the fragility of American families and would change, at least, the way the tax code penalises many couples who marry. And some politicians want the state to draw attention to benefits of marriage, as it does to the perils of smoking. George Bush is one.
Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: "If you're being abused, you should get out." Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex. . .
One [approach] is "marriage education". This is not the same as marriage therapy or counselling. Rather than waiting till a couple is in trouble and then having them sit down with a specialist to catalogue each other's faults, the administration favours offering relationship tips to large classes. . . .
Americans expect a lot from marriage. Whereas most Italians say the main purpose of marriage is to have children, 70% of Americans think it is something else. They want their spouse to make them happy. Some go further and assume that if they are not happy, it must be because they picked the wrong person. Sometimes that is true, sometimes not. There is no such thing as a perfectly compatible couple, argues Diane Sollee, director of smartmarriages.com, a pro-marriage group. Every couple has disputes, she says. What matters most is how they resolve them.
Read the entire article here. HT to persimmon.
I especially liked the bottom line statement that part of the problem with American marriage is the expectation that it should make one happy. I am reminded of Dr. Dobson's wise observation that live is not a feeling but a decision.
And marriage is a commitment: for better or worse. My own experience is that if you ride through the worst you get to the better.
Posted in Marriage | Permalink
Comments
Sometimes I think these articles say "There is no such thing as a perfectly compatible couple" just to make those less-so feel better about themselves and their partner.
While I agree there are no perfect individuals, and couples will need to continually forgive and adapt to one another, I believe I have met (and that I'm in) a "perfectly compatible couple."
God done *good* when He put us together.
:o)Posted by: Amy Jane | May 28, 2007 12:10 PM
I say that not particularly to brag, but to agrue that it *is* possible.
Posted by: Amy Jane | May 28, 2007 12:45 PM
Malachi 2:15
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
The purpose of marriage is to create children... just thought I'd mention, because many people--including my pastor--can't figure it out.
Not that the Italians are any better at actually doing that than the rest of Europe.
Posted by: ycw | May 29, 2007 5:53 PM
I think your claim that lack of marriage is contributing to the income gap between classes is misleading. Although the article points out that married people tend to make more, it also points out that educated people are better at staying married.
The article cites a study that shows that among the group of women who have already become pregnant outside of marriage, marriage is beneficial, but that says nothing about the benefits of marriage on the earning potential of educated couples. Without accounting for the different average education levels in the groups, it seems more likely that education, not marriage, is the source of the differences in earning.
Throughout, the article seems to emphasize that educated people tend to have better marriages and better earnings. Thus, we should not be applauding marriage as a way to greater earning potential, but education as a key to greater earning potential and stronger families.
Posted by: Erika | May 30, 2007 1:20 AM
