Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
effects_of_marriage_on_financial_stability [2015/09/15 13:25]
marri
effects_of_marriage_on_financial_stability [2017/10/19 08:16] (current)
marri
Line 1: Line 1:
 ==========Effects of Marriage on Financial Stability========== ==========Effects of Marriage on Financial Stability==========
-//Research Synthesis Paper//: [[http://​downloads.frc.org/​EF/​EF12D58.pdf|Marriage ​and Economic Well Being: ​The Economy Rises or Falls with Marriage]] + 
-\\ //Research Synthesis Paper//: [[http://familyinamerica.org/files/4313/8783/1095/FIA_Spring10_Fagan.pdf|The Family GDPHow Marriage and Fertility Drive the Economy]] +Marriage is an important milestone in securing long-term financial stability. On average, entering marriage improves a man’s wages by 27 percent.((Antonovics,​ Kate, and Robert Town, "Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium," ​//The American Economic Review// 94, no. 2 (2004)317-321.)) According to DrBrad Wilcox of the University of Virginia and DrWendy Wang, 97 percent of young adults who follow the “success sequence”—obtain at least a high school degree, get a job, marry, ​and have children, in that order—avoid poverty.((Wang,​ Wendy and W. Bradford Wilcox, "The Millennial Success SequenceMarriage, Kids, and the '​Success Sequence'​ among Young Adults",​ American Enterprise Institute and Institute of Family Studies (June 2017), available at [[http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IFS-MillennialSuccessSequence-Final.pdf]].)) The success sequence holds true for racial/ ethnic minorities, and for those from low-income families.((Wang,​ Wendy and W. Bradford Wilcox, "The Millennial Success Sequence: Marriage, Kids, and the '​Success Sequence'​ among Young Adults",​ American Enterprise Institute and Institute of Family Studies (June 2017), available at [[http://​www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IFS-MillennialSuccessSequence-Final.pdf]].)) Promoting marriage is an efficacious means of improving the financial security ​of American families. ​
-\\ //Research Synthesis Paper//: ​[[http://​www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/06/broken-families-rob-children-of-their-chances-for-future-prosperity|How Broken Families Rob Children ​of their Chance for Future Prosperity]]+
  
 =====1. Income===== =====1. Income=====
  
-Married families generally earn [[effects_of_family_structure_on_income|higher incomes]] than stepfamilies,​ cohabiting families, divorced families, separated families, and single-parent families. According to one study, the median household income of married families is twice that of divorced households and four times that of separated households.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 16-17. ))+Married families generally earn [[effects_of_family_structure_on_income|higher incomes]] than [[effects.of.stepfamilies.on.financial.stability|stepfamilies]][[effects.of.cohabitation.on.financial.stability|cohabiting families]][[effects.of.divorce.on.financial.stability|divorced families]], separated families, and [[effects.of.single.parents.on.financial.stability|single-parent families]]. According to one study, the median household income of married families is twice that of divorced households and four times that of separated households.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 16-17. ))
  
-The Survey of Consumer Finances shows that married couples with children under 18 years of age had the highest median-household income ($67,900) in 2007 of all family households, including single-parent households with or without children under 18 and even married-parent households without children under 18.((“Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,​” ​Federal Reserve Bulletin, ​February 2009, p. A5.)) Data from an earlier wave of the survey reveal the disparities of household income among a greater range of household types with children under 18. For 2001: intact, married families had a median income of $54,000; stepfamilies,​ $50,000; cohabitants,​ $30,000; divorced-single parents, $23,000; separated-single parents, $20,000; widow parents, $9,100; never-married single parents, $9,​400.((Survey of Consumer Finance, 2001 data.)) ​+The Survey of Consumer Finances shows that married couples with children under 18 years of age had the highest median-household income ($67,900) in 2007 of all family households, including single-parent households with or without children under 18 and even married-parent households without children under 18.((Federal Reserve Bulletin, ​“Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,​” ​(February 2009): A5.)) Data from an earlier wave of the survey reveal the disparities of household income among a greater range of household types with children under 18. For 2001: intact, married families had a median income of $54,000; stepfamilies,​ $50,000; cohabitants,​ $30,000; divorced-single parents, $23,000; separated-single parents, $20,000; widow parents, $9,100; never-married single parents, $9,​400.((Survey of Consumer Finance, 2001 data.)) ​
  
-Census data likewise confirm that married parents fall into the highest income brackets. In 2006, 67 percent of married-parent families had median incomes of more than $50,000 and 30 percent of such families had median incomes of more than $100,000. In comparison, only 26 percent of single mothers had median incomes of more than $50,000; in fact, 59 percent of single mothers had median incomes of less than $35,​000.((U.S. Census Bureau, //​Statistical Abstract of the United States//2009 edition, ​Table 676.)) According to Internal Revenue Service data, the reported income of more than one out of every three married couples places them in the top-income quintile of tax filers, whereas only one of every seven single or non-joint tax filers fall in the top 20-percent category. Consequently,​ even as married couples file less than half of all income-tax returns, they pay nearly three-quarters of all income taxes paid by the American people. In fact, 85 percent of filers in the top-income quintile are married joint filers. The numbers reverse themselves at the bottom quintile of the income spectrum, where single and non-joint filers, including single parents (who file as heads of households),​ make up 85 percent of filers of that quintile.((Scott A. Hodge, “Married Couples File Less Than Half of All Tax Returns, But Pay 74 percent of All Income Taxes,” Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 4, March 25, 2003.))+Census data likewise confirm that married parents fall into the highest income brackets. In 2006, 67 percent of married-parent families had median incomes of more than $50,000 and 30 percent of such families had median incomes of more than $100,000. In comparison, only 26 percent of single mothers had median incomes of more than $50,000; in fact, 59 percent of single mothers had median incomes of less than $35,​000.((U.S. Census Bureau, //​Statistical Abstract of the United States// ​(2009): Table 676.)) According to Internal Revenue Service data, the reported income of more than one out of every three married couples places them in the top-income quintile of tax filers, whereas only one of every seven single or non-joint tax filers fall in the top 20-percent category. Consequently,​ even as married couples file less than half of all income-tax returns, they pay nearly three-quarters of all income taxes paid by the American people. In fact, 85 percent of filers in the top-income quintile are married joint filers. The numbers reverse themselves at the bottom quintile of the income spectrum, where single and non-joint filers, including single parents (who file as heads of households),​ make up 85 percent of filers of that quintile.((Scott A. Hodge, “Married Couples File Less Than Half of All Tax Returns, But Pay 74 percent of All Income Taxes,​” ​//Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact// no. 4, March 25, 2003.))
  
-Furthermore,​ married households have the highest income-to-needs ratio.((Richard W. Johnson and Melissa M. Favreault, “Economic Status in Later Life among Women Who Raised Children Outside of Marriage,​” //Journal of Gerontology//​ 59B, no. 6 (2004): S319. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,​” (May 2011). Available at [[http://​marri.frc.org/get.cfm?​i=RS11E03]]  +Furthermore, ​[[comparative_advantage_of_married_couples|married households]] have the highest income-to-needs ratio.((Richard W. Johnson and Melissa M. Favreault, “Economic Status in Later Life among Women Who Raised Children Outside of Marriage,​” //Journal of Gerontology//​ 59B, no. 6 (2004): S319. As cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,​” (May 2011). Available at [[http://​marri.us/​research/​research-papers/​marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/]]  
-\\ Sarah Avellar and Pamela J. Smock, “The Economic Consequences of the Dissolution of Cohabiting Unions,” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 67, no. 2 (May 2005): 315-327. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at [[http://​www.familyfacts.org/​briefs/​31/​family-structure-and-economic-well-being]]. Accessed 20 July 2011. +\\ Sarah Avellar and Pamela J. Smock, “The Economic Consequences of the Dissolution of Cohabiting Unions,” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 67, no. 2 (May 2005): 315-327. As cited by The Heritage Foundation: Family Facts. Available at [[http://​www.familyfacts.org/​briefs/​31/​family-structure-and-economic-well-being]]. Accessed 20 July 2011.)) Men enjoy a larger “wage premium” (the financial gain men enjoy when they join a female partner) when they marry rather than cohabit.((Phillip Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 354.)) Overall, the [[effects_of_marriage_on_workforce_participation|marriage premium]] produces an annual income increase of approximately .9 percent for men.((George A. Akerlof, “Men Without Children,​” //The Economic Journal// 108(1998): 287-309. As cited in Pat Fagan, Henry Potrykus, and Rob Schwarzwalder,​ “Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage,​” (June 2011). Available at [[http://marri.us/​research/​research-papers/​our-fiscal-crisis/​]].  ​
-)) Men enjoy a larger “wage premium” (the financial gain men enjoy when they join a female partner) when they marry rather than cohabit.((Phillip Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 354.)) Overall, the marriage premium produces an annual income increase of approximately .9 percent for men.((George A. Akerlof, “Men Without Children,​” //The Economic Journal// 108 (1998): 287-309. As cited in Pat Fagan, Henry Potrykus, and Rob Schwarzwalder,​ “Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage,​” (June 2011). Available at [[http://microsite.frc.org/get.cfm?​i=OR12A01]].  ​+
 \\ See also Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, “Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium,” //American Economic Review// 94, no. 2 (2004): 317-321 \\ See also Kate Antonovics and Robert Town, “Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium,” //American Economic Review// 94, no. 2 (2004): 317-321
 \\ Philip N. Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 356 \\ Philip N. Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 356
 \\ Daniela Casale, “The Male Marital Earnings Premium in the Context of Bridewealth Payments: Evidence from South Africa,” //Economic Development and Cultural Change// 58, no. 2 (2010): 219 \\ Daniela Casale, “The Male Marital Earnings Premium in the Context of Bridewealth Payments: Evidence from South Africa,” //Economic Development and Cultural Change// 58, no. 2 (2010): 219
-\\ Robert F. Schoeni, “Marital Status and Earnings in Developed Countries,​” //Journal of Population Economics// 8, no. 4 (November 1995): 357. All as cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,​” (May 2011). Available at [[http://​marri.frc.org/get.cfm?​i=RS11E03]].  ​+\\ Robert F. Schoeni, “Marital Status and Earnings in Developed Countries,​” //Journal of Population Economics// 8, no. 4 (November 1995): 357. All as cited in Patrick F. Fagan, Andrew J. Kidd, and Henry Potrykus, “Marriage and Economic Well-Being: The Economy of the Family Rises or Falls with Marriage,​” (May 2011). Available at [[http://​marri.us/​research/​research-papers/​marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/​]].  ​
 \\ Phillip Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 354.  \\ Phillip Cohen, “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men,” //Work and Occupations//​ 29, no. 3 (2002): 354. 
-\\ Sanders Korenman and David Neumark, “Does ​marriage really make men more productive?” //Journal of Human Resources// 26 (1990): 282-307.  +\\ Sanders Korenman and David Neumark, “Does ​Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” //Journal of Human Resources// 26(1990): 282-307.  
-\\ Eng Seng Loh, “Productivity Differences and the Marriage Wage Premium for White Males,” //Journal of Human Resources// 31 (1996): 566-589.  +\\ Eng Seng Loh, “Productivity Differences and the Marriage Wage Premium for White Males,” //Journal of Human Resources// 31(1996): 566-589.  
-\\ Leslie S. Stratton, “Examining the Wage Differential for Married and Cohabiting Men,” //Economic Inquiry// 40 (2002): 199-212.)) Women in intact marriages have a higher income-to-needs ratio than divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married women. Mothers in stable marriages also have higher income-to-needs ratios than women with a long-term history of single motherhood.((Richard W. Johnson and Melissa M. Favreault, “Economic Status in Later Life among Women Who Raised Children Outside of Marriage,​” //Journal of Gerontology//​ 59B, no. 6 (2004): S321.  +\\ Leslie S. Stratton, “Examining the Wage Differential for Married and Cohabiting Men,” //Economic Inquiry// 40(2002): 199-212.)) Women in intact marriages have a higher income-to-needs ratio than divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married women. Mothers in stable marriages also have higher income-to-needs ratios than women with a long-term history of single motherhood.((Richard W. Johnson and Melissa M. Favreault, “Economic Status in Later Life among Women Who Raised Children Outside of Marriage,​” //Journal of Gerontology//​ 59B, no. 6 (2004): S321.  
-\\ See also Pamela J. Smock, Wendy D. Manning, and Sanjiv Gupta, “The Effect of Marriage and Divorce on Women’s Economic Well-Being,​” //American Sociological Review// 64, no. 6 (December 1999): 803.)) Marriage increases the income of single African-American women by 81 percent and single white women by 45 percent; African-American men also see an increase in income after marriage.((Marianne E. Page and Ann Hugg Stevens, “Understanding Racial Differences in the Economic Costs of Growing Up in a Single-Parent Family,” //​Demography//​ 42 (2005): 75-90 +\\ See also Pamela J. Smock, Wendy D. Manning, and Sanjiv Gupta, “The Effect of Marriage and Divorce on Women’s Economic Well-Being,​” //American Sociological Review// 64, no. 6 (December 1999): 803.)) Marriage increases the income of single African-American women by 81 percent and single white women by 45 percent; African-American men also see an increase in income after marriage.((Marianne E. Page and Ann Hugg Stevens, “Understanding Racial Differences in the Economic Costs of Growing Up in a Single-Parent Family,” //​Demography//​ 42(2005): 75-90 
-\\ Andrea E. Willson and Melissa A. Hardy, “Racial Disparities in Income Security for a Cohort of Aging American Women,” //Social Forces// 80 (2002): 1283-1306+\\ Andrea E. Willson and Melissa A. Hardy, “Racial Disparities in Income Security for a Cohort of Aging American Women,” //Social Forces// 80(2002): 1283-1306
 \\ Steven L. Nock, “Marriage and Fatherhood in the Lives of African American Men,” in //Black Fathers in Contemporary Society//, ed. O. Clayton, R. Mincy, and D. Blankenhorn (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003), 30-42. As cited in Institute for American Values, “Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences,​” 21. Available at [[http://​www.americanvalues.org/​pdfs/​why_marriage_matters2.pdf]]. Accessed 1 August 2011.)) \\ Steven L. Nock, “Marriage and Fatherhood in the Lives of African American Men,” in //Black Fathers in Contemporary Society//, ed. O. Clayton, R. Mincy, and D. Blankenhorn (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003), 30-42. As cited in Institute for American Values, “Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences,​” 21. Available at [[http://​www.americanvalues.org/​pdfs/​why_marriage_matters2.pdf]]. Accessed 1 August 2011.))
  
 =====2. Net Worth===== =====2. Net Worth=====
  
-A family’s net worth is the value of all its assets minus any liabilities it holds. Married households tend to have the largest net worth, but the difference is due to more than the mere presence of two adults in the household. Data on asset formation show very significant differences in the economic strength of the married family compared to divorced, cohabiting, and always-single parent families. RAND Corporation economist James P. Smith studied the assets of married couples in their fifties and found that, according to data from the 1984, 1989, and 1994 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the median value of the assets owned by married families was $132,200. The medians among other family structures were significantly lower: $35,000 among never-married households, $33,670 among divorced households, and $7,600 among separated households.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 33.))+A family’s net worth is the value of all its assets minus any liabilities it holds. Married households tend to have the [[effects_of_family_structure_on_income|largest net worth]], but the difference is due to more than the mere presence of two adults in the household. Data on asset formation show very significant differences in the economic strength of the married family compared to [[effects.of.divorce.on.financial.stability|divorced]][[effects.of.cohabitation.on.financial.stability|cohabiting]], and [[effects.of.single.parents.on.financial.stability|always-single parent families]]. RAND Corporation economist James P. Smith studied the assets of married couples in their fifties and found that, according to data from the 1984, 1989, and 1994 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the median value of the assets owned by married families was $132,200. The medians among other family structures were significantly lower: $35,000 among never-married households, $33,670 among divorced households, and $7,600 among separated households.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 33.)) 
 + 
 +Our own analysis of the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finance (2007) shows a similar trend but with a more detailed break-out of wealth by family type. This is summarized in in the chart below.
  
-Our own analysis ​of the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finance (2007) shows a similar trend but with a more detailed break-out of wealth by family type. This is summarized in Chart 5.+{{ :​effects_of_marriage_on_financial_stability_chart_1.png?​direct&​600 |Median Net Worth of Households ​with Children}}
  
-{{ :​chart_5.jpg?​600|}}Earlier analyses are in line with the findings shown in Chart 5, which is of households with children. Other researchers found that the median net worth of married households is three times greater than the median net worth of widows, four times greater than that of divorced and never-married individuals,​ and over 16 times greater than that of separated individuals.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 9.)) Non-married men have 63 percent less net worth than married men, on average.((Janet Wilmoth and Gregor Koso, “Does Marital History Matter? Marital Status and Wealth Outcomes among Preretirement Adults,” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 64, no. 1 (February 2002): 261.))+Earlier analyses are in line with the findings shown in the above chart, which is of households with children. Other researchers found that the median net worth of married households is three times greater than the median net worth of widows, four times greater than that of divorced and never-married individuals,​ and over 16 times greater than that of separated individuals.((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 9.)) Non-married men have 63 percent less net worth than married men, on average.((Janet Wilmoth and Gregor Koso, “Does Marital History Matter? Marital Status and Wealth Outcomes among Preretirement Adults,” //Journal of Marriage and Family// 64, no. 1 (February 2002): 261.))
  
-Married couples generally save more,​((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 20.)) have higher net worth,​((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (January 2009): 7.)) and enjoy greater net worth growth from year to year.((Jay L. Zagorsky, “Marriage and Divorce’s Impact on Wealth,” //Journal of Sociology// 41, no. 4 (2005): 415.)) Married households have net worth growth rates ranging from $3,000 to $17,000 per annum more than all other households.((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (Jan. 2009): 9.)) Interestingly,​ black married couples benefit more economically from marriage than whites do.((Satomi Wakita, Vicki Schram Fitzsimmons,​ and Tim Futing Liao, “Wealth: Determinants of Savings Net Worth and Housing Net Worth of Pre-Retired Households,​” //Journal of Family and Economic Issues// 21, no. 4 (December 2000): 412.))+Married couples generally save more,​((Joseph Lupton and James P. Smith, “Marriage,​ Assets, and Savings,” //Labor and Population Program//, Working Paper Series 99-12 (November 1999): 20.)) have higher net worth,​((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (January 2009): 7.)) and enjoy greater net worth growth from year to year.((Jay L. Zagorsky, “Marriage and Divorce’s Impact on Wealth,” //Journal of Sociology// 41, no. 4 (2005): 415.)) Married households have net worth growth rates ranging from $3,000 to $17,000 per annum more than all other households.((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (Jan. 2009): 9.)) Black married couples benefit more economically from marriage than whites do.((Satomi Wakita, Vicki Schram Fitzsimmons,​ and Tim Futing Liao, “Wealth: Determinants of Savings Net Worth and Housing Net Worth of Pre-Retired Households,​” //Journal of Family and Economic Issues// 21, no. 4 (December 2000): 412.))
  
 A similar pattern holds even in much poorer nations: For example, in Guatemala, married households had 29 percent higher indexed wealth, and single mothers were the least likely to own a house or have any form of savings. Divorced and separated households fared slightly better than single-mother households. Married-couple households were the most likely of all family structures to own a house and to have other investments and savings plans.((Maria Sophia Aguirre, “Determinants of Economic Growth, Population, and Family Wealth: The Case for Guatemala,​” Centro de Investigación Familia, Desarrollo y Población (FADEP) (2007): 15, 59.)) A similar pattern holds even in much poorer nations: For example, in Guatemala, married households had 29 percent higher indexed wealth, and single mothers were the least likely to own a house or have any form of savings. Divorced and separated households fared slightly better than single-mother households. Married-couple households were the most likely of all family structures to own a house and to have other investments and savings plans.((Maria Sophia Aguirre, “Determinants of Economic Growth, Population, and Family Wealth: The Case for Guatemala,​” Centro de Investigación Familia, Desarrollo y Población (FADEP) (2007): 15, 59.))
Line 41: Line 41:
 =====3. Asset Accumulation===== =====3. Asset Accumulation=====
  
-Asset accumulation also occurs at much higher rates in married, intact families. Married households enjoyed net worth growth $3,​000-17,​000 higher (over two years) than did other family structures, according to 1992-2006 data.((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (January 2009): 9, 22.)) In 2000, the median net worth of families with children under 18 was highest in always-intact families ($120,000) and second highest in stepfamilies ($105,360). But after stepfamilies,​ the net worth of other family structures experiences a massive drop-off. At the bottom of the heap are never-married parents, who had a median net worth of $350. This “never-married” category is composed almost exclusively of single mothers, who overwhelmingly have paltry assets in terms of real estate, savings, or automobiles.((Survey of Consumer Finance, 2001 data.)) That married-parent families are more likely to have received an inheritance,​ own a business, nonresidential real estate, a vacation home, and savings bonds—and carry less debt relative to their assets—helps to explain why they stand apart from all other family types. Their heightened capacity to accumulate wealth, therefore, enables married-parent families not only to invest in retirement accounts and pass on greater wealth to their children but also provide needed capital to fuel economic expansion. To the degree that Americans marry less, and have fewer children, less savings are correspondingly available for capital markets.+Asset accumulation also occurs at much higher rates in [[comparative_advantage_of_married_couples|married]], intact families. Married households enjoyed net worth growth $3,​000-17,​000 higher (over two years) than did other family structures, according to 1992-2006 data.((Julie Zissimopoulos,​ “Gain and Loss: Marriage and Wealth Changes over Time,” //Michigan Retirement Research Center//, Working Paper (January 2009): 9, 22.)) In 2000, the median net worth of families with children under 18 was highest in always-intact families ($120,000) and second highest in stepfamilies ($105,360). But after stepfamilies,​ the net worth of other family structures experiences a massive drop-off. At the bottom of the heap are never-married parents, who had a median net worth of $350. This “never-married” category is composed almost exclusively of single mothers, who overwhelmingly have paltry assets in terms of real estate, savings, or automobiles.((Survey of Consumer Finance, 2001 data.)) That married-parent families are more likely to have received an inheritance,​ own a business, nonresidential real estate, a vacation home, and savings bonds—and carry less debt relative to their assets—helps to explain why they stand apart from all other family types. Their heightened capacity to accumulate wealth, therefore, enables married-parent families not only to invest in retirement accounts and pass on greater wealth to their children but also provide needed capital to fuel economic expansion. To the degree that Americans marry less, and have fewer children, less savings are correspondingly available for capital markets.
  
-That Americans, on average, have been saving less for decades may be related to the fact that the percentage of Americans who live in a married-based household has also declined. The ability to pass on wealth is greatest in the intact family. According to a RAND study among Americans between the ages of 51 and 61—those who are in their peak savings period—median household wealth is greatest among married-parent families. The median household wealth of married Americans ($132,000) was in 1994 almost four times higher than never-married Americans ($35,500) and divorced Americans ($33,​670).((J. P. Smith, “Marriage Assets and Savings,” RAND Corporation,​ 1994.))+That Americans, on average, have been saving less for decades may be related to the fact that the percentage of Americans who live in a married-based household has also declined. The ability to pass on wealth is greatest in the intact family. According to a RAND study among Americans between the ages of 51 and 61—those who are in their peak savings period—median household wealth is greatest among married-parent families. The median household wealth of married Americans ($132,000) was in 1994 almost four times higher than never-married Americans ($35,500) and divorced Americans ($33,​670).((J. P. Smith, “Marriage Assets and Savings,​” ​//RAND Corporation//, 1994.))
  
-Moreover, that nearly 40 percent of all children born today in the United States are born out of wedlock, a factor that impairs the capacity of these children to save and invest in their adulthood, suggests that the economy will suffer from the diminished capacity of a good portion of Americans to save and invest for the future. ​In fact, David Goldman believes the growth in the number of single-parent households in the United States has played a key role in current real-estate downturn. Given that single parents, relative to married parents, face greater difficulties qualifying for a mortgage, he claims that the rise in single-parenthood has diminished and continues to diminish the demand for housing, which drives the economy downwards.((David P. Goldman, “Demographics and Depression,​” First Things, May 2009.))+Moreover, that nearly 40 percent of all children born today in the United States are [[effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_society|born out of wedlock]], a factor that impairs the capacity of these children to save and invest in their adulthood, suggests that the economy will suffer from the diminished capacity of a good portion of Americans to save and invest for the future. David Goldman believes the growth in the number of single-parent households in the United States has played a key role in current real-estate downturn. Given that single parents, relative to married parents, face greater difficulties qualifying for a mortgage, he claims that the rise in single-parenthood has diminished and continues to diminish the demand for housing, which drives the economy downwards.((David P. Goldman, “Demographics and Depression,​”//First Things//, May 2009.))
  
 =====4. Poverty== =====4. Poverty==
  
-Poverty((The U.S. Census Bureau creates a set of poverty thresholds annually based on family composition and size, which we must here work with, despite its severe and justified critics. If a family’s pre-tax income (without capital gains or welfare benefits) falls below this threshold, then the family is in poverty.)) is principally the problem of non-intact family structures. Compared to married families, six times as many female-headed families are impoverished. There are differences in the financial well-being of always-single mothers and divorced mothers, but poverty and welfare needs are major problems for female-headed households.+Poverty((The U.S. Census Bureau creates a set of poverty thresholds annually based on family composition and size, which must be worked ​with, despite its severe and justified critics. If a family’s pre-tax income (without capital gains or welfare benefits) falls below this threshold, then the family is in poverty.)) is principally the problem of [[effects_of_single_parents_on_poverty_rates|non-intact family structures]]. Compared to married families, six times as many [[effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_poverty|female-headed families]] are impoverished. There are differences in the financial well-being of always-single mothers and divorced mothers, but poverty and welfare needs are major problems for female-headed households.
  
-Only 5.8 percent of married families were living in poverty in 2009, compared to 16.9 percent of male householders and 29.9 percent of female householders.((Carmen DeNavas-Walt,​ Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, //Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007//, Current Population Reports, Series P60-235, “Table B-3: Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2007.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 2008. [[http://​www.census.gov/​prod/​2008pubs/​p60-235.pdf]],​ 2010.)) Additionally,​ intact families are less likely than cohabiting families or single individuals to have ever participated in the Food Stamp Program((Daphne Hernandez and Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, “Income Volatility and Family Structure Patterns: Association with Stability and Change in Food Stamp Program Participation,​” //Journal of Family and Economic Issues// 30, no. 4 (2009): 366.)) (now SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).+Only 5.8 percent of married families were living in poverty in 2009, compared to 16.9 percent of male householders and 29.9 percent of female householders.((Carmen DeNavas-Walt,​ Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, //Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007//, Current Population Reports, Series P60-235, “Table B-3: Poverty Status of Families by Type of Family: 1959 to 2007” ​(Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 2008)Available at [[http://​www.census.gov/​prod/​2008pubs/​p60-235.pdf]],​ 2010.)) Additionally,​ intact families are less likely than cohabiting families or single individuals to have ever participated in the Food Stamp Program ((Daphne Hernandez and Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, “Income Volatility and Family Structure Patterns: Association with Stability and Change in Food Stamp Program Participation,​” //Journal of Family and Economic Issues// 30, no. 4 (2009): 366.)) (now SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
  
 =====5. Impact on Children== =====5. Impact on Children==
  
-Marriage among the very poor helps them leave poverty and keep their children from entering the “low-income state.”((Garnett Picot, Myles Zyblock, and Wendy Piper, “Why do Children Move Into and Out of Low Income: Changing Labour Market Conditions or Marriage or Divorce?” //​Statistics Canada//, Analytical Studies Branch working paper (1999): 15. +Brad Wilcox, Joseph Price, and Robert Lerman found that states in the top quintile of married parenthood have a 13.2 percent lower rate of child poverty than states in the bottom quintile.((W. Bradford Wilcox, Joseph Price, and Robert I. Lerman, "​Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect the Wealth of Nations?",​ The American Enterprise Institute (2015), available at [[https://​www.aei.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​10/​IFS-HomeEconReport-2015-FinalWeb.pdf]].)) They also determined that parents'​ marriage strongly predicts economic mobility ((W. Bradford Wilcox, Joseph Price, and Robert I. Lerman, "​Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect the Wealth of Nations?",​ The American Enterprise Institute (2015), available at [[https://​www.aei.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​10/​IFS-HomeEconReport-2015-FinalWeb.pdf]]. \\ Thomas DeLeire and Leonard M. Lopoo, //Family Structure and the Economic Mobility of Children, Economic Mobility Project//, (2010). Available at [[http://​www.economicmobility.org/​assets/​pdfs/​Family_Structure.pdf]]. Accessed on 14 March 2011, 11.)) Marriage among the very poor helps them [[effects_of_marriage_on_child_poverty|leave poverty]] and keep their children from entering the “low-income state.”((Garnett Picot, Myles Zyblock, and Wendy Piper, “Why do Children Move Into and Out of Low Income: Changing Labour Market Conditions or Marriage or Divorce?” //​Statistics Canada//, Analytical Studies Branch working paper (1999): 15. 
-\\ Timothy J. Biblarz and Adrian E. Raftery, “The Effects of Family Disruption on Social Mobility,​” //American Sociological Review// 58, no. 1 (February 1993): 105.))+\\ Timothy J. Biblarz and Adrian E. Raftery, “The Effects of Family Disruption on Social Mobility,​” //American Sociological Review// 58, no. 1 (February 1993): 105.)) ​
  
-The children of married parents enjoy relatively strong upward mobility (significantly more than the children of divorced parents).((Thomas DeLeire and Leonard M. Lopoo, //Family Structure and the Economic Mobility of Children, Economic Mobility Project//, 2010, available from [[http://​www.economicmobility.org/​assets/​pdfs/​Family_Structure.pdf]],​ 14 March 2011, 11.)) Fifty-four percent of children born to always-married mothers whose earnings are in the top third of the income distribution will themselves (as adults) earn incomes in the top third of the income distribution. Half of children born to always-married mothers who earn incomes in the bottom third of the income distribution will themselves earn an income within that income bracket. Fifteen percent will earn an income in top third of the income distribution as adults.((Thomas DeLeire and Leonard M. Lopoo, //Family Structure and the Economic Mobility of Children, Economic Mobility Project//, 2010, available ​from [[http://​www.economicmobility.org/​assets/​pdfs/​Family_Structure.pdf]],​ 14 March 2011, 11.))+Fifty-four percent of children born to always-married mothers whose earnings are in the top third of the income distribution will themselves (as adults) earn incomes in the top third of the income distribution. Half of children born to always-married mothers who earn incomes in the bottom third of the income distribution will themselves earn an income within that income bracket. Fifteen percent will earn an income in top third of the income distribution as adults.((Thomas DeLeire and Leonard M. Lopoo, //Family Structure and the Economic Mobility of Children, Economic Mobility Project//, ​(2010). Available ​from [[http://​www.economicmobility.org/​assets/​pdfs/​Family_Structure.pdf]], ​Accessed on 14 March 2011, 11.)) Patrick Fagan and Nicholas Zill have shown that family intactness has a significant effect of a range of child outcomes ((Patrick Fagan and Nicholas Zill, "Index of Family Belonging and Rejection: State by State,"​ The Marriage and Religion Research Institute (2015) available at [[http://​marri.us/​research/​research-papers/​index-of-belonging-and-rejection-state-by-state/​]]. 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +This entry draws heavily from [[http://​marri.us/​research/​research-papers/​marriage-and-economic-well-being-the-economy-of-the-family-rises-or-falls-with-marriage/​|Marriage and Economic Well Being: The Economy Rises or Falls with Marriage]], [[http://​familyinamerica.org/​files/​4313/​8783/​1095/​FIA_Spring10_Fagan.pdf|The Family GDP: How Marriage and Fertility Drive the Economy]], and [[http://​www.heritage.org/​research/​reports/​1999/​06/​broken-families-rob-children-of-their-chances-for-future-prosperity|How Broken Families Rob Children of their Chance for Future Prosperity]].))