0  | 

I found this helpful Thank You! Your vote will be tallied soon!

I'm totally serious.

Well, sort of. 

While my husband would clearly disagree (since his net worth has taken a hit since marriage what with tuition, childcare, etc. chip, chipping away at our bank accounts), there are a number of reports which seem to indicate that married persons are generally better off economically.  Just yesterday, the Economist published a story citing statistics which again confirm those reports.  At first the statistics appear a bit simplistic.  The author compares education and marriage/divorce ratios, which marginally prove a point about the relationship between education and divorce rates.  However, the statistic that really jumped out at me was the following:  "A large majority - 92% - of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents (including step-parents). At the bottom of the income scale - families earning less than $15,000 - only 20% of children live with two parents."  That is a 72% disparity.  That's huge.

The article also cites statistics that argue that on average, those who stay married end up four times richer than those who never marry.  Four times.

Why is that?  Well, arguably, there is an economy of scale issue.  I referred to this before when discussing the value that a second person brings to a relationship - especially if that person is providing services (like cooking, cleaning, child care) that would normally require a single person to outsource and thus, pay for.  But the article in the Economist raises another issue.  The author surmises that the kind of people who tend to make more money are more likely to marry and stay married.

And what about children raised in two parent homes?  Are they really better off?  The author of the article cites Mary Parke of the Centre for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit which has, as its mission, work "to improve the lives of low-income people" who says that most children in single-parent homes "grow up without serious problems" but goes on to point out that statistically, they are more than five times as likely to be poor as those who live with two biological parents (26% versus 5%).

The article also cites Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, and author of Marriage and Caste in America as concluding that middle class kids growing up in two parent homes are "socialised for success."

Read the article and draw your own conclusions about whether the statistics back up any of the rhetoric.

I will say, from a tax perspective, that it's clear that married couples - with the elimination of the so-called "marriage penalty" - do receive an economic benefit from being married.  Likewise, having children, from a tax perspective, is a plus.  As to whether the other economies of scale work out, I don't know.  I will say, as a mother facing the prospect of private school (I live in the City and will likely send my children to private school) which is not subsidized by tax breaks or other incentives and college for three children, I certainly don't feel richer.  And my single friends tend to drive nicer cars than I do, go on longer vacations and have more expensive clothes.  Does that mean that they are economically better off... or simply that they make different choices?

It's an interesting argument.  Do you think being married offers an advantage - economically speaking - to couples... and to children?  I'd love to hear what you think.