Black Enterprise
March 2008
Sheryl Nance Nash
The path to greater wealth may start with making a commitment--of the romantic kind
Single people buy their own china. It's one of the financial realities of life as a single person--no bridal registry. Of course, marriage is about far more than new bath towels and small appliances. When two people say "I do," all sorts of good things can happen. Studies show that married people are healthier, happier, and tend to be better off financially. "Marriage increases African American wealth by about 50% over single respondents, and each year of marriage pushes wealth up by an additional 4%," says Jay Zagorsky, author of Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth, a study released by the Center for Human Resource Research at Ohio State University.
Indeed, the proof of the financial implications of marriage is simple mathematics. Studies show that African American men who are married make more money and are seen as more responsible and dedicated to their jobs, says Nisa Islam Muhammad, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Wedded Bliss Foundation, a national initiative to promote marriage in the black community. She says that the children of married couples tend to do better financially as well, creating a legacy of wealth. "Most of the black students that go to Ivy League [or other] elite college and universities come from two-parent families," Islam Muhammad says.
In fact, income figures raise eyebrows. "Statistics show family incomes of black single parents grew when they married," says Clarence Shuler, president and CEO of Building Lasting Relationships, a nonprofit based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And this financial benefit stems from more than consolidating monthly expenses to free up more money to save. For instance, when one spouse makes significantly more than the other, there is a substantial tax savings for filing jointly. In terms of estate planning, many states allow some or all of the assets of one spouse to pass to the other without a will and without a tax consequence.
It's enough to make you want to take a walk down the aisle. The potential for economic advantage has given rise to programs targeted to couples--some specifically for African Americans--to strengthen families on all levels. Because financial matters are major contributors to divorce there's momentum for programs with a special interest in finances. You can find, among others, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and government-sponsored programs that can guide a family's path toward prosperity.
What's more, spouses are automatically the beneficiary of each other's retirement accounts unless otherwise stated, says Ginita Wall, a certified financial planner in San Diego. Couples also benefit from additional flexibility because they can transfer unlimited amounts of funds and assets to each other without having to file gift tax returns, unlike unmarried couples who make transfers of more than $12,000 a year.
TIME TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT?
"Whenever I heard about programs for first-time homebuyers or saw anyone getting assistance for home renovations, it seemed to be someone who was low-income," says Capucine Scott Carrington. "We are in the middle; we didn't have enough money to purchase a house but made too much money to get help."
But Capucine, 31, found that doing some additional digging paid off. Last September, she and husband Gary, 39, moved into a $200,000, two-bedroom, one-bath condo in Washington, D.C., after participating in the Marriage Development Account program.
Their homeownership plans began a year earlier when they relocated from North Carolina. Although Gary is now a merchandiser with Macy's, he initially found it tough to find work. Still, the couple wanted to move ahead with their personal goals. In the end, the tough job market turned out to be a blessing of sorts: With just Capucine's salary of about $50,000, the couple qualified for a Marriage Development Account with the nonprofit Capital Area Asset Building Corp. (CAAB). Limited to Washington, D.C., residents, the accounts are part of a savings program for engaged and married couples to help eliminate debt and build wealth through long-term investments, such as purchasing a home. Couples commit to saving a set amount each month, which is matched at a rate of $3 for every $1 in personal savings. The Carringtons committed to saving $500 a month to reach their goal.
"We cut back on going to the movies, to dinner, clothes shopping, and traveling," Capucine says. "It was stressful with [Gary] not working. We were pushed to the limit." Gary adds: "It was a strain on our marriage at times because I couldn't provide for her the way I wanted. I'm thankful the Lord saw us through."
After four months, the Carringtons had a total of $3,000 saved, and they received $9,000 in matching funds. Shortly thereafter, they bought their condo. Another advantage, Capucine says, were the mandatory money-management classes. Couples must complete 10 hours of course work on topics including budgeting, credit management, financial goal setting, and training related to homeownership.
In the end, the couple says that the experience has strengthened their relationship. "We know we can get through whatever situations come up," Capucine says. When you sacrifice and reach your goal, you get revved up. I was always more of a saver, but [now] Gary is more open to saving. He appreciates this in me now, instead of just thinking I'm frugal. We feel like we're on our way."
Like many couples, the Carringtons say they didn't think about the financial implications of getting married. Tax writeoffs were the last of their concerns. "We didn't realize the financial potential we had as a couple until we were married," Gary says. "When you're married, you have two ideas, two incomes, it's two becoming one, and you get ahead."
HELP IS OUT THERE
Marriage Development Accounts are supported in part by federal funds. The program began in 2006 under the direction of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). According to the senator's office, about 100 couples have opened accounts, with about $400,000 in matching funds from the government; additional support comes from private institutions. Though federal funding for the program was trimmed in 2007, Colleen Dailey, executive director of CAAB, says private sources have made up the difference. "We may not be able to maintain the generous match rate of 3:1 on up to $3,000 over the long term," she says, "but we plan to continue offering Marriage Development Accounts."
Because homeownership is widely viewed as the foundation for building wealth--and accounts for some 32.3% of the average household's net worth--there are several agencies across the country that focus on strengthening families and are also housing counseling agencies certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. One such program is the National African American Relationships Institute (www.aarelationshipsinstitute.com
Many faith-based groups are promoting strong marriages with financial literacy classes and workshops for couples. Michelle Singletary, syndicated national columnist for The Washington Post, conducts workshops in the religious community at places such as First Baptist Church of Glenarden in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and Christ is King Worship Center in Baltimore, among others. Some churches, such as New Birth South Metropolitan Church of Jonesboro, Georgia, have marriage ministries that include working to empower families financially.
Tannia Benefield and her husband, Terry Likens, recently finished a 13-week "Financial Peace University" workshop offered by syndicated radio host Dave Ramsey. The couple joined many others at the Overlake Christian Church in Redmond, Washington, all in an effort to tackle their biggest problem--debt. "We started the debt snowball, paying off debt, got extra jobs to pay off more, and we've begun to buy big-ticket items with cash and pay less for them," Benefield says. The Seattle couple paid off more than $5,000 of their $20,000 debt load in about two months. While they are trying to get current on their bills, they feel victorious. "This has brought us closer together," Benefield says. "We talk more about the finances, and my husband and I don't keep any financial secrets anymore. I accept him for who he is and vice versa. We are in this together."
The couple has had to make some adjustments and learn about each other along the way. Since moving to Seattle in June of last year, Benefield has been a stay-at-home mom to 10-year-old Kenah, and 1 year-old Kenze. Before the move, she worked as a mental health counselor, earning $33,000. "When I was working as a counselor, I had a salary that took care of the bills, and Terry's salary was extra," Benefield says. "I took care of all finances except for his car. Then we moved, and I wasn't working or taking care of the finances. Terry didn't tell me everything, and I didn't investigate, ask questions, or press him until we fell into debt."
While adjusting to supporting the household on his income as a computer support analyst for Sprint, some of the bills fell behind. "He so wanted me to stay at home and not work that he got rid of the car and starting working two extra jobs," Benefield says. "And I placed myself in charge of the finances and got a part-time job." Realizing they had to take control, they enrolled in the workshop.
"If you have a plan and know where you are going, you can enjoy the things you would normally not have as a single person," Likens says. "Marriage is a lifetime commitment and is far different than being single or just living together."
About the course, he adds, "It opened up communication about the sensitive issues of money and created a stronger bond between us. We have the confidence that we are both on the same track and working on the same financial goals."
MARRIAGE IS HARD WORK
While marriage can be a wealth building tool, the road to paradise is filled with detours and obstacles. "What separates those who succeed from those who fail is how they resolve their problems," says Rozario Slack, director of Marriage, Fathering & Family Initiatives at First Things First, a nonprofit community organization in Chattanooga, Tennessee. A marriage can be less than harmonious when one partner is a spender, ignoring the budget, or putting the family in debt.
Also, keep in mind that there are no absolutes. There are times when being married can be a household tax liability. "Hire a CPA, and have him or her prepare the taxes both jointly and separately," says Lyndall Medearis, branch manager of the Houston office of AXA Advisors. "In some tax years, joint filing will be the way to go, and some years, separate will be more beneficial."
All told, marriage clearly promotes the economic, social, and psychological well-being of African American men and women. A marriage between two committed people who love each other and have access to support systems is a win-win union.. Says Zagorsky: "Getting married and staying happily married is a wonderful way to increase wealth."
Marriage: By the Numbers
- On virtually every indicator of economic well-being, married black adults do better than their divorced, widowed, separated, and never-married peers.
- Married African Americans are also more likely to secure an important part of the American dream--owning a home.
- Married African American men earn between 15% and 18% more than their never-married peers.
- Married African American women earn about 13% more than their never-married peers.
- From 1950 to 2000, the percentage of African American women who were married declined from 62% to 36.1%. Among white women, the corresponding decline was 66% to 57.4%.
- From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of young black adults who had never married increased from 28.5% to 44.9%.
- In the first two years following divorce, family income for whites falls 30%, while family income for African Americans drops 53%.
SOURCES: THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS, INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES (2005), JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES, AND DEMOGRAPHY (FEBRUARY 2005)
Copyright 2008 Earl G. Graves Publishing Company, Inc.
For Love and Money: The Impact of Marriage on Economic Well-Being
familyfacts.org
November 2007
Original online post of this article can be found at familyfacts.org - including links with more details on each of the items reprinted below.
1. Married men tend to have greater earnings than men in cohabiting relationships. In this sample, married men earned $8,000 more, on average, than cohabiting men. Married households had $12,500 more in household income, on average, than cohabiting couples.
Avellar, S. - 2005
2. Married individuals are more likely to own homes and stocks than peers who are single or divorced. Married individuals were seven times more likely to own a home than single individuals and nearly twice (80 percent) more likely to own stocks. Divorced individuals were a third (32 percent) less likely to own a home compared to single individuals. Individuals with children were 28 percent more likely to own a home but 20 percent less likely to own stocks, compared to individuals without children.
Keister, L. A. - 2004
3. Marriage is associated with greater likelihood of attaining affluence. Among individuals between the ages of 45 and 65, marriage was associated with greater likelihood of attaining affluence, defined as the family’s income being ten times the poverty threshold for a given year, over a number of years. Some 53 percent of older married individuals have experienced affluence for five or more years compared to 38 percent of their peers who were not married.
Hirschl, T. A. - 2003
4. Among individuals nearing retirement age, being married is associated with maintaining household wealth. Being married has a large effect on household wealth. In this study, the currently unmarried group experienced a 63 percent reduction in total wealth relative to those who were married. Being separated, never married, divorced, cohabiting, or widowed resulted in a 77 percent, 75 percent, 73 percent, 58 percent, and 45 percent reduction in wealth, respectively. Never married, cohabiting, and divorced individuals fell in the middle of this continuum. All of these groups had a significantly lower level of wealth than those who were married.
Wilmoth, Janet - 2002
5. Among individuals who rent, married individuals are more likely to apply for mortgages than peers who are single. Among individuals who rented in 1991, those who were already married or married between 1991 and 1996 were 31% more likely to apply for a mortgage than single individuals. In a related finding, households that had an additional child between 1991 and 1996 were 12 percent more likely to apply for a mortgage than households that did not have more children during this period. Finally, individuals that divorced between 1991 and 1996 were 28% less likely to apply for a mortgage than individuals who remained single.
Charles, K. K. - 2002
6. Married-couple households are more likely to hold savings, checking, or money accounts than households headed by peers who are single. Some 95 percent of married-couple households held “transaction accounts” – that is, savings, checking, money market or call accounts – compared to 89 percent of households headed by single males, and 85 percent of households headed by single females. When everything was held constant, single-female households were 21% more likely to hold transaction accounts than married-couple households.
Hogarth, J. M., - 2005
7. Among low-income households, married households are more likely to accumulate savings than non-married households. Compared with unmarried low-income households, married low-income households, had, on average, (1) higher savings goals (13 percent higher in the amount they hoped to save), (2) higher monthly deposit values (41 percent higher), (3) more deposits (6 percent more), and (4) higher incomes (33 percent higher). However, controlling for race and income, these differences were no longer present.
Grinstein-Weiss, M. - 2006
8. Among children of divorced parents, those whose mothers remarried are the least likely to experience poverty. Children whose divorced mothers remarried tended to be better off economically compared to children whose divorced mothers remained single or entered into a cohabiting relationship. There was a 66 percent reduction in poverty among children whose divorced single mothers remarried and a 40 percent reduction in poverty among children whose mothers cohabited following a divorce. The poverty rate of children whose divorced mothers remarried was 9.4 percent, while the poverty rate of children whose divorced mothers cohabited was 28.8 percent. The poverty rate of children whose divorced mothers remained single was 42.4 percent.
Morrison, Donna Ruane - 2000
9. Married individuals are less likely to default on debt than peers who are divorced. Divorced men and women were 2 to 3 percent more likely to have defaulted on debt than married-couple households.
Lyons, A. C. - 2006
10. Marriage appears to offset the negative effects of a disadvantaged family background on economic well-being for women. Women who were married at the time of the survey were two-third less likely to be in poverty than women who were not married. The likelihood of being in poverty was the same for married women from disadvantaged families of origin and women who did not come from a disadvantaged background. The authors note, “The deleterious effect associated with a disadvantaged family background is completely offset by marrying and staying married.” (p. 74).
Lichter, Daniel T. - 2003
Divorce "cost wives"
InTheNews.co.UK
Nov 15, 2007
Divorced women end up worse-off than men.
The breakdown of a marriage has a bigger negative financial impact on women than on men, a new report has claimed.
Large financial inequalities that exist within couples grow when relationships are dissolved, according to the Fawcett Society.
The organisation, which campaigns for equality between women and men on a range of issues, claims men are likely to have higher savings and greater private pension provisions than their female partners.
It says such differences are magnified when relationships end, with men financially recovering from the impact of a failed marriage more quickly than women.
The study published by the Fawcett Society, based in part on a fresh analysis of the British Household Panel Survey, finds unmarried men and women both contribute an average of £100 a month to savings.
Within married couples women also contribute an average of £100 a month to savings, but married men save £150 for a rainy day.
Married men are also reported to hold individual savings amounting to an average of £8,000, compared to £5,000 for married women.
Among those whose relationships have broken down, the report found that 36 per cent of married men and 34 per cent married women were saving in the year prior to their divorce.
But a year after their divorce, just 28 per cent of women were putting away money compared to 32 per cent of men. Five years on, 42 per cent of divorced men were saving but the report claims that it took the women studied ten years to reach a similar position.
In addition the gender savings gap, the difference between the average amounts saved by men and women, was also found to greater among divorcees. Married men save around 36 per cent more than their wives, according to the report, but men who are separated from their partners save 87 per cent more and divorced men save 41 per cent more than women in the same position.
The study also claims married men are more likely than their wives to pay into a company pension scheme and the birth of a first child has more of an impact on the savings of new mothers than fathers.
Commenting on the results of the report, Fawcett Society director Dr Katherine Rake said: "Most couples would say that they want to be equal partners and yet we have further evidence here that where money is concerned, there is still a big divide."
Study: Marriage, Education Linked to Wealth
Colleen Freyvogel
Washington
May 29, 2007
A Capitol Hill study produced by the Joint Economic Committee finds wealth is directly related to higher educational attainment and marriage.
"Getting a college education, holding a job and forming a family through marriage are three key factors that distinguish high-income households from those at lower ends of the economic spectrum," Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, ranking Republican on the committee.
Brownback, a social conservative who is running for president, said "Federal policy designed to address income inequity should focus on improving education and removing obstacles to work and marriage, rather than harming economic growth, job creation and our standard of living by increasing taxes."
The study, undertaken by the panel¹s Republican staff, showed 18 percent of households in the lowest income group are married couples. By comparison, 79 percent in the highest income bracket were married.
"The marriage premium has really taken off," said Rae Hederman, policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It¹s kind of common sense that combined they can pool their resources so they are better off because more and more women are joining the workforce."
Hederman said individuals tend to marry others with comparable education attainment.
The study showed households headed by college degree holders "take in 3.8 times as much income and hold 11 times as much wealth as those with no high school diploma."
According to the most recent statistics released by the Census Bureau more than 27,000 Durham residents have at least a bachelor's degree, nearly 17,000 have masters or professional degrees and nearly 4,800 have doctorate degrees.
He said public policies aimed redistributing wealth among income groups run counter to the tradition American value of upward mobility.
"Mobility is still fairly robust in the United States," Hederman said.
Joint Economic Committee Chairman Charles Schumer and Vice Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney both New York Democrats could not be reached immediately for comment on the Brownback report.
Strong Marriages Make Good Business Sense
Heather Sells
CBN News
July 19, 2006
CBN.com Good marriages help grow strong families, but can they help the bottom-line at work? Anyone who has ever had a bad day at the office after a bad night at home may know what many business leaders know.
"We would like to say, 'oh, don't bring your personal problems to work. But that's not realistic and that's not natural," said Jack Myrick, a marriage education consultant.
Myrick works for the state of Oklahoma, which has spent more than ten million dollars in marital education. And other states are following suit, recognizing that healthy marriages reduce the need for many social services.
But on the business side, it's much more difficult to find companies that want to invest in encouraging strong marriages.
"We really are stunned at how hard it's been to get corporations to see this is what they should be doing‹that good strong marriages would be great for the bottom-line," said Diane Sollee of the Smart Marriages Coalition.
Enter Truett Cathy‹CEO of Chick-fil-A and maverick of the corporate world for closing his restaurants on Sunday.
It's been his marriage-friendly policies and programs that have earned him the spotlight. Smart Marriages, a national coalition of professional and lay leaders, recently presented Cathy with its first-ever business award.
According to Cathy, promoting marriage doesn't just line up with his Christian values, it makes business sense as well.
"If a person can't conduct their personal life, you can't expect them to be a high performer in his business," said Cathy.
Chick-fil-A's commitment to marriage has grown out of a culture that supports the family and programs such as on-site daycare.
Cathy himself has been married for 58 years.
The well-known Christian businessman says his Sunday policy has made a big difference in his marriage and those of his employees.
But Chick-fil-A couples such as the Yokums also appreciate the $30-million dollars he's poured into a marriage retreat center called Winshape.
Ty and Julie Yokum have been married, happily, for 18 years. But two years ago, a Chick-fil-A sponsored retreat took their relationship from good to "wow."
"What we discovered were that there were some holes in our hearts that were just there from growing up and relationships with parents," said Ty.
Julie added, "We've had a deeper, richer understanding. And it would not have happened‹would not have happened‹without that Winshape retreat. We probably would still be limping along, trying our best."
William and Amber Saunders are another couple that have embraced marriage education. William's financial consulting company in Richmond, Virginia has sponsored a class, and the Saunders have attended several retreats. Both say they've learned more about each other and how to express themselves.
"If there's an issue, you can go ahead and talk about what's bothering you, and the person has to repeat exactly what you said so that you know they heard exactly what you wanted," said Amber.
For William, the decision to seek marriage training grew out of his business philosophy.
He said, "We're always hiring consultants. We're always hiring some type of coach and so there is no stereotype to me. I see this as 'Look, I'm going to apply these same lessons that I've learned in my business life to my personal life.'"
For Ty, marriage training has directly affected his work.
"Since that retreat back in 2004, guess what? I mean I go to work and I can focus on work," Ty said,
One of the most important studies on marriage shows how fighting with your spouse affects the bottom line. Researchers found that men with the highest levels of marital stress will miss 30 more days of work a year than men with average stress.
That same study estimated that marital problems cost the economy $6.8 billion a year. Such costs are a result of both missed days and poor performance. And it¹s most significant among men in their first ten years of marriage.
"Women kind of roll with things better than men and there's this irony where we think of men as stronger and coping better with things, but it's really just in terms of brute strength that men are stronger. It's not in terms of emotional strength," said Dr. Scott Stanley of the University of Denver.
Research also shows that kids and grown-ups are more likely to have mental and physical problems when there's marital stress. Those kinds of issues can end up costing companies.
"Things just go better when there's a marriage‹a couple and they work together well. Everybody does better in every area of life," said Stanley.
He argues that long-term research shows established marriage curricula have clear benefits.
By learning how to handle conflict and communicate well, couples can improve the chance that their relationship will survive. And that means a lot today, when newlyweds face a 40 to 50 percent chance of divorcing.
So why aren't more companies following Chick-fil-A's lead? Myrick says they fear offending singles.
"There may be people in there that are experiencing divorce or [who've] had a bitter divorce. Or maybe there's the group of single parents that don't want to be married or the singles that don't want to be married or they may have some homosexuals that are in their organization," said Myrick.
Ty says workers also have fears‹especially about what co-workers might think.
He said, "People go 'oh wow. What's wrong with them? Something's wrong with their marriage?' And so you can be influenced by peers that way."
But as Chick-fil-A has demonstrated, retreats and other perks have given them the edge in attracting new staff. The company¹s 3.5 percent turnover rate is legendary compared to the 73 percent national fast food average.
And with national recognition from its award, chick-fil-a says doors are opening. Leaders are asking Cathy how healthy marriages make good business sense.
"Possibly companies need to wake up to the fact that they need to spend the effort and money to help maintain a stability and quality of people who are performing well," said Cathy.
Ty said, "If I was a business leader I'd have to say, 'This is an investment in people' and I think Truett's already understood that from a long time ago‹that when you make that investment in people, the returns are amazing."
Divorce Drops a Person's Wealth by 77 Percent
Newswise
January 18, 2006
A new nationwide study provides some of the best evidence to date of the devastating financial toll divorce can wreak on a person¹s wealth.
The study of about 9,000 people found that divorce reduces a person¹s wealth by about three-quarters (77 percent) compared to that of a single person, while being married almost doubles comparative wealth (93 percent). And people who get divorced see their wealth begin to drop long before the decree becomes final.
"Divorce causes a decrease in wealth that is larger than just splitting a couple¹s assets in half," said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University¹s Center for Human Resource Research.
By the same token, married people see an increase in wealth that is more than just adding the assets of two single people.
"If you really want to increase your wealth, get married and stay married. On the other hand, divorce can devastate your wealth," Zagorsky said.
Contrary to popular belief, the results showed that the wealth status of divorced women wasn¹t significantly worse than that of divorced men, in terms of real money.
The findings appear in the current issue of the Journal of Sociology.
The study used data involving 9,055 people who participated in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which is funded primarily by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The NLSY is a nationally representative survey of people nationwide conducted by Ohio State¹s Center for Human Resource Research.
The same people are interviewed repeatedly over time, giving Zagorsky the opportunity to see how wealth changes as a result of marriage and divorce. Zagorsky used data from 13 NLSY surveys conducted between 1985 and 2000. All the respondents were between 21 and 28 years old in 1985.
People who remained single had a steady, but slow growth in wealth from less than $2,000 at the start of the surveys up to an average of about $11,000 after 15 years, according to the study.
People who got married and stayed married showed a sharp increase in wealth accumulation after marriage, growing to an average of about $43,000 by the 10th year of marriage.
In fact, married people increased their wealth about 4 percent each year just as a result of being married, with all other factors held constant, Zagorsky said.
For people who married and then divorced, there was a slow build-up of wealth during the early years of marriage and then a steady decline beginning about four years before divorce. Total wealth bottomed out the year prior to divorce, to an average of about $3,500.
"Many of these people may have separated before the divorce became official, which would help explain why wealth starts falling so early," Zagorsky said. "Some people may also be working less and not trying as hard to build wealth as they have marriage troubles. Divorce is often a long and messy process, and you can see this in the four-year decline in wealth."
Wealth begins climbing again in the year of the divorce, but not by much. "Even a decade after divorce, the median wealth stays below $10,000," he said.
The results also cast doubt on the common assumption that divorce is significantly harder financially on women than on men.
After divorce, the typical man held 2.5 times the amount of wealth held by the typical woman. While this seems large in percentage terms, the difference in absolute dollars is relatively small about $5,100.
The data in this study can¹t say why marriage is so helpful in building wealth, and why divorce so devastating, Zagorsky said. But sociological research offers some potential clues: Married people can benefit because two people can live more cheaply than they could separately. In addition, because two spouses can share household responsibilities, they can each produce more than if they were single.
Divorced people have a variety of costs associated with the divorce, which increases how much they spend and decreases how much they can save, he said.
"We can't tell from these data the reasons why divorced people have so much less wealth than those who are married, but the results are clear, Zagorsky said.
Study Finds That Marriage Builds Wealth -- and Divorce Destroys It
Stehpen Ohlemacher (AP Writer)
Seattle Post Intelligencer
January 18, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Marrying for money, it turns out, works. A study by an Ohio State University researcher shows that a person who marries - and stays married - accumulates nearly twice as much personal wealth as a person who is single or divorced.
And for those who divorce, it's a bit more expensive than giving up half of everything they own. They lose, on average, three-fourths of their personal net worth.
"Getting married for a few years and then getting divorced is clearly not the path to financial independence," said Jay Zagorsky, whose study divided married couples' assets so they could be compared with singles.
Zagorsky, a research scientist at OSU's Center for Human Resource Research, tracked the wealth and marital status of 9,055 people from 1985 to 2000. Those people have been participating in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which has repeatedly interviewed them about various aspects of their lives since 1979.
The participants are now 41 to 49 years old, making them the youngest of the baby boomers.
Zagorsky cautioned that results could be different for older and younger Americans, who have faced different attitudes about marriage, divorce and living together without marriage.
Zagorsky's study, which is published in the current issue of the Journal of Sociology, defines wealth as the total value of a person's assets, such as real estate, stocks and bank accounts, minus liabilities, such as mortgages.
A big reason married people accumulate more wealth than others is simple economies of scale - one household is cheaper to maintain than two, Zagorsky said. Divorce reverses those benefits, he said.
"Divorce looks like one of the fastest ways to destroy your wealth," Zagorsky said.
David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, said people become more economically productive after they marry.
"They work harder, they advance further in their job, they save more money, and maybe invest more wisely," Popenoe said. "That's because, one can speculate, they are now working for something larger than themselves. They are working for a family."
Zagorsky showed that single people slowly accumulated wealth during the study, going from a median of $1,500 at the start to $10,900 in the 15th year.
Married people accumulated wealth much faster, accumulating 93 percent more than single or divorced people over the life of the study, Zagorsky said.
People who divorced started losing net worth four years before their divorces were final, Zagorsky said. That could be because they had separated before divorcing, forcing them to support two households, he said.
The study found that men fared better than women after divorce, holding about 2 1/2 times the wealth. However, in dollars, it added up to a difference of only $5,124.
"While men come out slightly ahead, divorce destroys wealth dramatically for both sexes," Zagorsky wrote in his study.
Men Who Tie the Knot Make a Lot More Money Than Single Ones - But Why?
By Hal R. Varian
New York Times
July 29, 2004
Married men make more money than single men. A lot more: Labor economists estimate that even when you control for age, education and other demographic effects, the "marriage wage premium" is 10 percent to 50 percent.
The question is why. There are two broad classes of explanation. One view holds that marriage causes men to receive higher wages. The other view is that higher wages are simply correlated with, but not caused by, marital status.
There are a variety of reasons that marriage might cause higher wages. It might be that employers prefer married men to single men because they are more productive. After all, they have spouses who share responsibility for household chores and provide other sorts of support and assistance. Single men just have that empty apartment.
On the other hand, it could be that employers have an irrational prejudice for married men. Employers might view married men as more productive, more reliable and more committed, whether or not these things are true.
Whether employer preference for married men is accurate is irrelevant. Marriage has a causal effect on wages: Single men who choose to marry will tend to receive higher wages.
The other class of theories holds that being married is simply correlated with higher wages. Just as with the causal theories, the correlation can work through productivity effects or through prejudice.
It may be that women are attracted to stable, reliable, hard-working men. Employers also find such men attractive, so they want to hire them and promote them. If this were true, then we would see married men having higher wages. But it isn't that marriage caused those higher wages-rather, the same things that caused marriage caused the higher wages.
Such a correlation could also arise from irrelevant characteristics. Maybe women prefer good-looking guys, and employers also like handsome men, even in cases where appearance has nothing to do with job productivity.
In this case we would also observe that the same men who are more likely to be married are also more likely to be employed and have higher wages.
In the correlation explanations of the marriage premium, the same factors that caused the men to marry caused them to get higher wages-but there is no direct causal link between marriage and high wages.
To drive this point home, suppose Hamlet is considering proposing to Ophelia, but is consumed with doubts. "To be married or not to be married, that is the question."
If the causal theories are correct, then if Hamlet proposes and Ophelia accepts, his future wages would be higher on average than if he stayed single. If the correlation theories are correct, then choosing to marry would have no effect on Hamlet's future wages, and he may as well remain single.
Recently, two economists, Kate Antonovics of the University of California-San Diego and Robert Town of the University of Minnesota, have come up with a clever way to decide between the causal and the correlation theories. Their paper, "Are all the good men married? Uncovering the sources of the marital wage premium," appeared in the May issue of The American Economic Review.
Their approach is based on looking at monozygotic, or identical, twins. The authors argue that twins have the same genetic endowment and (usually) the same upbringing. Because twins have the same underlying physical and mental capabilities, they should have similar productivity. Even if employers are biased toward certain irrelevant characteristics, monozygotic twins should be affected by such biases equally.
Hence, differences in wages between married and unmarried twins should control for most of the effects that might cause a spurious correlation between marriage and wages. If a married twin has a higher wage than his single brother, the difference is probably really caused by marriage, not just correlated with it.
The economists drew on a unique dataset, the Minnesota Twins Registry, which tracked most twins born in Minnesota between 1936 and 1955. In the mid-1990s, the staff at the registry sent the twins a questionnaire asking questions about their socioeconomic status.
Using this data, the researchers were able to construct a sample of 136 pairs of monozygotic twins, of whom 85 percent were married. In 23 percent of the cases, one twin was married while the other wasn't.
They extracted data from the survey on the hourly wages, weeks worked per year, age and educational attainment of the men in their sample and compared these with comparable figures for all American males. The results implied that their sample was reasonably representative of the nation's population.
Consistent with other studies, they found a significant marriage premium: controlling for education, age and other variables, they found that the married men in their sample earned about 19 percent more than unmarried men.
They then examined just the wage differences between twins, while still controlling for education. They found that married twins had 26 percent higher wages than their unmarried siblings. Hence, even among very similar men, those who are married earn substantially more.
The authors found essentially the same results if they factored in divorced or widowed status, or added variables such as a spouse's work experience, number of children and wage history.
That result suggests that marriage really does have a causal effect on wages. Of course, it is not completely conclusive. After all, maybe the married twin really is different in some way from his brother, and that difference is important to both potential spouses and employers. Still, it is suggestive evidence.
So, as far as Hamlet is concerned, the advice he would get from a labor economist would be this: Put your doubts aside and marry Ophelia. Stop moping around the house and go get a job. You may not be any happier, but at least you'll make more money than if you stay single.
Divorce: The Most Expensive Life Event According to 61% of Those Who Know
CNW - Winnipeg
July 16, 2004
Investors Group offers tips as poll shows separation can be as hard on the pocketbook as it is on the heart.
A new poll of divorced Canadians shows that a majority believe divorce is the most financially expensive event that can happen in a person's life and yet many of the poll respondents were ill-prepared to handle this aspect of the break-up.
An Investors Group poll of 160 divorced Canadian adults conducted by Decima Research shows that from the outset of the divorce process, Canadians are divided on financial issues. Starting with the most fundamental question how should the money be divided - there is disagreement: Only the slimmest of majorities - 51 per cent - believe it is fair that all the assets of a marriage be split equally, regardless of how much each spouse has contributed in income. Another 29 per cent disagree, while 15 per cent are undecided. Interestingly, 61 per cent of women agreed it was fair that assets should be split equally compared to 41 per cent of men.
"Divorce is a painful process and the financial costs - on top of the emotional ones - can really add up," says Debbie Ammeter, Vice President of Advanced Financial Planning at Investors Group. "While during the divorce process isn't always a comfortable time to deal with finances, it may be one of the most critical points in one's life to seek professional advice. A proper financial strategy can help ensure the monetary toll doesn't climb out of hand." While the annual divorce rate in the country has stabilized, according to Statistics Canada the number of people touched by divorce is still significant. According to the agency, over the five years between 1998 and 2002, there were 352,407 divorces.
Money isn't just a problem during the divorce process, it is often one of the root causes of the break-up. The poll showed 22 per cent say that issues with respect to money contributed "a great deal" or "almost completely" to their divorce. Another 24 per cent said it was "somewhat" a contributing factor.
It is clear that divorce often comes with a financial penalty: 47 per cent of respondents say divorce made their financial situation worse. In fact, respondents also reported that because of their divorce:
- 35 per cent had to go into debt;
- 22 per cent had to seek financial support from friends and family;
- 28 per cent had to sell household items or personal assets; and,
- 27 per cent had to sell or redeem financial investments.
Children are affected financially as well. The poll found that 44 per cent of people said it was extremely difficult to save for post- secondary education after divorce.
Many divorced Canadians feel they didn't adequately manage their finances during their divorce proceedings. According to the poll, 74 per cent of respondents did not receive financial advice during their divorce proceedings; yet, 61 per cent agree that divorce is the most financially expensive event that can happen in a person's life. Underscoring how difficult the financial pain can be, 16 per cent of divorced Canadians said the financial impact of their divorce was actually more difficult than the emotional one.
Perhaps considering themselves wiser for the experience, 57 per cent of divorced Canadians in the poll said that newlyweds should have a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married.
Having been through a divorce procedure seems to have prompted poll respondents to take more careful account of their finances. While 48 per cent of divorced respondents have obtained a financial plan since their divorce, only 39 per cent said they had a financial plan with their spouse beforehand.
A financial strategy to deal with divorce is important. Below are five tips for divorce planning:
- Get legal advice as early as possible. See a lawyer about having a separation agreement prepared.
- Understand your legal rights as to division of property and custody of children.
- Ask your lawyer about the different options within the divorce process regarding their costs, advantages and disadvantages - divorces are not always adversarial.
- Get professional financial planning advice on the long-term implications of the financial decisions you are being asked to make under the proposed divorce settlement.
- Divorce and relationship issues are emotional. Don't let your emotions overrule sound judgment when making decisions.
If there is a silver lining for the romantic in the poll's findings, it is surely this: 79 per cent of divorcees agree that it is better to have "loved and lost" than "never to have loved at all".
The survey results are based on a Decima Express national telephone survey conducted with a representative sample of 160 divorced Canadians (18 years and older) between June 10th and 20th, 2004. A sample of this size will provide results that can be considered accurate for the population overall to within plus or minus 8 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Investors Group is a national leader in delivering personalized financial solutions to more than one million Canadians, through a network of close to 3,200 Consultants located in 100 Financial Planning Centres. In addition to an exclusive family of mutual funds, managed asset and other investment vehicles, Investors Group offers a wide range of mortgage, insurance, brokerage and banking services. Investors Group is part of IGM Financial Inc. and a member of the Power Financial Corporation group of companies.
For further information: Ron Arnst, Investors Group(ron.arnst@investorsgroup.com)
Mike Van Soelen, Environics Communications (mvansoelen@environicspr.com)
Unmarried America
Business Week (Cover Story)
October 30, 2003
Say good-bye to the traditional family. Here's how the new demographics will change business and society.
Most Thursday nights, Hillary Herskowitz slips on her Seven jeans, chooses from among her dozens of shoes, and steps out for an evening sipping Ketel One and tonics with the modish throngs of Manhattan. The 35-year-old communications director and her designer-clad wing girls -- a pediatrician, a health-care manager, and an executive recruiter -- cruise the city's swankiest bashes: the posh private parties, the paparazzi-stalked soirees.
They don't just watch Sex and the City. They live it.
But after 13 years of this behind-the-velvet-ropes scene, they have yet to find the one thing they want most: husbands. The search has taken on a more desperate flavor of late; the women now plan to haunt sports bars in their stilettos. "It feels terrifying because the biological clock is ticking, and I want to have kids," says Herskowitz. "And I never, ever thought I'd wind up here."
Thirty years ago, a single woman like Herskowitz would have been considered an aberration. An old maid. Today, she's so typical that the highest IQs in Hollywood and on Wall Street and Madison Avenue are fixated on dreaming up products for the swelling ranks of unattached urbanites just like her. Add to these monied romantics a growing number of gay couples such as Luke Schemmel and Jonathan Shapiro, who are raising two adopted kids; divorced parents such as Jason Lauer and Terresa Lauer, who share custody of their 7-year-old son; single parents like Mark Cunha, a widower who is raising a son and daughter alone; and young men like Vincent Ciaccio, who broke his Italian mother's heart when he got a vasectomy three years ago at the age of 23 because he didn't want to get tied down. Along with the growing numbers of cohabitants and elderly unmarrieds, these wildly divergent types are the force behind a huge demographic shift taking place in this country: We're on the verge of becoming -- at least in the legal sense -- a nation of singletons.
The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households -- the dominant cohort since the country's founding -- have slipped from nearly 80% in the 1950s to just 50.7% today. That means that the U.S.'s 86 million single adults could soon define the new majority. Already, unmarrieds make up 42% of the workforce, 40% of home buyers, 35% of voters, and one of the most potent -- if pluralistic -- consumer groups on record. Yet even as marriage is on the wane, infatuation with the institution has never seemed so fierce -- from the debate over same-sex unions to President Bush's marriage-promotion campaign to reality TV's depiction of wedlock as a psychological Super Bowl. The culture may be so marriage-crazed, though, precisely because the rite is so threatened. Indeed, we are delaying marriage longer than ever, cohabiting in greater numbers, forming more same-sex partnerships, living far longer, and remarrying less after we split up.
What many once thought of as the fringe is becoming the new normal. Families consisting of breadwinner dads and stay-at-home moms now account for just one-tenth of all households. Married couples with kids, which made up nearly every residence a century ago, now total just 25% -- with the number projected to drop to 20% by 2010, says the Census Bureau. By then, nearly 30% of homes will be inhabited by someone who lives alone.
This unprecedented demographic shift holds vast implications for everything from Corporate America to the culture wars; from government institutions to the legal system. Vast swaths of our social infrastructure are still modeled on the days when our realities were reflected in Leave It to Beaver, not Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Corporate benefits, pensions, taxes, Social Security, educational funding -- all were designed in the last century to favor and encourage marital unions. "There's this pervasive idea in America that puts marriage and family at the center of everyone's lives," says Bella M. DePaulo, visiting professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, "when in fact it's becoming less and less so."
So societally ingrained is matrimony that on their wedding day, a bride and groom become immediately eligible for a bonanza of perks. The notion that married people lose out because they pay more in taxes through the oft-cited marriage penalty is only partly true. Dual-income, high-earning marrieds and low-income couples sometimes suffer the penalty, but for slightly more than half of all spouses, marriage actually slashes tax bills, particularly for those with children. That means, for example, that mega-salary executives with stay-at-home wives get subsidies that single working mothers don't. "It does seem unfair to me that there are single people in our exact same situation who pay more than we do in taxes," says Scott Houser, a tax-code expert and economics professor at California State University at Fresno." Fixing the marriage penalty is just going to make the single penalties worse."
Indeed, the elements are in place for a new form of social warfare. That's because what's occurring is a wealth transfer to the married class, which imposes an array of unseen taxes on singles -- no matter how many people they care for or are dependent on them.
In the workplace, unmarried people wind up making an average 25% less than married colleagues for the same work because of the marriage-centric structure of health care, retirement, and other benefits, calculates Thomas F. Coleman, a lawyer who heads the Los Angeles-based American Association for Single People.
In the civic arena, rising school taxes and growing inequities in pensions between marrieds and singles represent a big bonus for legal couples. The unmarried are often subjected to discrimination in housing and credit applications. They pay more for auto and homeowners' insurance and are shut out of valuable discounts on gyms, country clubs, hotel rooms -- even football-ticket lotteries. In some states, unmarried people, perhaps laid off from jobs and scrounging to pay their bills, are barred from taking on roommates to help pay the rent.
Outdated Definitions
These silent levies may have seemed less important in the days when most homes had a working dad and a full-time mom -- and kids largely resided with their two biological parents. But today, chances are that if you live to the age of 70, you will spend more of your adult life single than married.
Moreover, a record number of children -- 33% -- are now born to single parents, many of them underemployed, uninsured mothers. Yet "most workplaces are still modeled on an outdated definition of an ideal worker -- someone who works more than 50 hours a week and doesn't take breaks to raise children," says Joan Williams, co-director of the Gender, Work & Family Project at the American University Law School. "God forbid if you are single mother trying to live up to that ideal without a wife."
As the reality of unmarried America sinks in, CEOs, politicians, and judges will be challenged to design benefits, structure taxes, and develop retirement models that more fairly match the changing population. Already in Corporate America, more than 40% of the 500 largest companies have started to revise their marriage-centric policies, reexamining everything from subsidized spousal health care to family Christmas parties. Companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ) and Bank of America have (BAC ) have begun to accommodate the shift by instituting "extended family benefits." These plans allow employees to add a qualified adult household member to their health plans -- be it a domestic partner, extended family member, or grown child.
American Express Co. (AXP ) is considering a plan whereby employees who are parents pay more for each kid they add to the health plan. At Xerox Corp. (XRX ), employees now get $10,000 upon joining the company, on top of a standard benefits package, to spend on whichever programs they choose rather than having it automatically earmarked for families; at Prudential Securities Inc. (PRU ), cohabitants can get health benefits for opposite or same-sex partners as long as they've been living together at least six months.
Writ large, these kinds of changes could lead to more European-style systems that de-link marital status from eligibility for social benefits. Already, a bill is pending in Congress that would make benefits for household members and domestic partners tax-free, just as they are for spouses. Another would mandate that the federal government offer health benefits to domestic partners; in the past few years, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle, among other cities, have also passed laws obligating companies doing municipal business to do so.
The lower marriage rates, combined with declining fertility, also raise questions -- ones Europe and Japan are already facing -- about whether smaller future generations will be able to support the growing retirement and health needs of the huge numbers of older people. Can the country pump out enough educated workers to supply the labor force with the talent it needs to keep productivity strong? Will minority groups and immigrants, who tend to have higher fertility rates, gain more power? The answers to these questions will shape social policy and force corporations to rethink their human-capital strategies, product lineups, and marketing missions. Because unmarried America has such diverse constituencies -- from urban swingers to straitlaced widows -- it will also mean more micromarketing to cater to these finely tuned population segments.
Rumblings of a Backlash
The tensions between traditional families and the new households are already starting to spill out all over society -- in offices, neighborhoods, and political campaigns. Pollsters Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas say the marriage gap could become an issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign since George W. Bush draws so much of his support from the wedded, who give him approval ratings 15 percentage points higher than the single or divorced. Meanwhile, the numbers of Democratic-favoring singles continues to grow in number and power. There are also rumblings of a political backlash as nontraditional families balk at lopsided tax burdens. Dual-income, kid-free cohabitants, and elderly retirees on fixed incomes, for example, are joining forces to oppose school bond issues, a growing argument now that only 20% of the electorate has children. Charlotte Ness, a 55-year-old childless single, fumes about the way she pays the same school taxes as the married couples in her Vienna (Va.) neighborhood but will only get half the capital-gains break on the sale of her home. "It's nothing other than theft by a government of married people," she says.
Some singles are challenging zoning laws that limit the number of unrelated people who can live together, while others are forming homeowner associations that ban kids. Then there are those who are working to bar travel-industry practices that force them to pay 40% to 100% more for single-occupancy hotel rooms as well as auto and health-club rules that limit discounts to spouses. "You never used to have this," says David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "Those without children and those who aren't coupled have begun to mobilize much more than they did in the past."
Also fueling the demographic change: More people are coming out of the closet and setting up same-sex households. And most everyone, on average, is living longer, which will make for an expanding population of widows as boomers age. Meanwhile, more seniors are divorcing so they can qualify for Medicaid, while others are living together instead of remarrying to avoid losing pension-survivor or health benefits. "Sometimes you have to break the rules to make a living," says 64-year-old Darlene Davis, who lives with her boyfriend of 19 years, Cary Cohen.
Marrying Cohen would mean losing her deceased husband's health benefits, which she relies on as a heart-attack survivor with three stents. Last year, the state of Virginia refused to renew her day-care license because of old laws on the books that classify cohabitation as illegal. But after the American Civil Liberties Union took up the case, officials relented. "In the spiritual sense, we are husband and wife," she says. "But the law just doesn't see it that way."
Neither does the workplace, where singles get less and pay more. Married people often make more than unmarrieds, with married men earning an average 11% more than their never-married male colleagues, according to the Federal Reserve. The unmarried, most importantly those with kids, also suffer higher unemployment. And aside from subsidized health coverage for spouses, there are plenty of other inequities. Social Security is one of the biggest redistributions machines there is: Married and unmarried co-workers pay the same amount in employment taxes, but married people can leave their Social Security benefits to surviving spouses, while the unmarried can't leave them to surviving partners.
Pension Penalties
That's one reason why, given the gender pay gap, single working mothers often end up with far less in their old age than lifelong homemakers; one-earner married couples receive average benefit returns that are up to 85% higher than those of single males; and African Americans, who have low marriage and life-expectancy rates, sometimes end up subsidizing the retirement benefits of millionaire whites. In fact, one of every three black male youths will pay for retirement benefits they will never see.
Pensions also certainly come with big penalties for singles. If a married worker dies before starting to receive the benefits, a surviving spouse can inherit them. For singles, they go back into the pot. April Murphy, an unmarried 38-year-old who has worked as a flight attendant for American Airlines Inc. for 11 years, found this out when she tried to name her sister as her designate on her traditional pension. The company told her that was fine. But if Murphy dies even one day before her retirement, her sister won't see a penny. "When I'm pushing a beverage cart, the flight attendant on the other end is getting more just because she has a spouse or child or two," says Murphy. "How can you compensate one employee more than the other?" Murphy was also stunned to learn that she had no legal recourse: Federal anti-discrimination laws protect just about every class -- race, religion, gender, age -- except the unmarried.
Although marriage and fertility rates are at their lowest point in history across the industrialized world, an estimated 85% of Americans will still marry at least once in their lives -- even though that is a huge drop from the historic high of 95% in the 1950s. Though Rutgers' Popenoe believes that marriage rates will continue to slide, there are some countertrends that could tilt the statistics back toward a married majority. An unforeseen legalization of gay marriage or an even bigger surge in married immigrants -- who are already propping up population growth -- could dampen the trend.
Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority group, tend to have higher rates of marriage, given their religiously rooted family values. Some demographers point to a late-1990s leveling-off of divorce rates and the numbers of kids living with single parents as evidence that the institution may be approaching a turnaround. But most chalk this development up to the booming economy and welfare reform. Nothing less than a massive return to traditional values, they argue, will reverse the trend.
Judging by the attitudes of young people, that seems unlikely. Fully 54% of female high school seniors say they believe that having a child outside of marriage is a worthwhile lifestyle, up from 33% in 1980, according to the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. And 40% of female twentysomethings would consider having a baby on their own if they reached their mid-30s and hadn't found the right man to marry.
What was once a frowned-upon alternative has become the mainstream. Since 1970, the ranks of the never-married and the childless have surged astronomically, according to the Census Bureau. There is also a creeping disconnect between marriage and child-rearing, with an 850% increase since 1960 in the number of unmarried couples living with kids. As for children, 40% of them will live with their mom and her boyfriend before they turn 16, according to the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Certainly, there are scores of reasons to encourage marriage. Social research suggests that it is one of the republic's great stabilizers. Living with two happily married parents is the best shot a kid has for a successful launch in life. Marriage attaches fathers to children and protects adolescents from the scourges of addiction, suicide, teen pregnancy, and crime. Matrimony also offers families a layer of economic protection in an era when demands for individual competence and educational achievement have never been greater; when even members of the middle-class face slippery job security, diminishing benefits, and bidding wars for houses in the ever-dwindling number of good school districts.
Looser Ties
But just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded social benefits are -- especially when so many kids are not living in the kinds of traditional households that current social policies favor. As more and more companies begin to loosen the connection between benefits and marriage -- and partners who act like they are married are treated as if they are -- it's likely that there may be even higher rates of cohabitation and even lower rates of marriage, as has already happened in Europe. The difference, though, is that European countries have stronger social safety nets in the form of long, subsidized maternity leave policies; good part-time jobs for mothers; and tight-knit extended families, who help care for children born to single parents.
In America, the debate over the relative prominence of unmarrieds and marrieds is likely to grow more complex and caustic as the tipping point nears. Some say that the country is sliding down a slippery slope, gutting one of the last social safety nets that exists. Critics warn of an atomized society of subgroups, each vying for its selfish interests, with children the ultimate victims. But others say that given the demographic trends, what's needed isn't a nostalgia for the past but a rethinking of our notions of relationships, parenting, and family. No matter how the politics play out, the demographic convulsion is certain to cause a collective reexamination of what it means to be full-fledged members of society. No matter if you think that's for better or worse, husbands and wives no longer have a monopoly on that.
By Michelle Conlin With Jessi Hempel in New York