This is how Brookings economist Isabel Sawhill on her twitter feed summarized her new article, available here.
…What was happening to black families in the ’60s can be reinterpreted today not as an indictment of the black family but as a harbinger of a larger collapse of traditional living arrangements—of what demographer Samuel Preston, in words that Moynihan later repeated, called “the earthquake that shuddered through the American family.”
That earthquake has not affected all American families the same way. While the Moynihan report focused on disparities between white and black, increasingly it is class, and not just race, that matters for family structure. more
Isabel Sawhill contributed to our recent FamilyScholars Symposium on our new report, “The President’s Marriage Agenda for the Forgotten Sixty Percent,” in State of Our Unions. You can read her symposium contribution here and read the report here.
Categories: Marriage, Marriage and Money
An excellent article, but discouraging. If the decline in marriage is caused by economic forces, women’s changing roles, and changing mores, how can we reverse it?
The economic forces are huge and hard to turn around. Women’s changing roles are a good thing overall and in any case, you can hardly expect sane women to leave the labor force if the men aren’t marrying them/being reliable co-parents. Mores are hard to change and even harder if economics is working against them.
So where can we start?
Are we really doomed to a society with an ever-growing class divide?
“Paradoxically, although they (young people) view marriage as something they cannot afford, they rarely worry about the cost of raising a child.”
Arg.
Diane M., that makes more sense than how it sounds. After all, it isn’t really different from how middle class (“middle class” in the Internet sense; white-collar professionals with college degrees) people approach having children. Every first-time parent is playing it by ear.
Here’s the thing: if you know you want to be a parent, you know you’re on a certain time frame to do so (especially if you’re a woman). It makes sense if you’re a college-educated woman to postpone childbirth until “later”, because chances are very good that you’ll be earning more money and maybe even be well-established in your career enough to be able to take some time off (or re-arrange your work schedule) without losing your job. That isn’t true for non-college-educated women; they have no such benefits from waiting (only the risk of lower fertility).
You also know that if push comes to shove, you can do whatever it takes to raise your child and get the job done. Even alone. Now throw in the fact that most of your models for responsible parenting are single or divorced…..and there you go.
Think about it—when you’re working class, just about all aspects of your life are up for grabs. It sounds counterintuitive to middle-class folks, but poor and working-class single mothers are often better off than childless women from the same SES; having a child gave them the incentive to make improvements in their lives and stick with them.
“It sounds counterintuitive to middle-class folks, but poor and working-class single mothers are often better off than childless women from the same SES; having a child gave them the incentive to make improvements in their lives and stick with them.”
But that’s the argument conservatives are making about why you need to have men involved in families.
And the $64,000 question – why did young men in the past feel they had to care for their children and settle down, but not now?
“It makes sense if you’re a college-educated woman to postpone childbirth until “later”, because chances are very good that you’ll be earning more money and maybe even be well-established in your career enough to be able to take some time off (or re-arrange your work schedule) without losing your job. That isn’t true for non-college-educated women; they have no such benefits from waiting (only the risk of lower fertility).”
I don’t really believe this. If you’re a nurse or a secretary, you will earn more money later. Non-college careers still have a hierarchy where you have more flexibility and more money after you’ve worked for a while.
This gets at something that bothers me with a lot of the discussion of the State of the Union report – these aren’t poor women. Studies like Promises I Can Keep were about poor women. These are women with some education and jobs. We can’t assume they do things for the same reasons as poor women.
We really need some data on why middle class parents aren’t getting married. Is it a choice to have kids first? Why choose it? Are the men or the women opting out of marriage? Are they more likely to stay together than other cohabiting parents? How much is due to not having men with jobs? What would make the parents want to get married?
If you look at Promises I Can Keep, the women were poor and the men they knew had serious problems. They didn’t have jobs or educations. They often had been in jail or used drugs.
Presumably middle class women are around men who have finished school and earn at least some money. They may not have as much money as the women, but they could have something to offer. What’s going on that keeps people from pairing up?
Because while moms are pretty dedicated people and we can make it for our kids’ sakes, if a guy isn’t a complete louse and he has a job, the kids can have more money and attention.
I think you’re wrong about poor women and working class women not getting married for the same reasons. Working class women also have a dearth of employed men, and college-educated men will not seriously consider a non-college-educated woman as a partner. Men don’t want to get married if they don’t feel like they can pull their financial weight, and women don’t want to marry them for the same reason.
In short, it’s the economy. No matter how bad the economy gets, people don’t stop having sex or babies—but they will refrain from marriage.
Diane M: I’m not sure that really is the $64,000 question. All those girls who were “sent away” to give birth and have their babies raised by nice married folks, all those foundlings and abandoned children – they weren’t conceived through parthenogenesis. Being unwilling or unable to take care of the children one fathers was not a modern invention.
Re working-class families, it’s really hard to overstate how badly the death of good working-class jobs and the inflation of college credentials has hurt families. Even when I was a kid, a man with an eighth-grade education could follow his dad into a union job in manufacturing, or could join the military, and make at least a living wage. Those jobs are largely gone now and the military entry requirements are much, much stricter.
Boom.
There’s also debt. When people wait longer to get married, they gain the advantage of age and experience…..but some of them also take on debt or have ruined credit/bankruptcy. That was the factor in my pregnancy not leading to marriage; he had a bankruptcy, and my credit was clean. Marrying would have taken my clean credit and trashed it, which is something I wasn’t going to do with a baby on the way. We could always get married several years down the road after the bankruptcy went away…..except he picked up meth first, so that was that. I’ve met a lot of women who expressed similar sentiments, not wanting to marry a guy who had a lot of debt (or a bankruptcy). Working class women don’t have safety nets, so we aren’t keen on marrying a man likely to put holes in whatever we have.
LaLubu – the dearth of partners the women in promises were talking about was about men with criminal records and no legal income – plus men actually being in jail. That really isn’t the case for the middle 60% of Americans. So why aren’t the men good enough?
And I guess I think it’s a problem if people see economics as a reason to stop getting married but not a reason to avoid pregnancy.
@mythago, I can’t believe that the rate of giving kids up was as high as the current rate of unmarried pregnancy. Something has changed.
Diane
Yes something has changed people don’t get married as young.
Sure if everyone got married at 16 you’d have lots of babies born ‘in wedlock’ then they’d divorce the following year.
@Diane M, lots of things have changed, but I doubt one of them is that young men used to be super-responsible and now aren’t. I can’t be the only one who’s heard members of previous generations make jokes like “if you have a daughter and she gets pregnant, you’re stuck; if you have a son and he gets a girl pregnant, you can always move”.
Diane M., I’m one of the 60%. What is a mystery to you is not a mystery to me. “Hey! He’s not a felon! What more do ya want?” isn’t a good argument for marriage.
I would add to this discussion, that education is no longer a gateway to success in America; and, hasn’t been for the last decade. Unless one moves on to get at least a Masters Degree, and has some sort of network to access, the only thing big-business education gets one today is huge debt.
Not only does one need higher-higher-education, the universities one chooses becomes paramount. I’d like to see a study done on Asian families vis-a-vis the rest of American families. My own little anecdotal study shows that Asian families are acutely aware of how to succeed in society: economically, materially, educationally. Their family size is small, their goals are large. They know how to succeed in the system … and, they do.
Economics drives all cultural shifts. For, Family Scholars, if our society has no jobs; what place does ‘faith’ have in changing anything? Are ‘morals’ an upper-class bauble that lose value as one slides down the slippery-slope of class in America?
The problem for people who insist that the problem is primarily liberal destruction of social norms is the class association makes that argument untenable. The expansion of family instability by class clearly indites conservative and neo-liberal economic policy instead. So the question becomes will people who truly care about these issues acknowledge this and give their political support to to solutions that will solve the problem. Or will they continue to support policies that make the problem worse.
I must say the recent symposium does not give me much hope. The more traditional churches are almost uniquely unqualified to minster to this population. The articles are full of “We should do better” but light on exactly how. The few suggestions that were made didn’t seem likely to work that well. The time and money would have been better spent looking at policies that produce better results and seeking broad political support for those policies.
@Mont D Law – But that’s not what the article says.
“The problem for people who insist that the problem is primarily liberal destruction of social norms is the class association makes that argument untenable.”
Sawhill is very clear that a big factor here is the economy. She also sees women’s independence as a factor. She names cultural influences last.
This is why, as I said above, it is so depressing. The first and last factors are hard to change, and the second one is something we don’t want to get rid of.
Sawhill refers to some researches who show that cultural influences are part of the equation.
Do you have any evidence that cultural influences don’t play a part in this whole debate?
@mythago “Diane M, lots of things have changed, but I doubt one of them is that young men used to be super-responsible and now aren’t.”
But we do see an increase in the number of children being born outside of marriage and in the divorce rate. That can’t be accounted for by the children given up for adoption that you refer to above.
Something has changed and is changing. As you say above, the lack of good jobs plays a role – that is one of Sawhill’s arguments and a factor that I mentioned originally.
So here are the questions I have after all this going around and around:
Do you all, think, yes or no, that it is a problem that middle class children are more likely than in the past to be raised by only one parent?
Do you think, yes or no, that it is a problem that more children are being born outside of marriage?
Do you think the current divorce rate for the middle class is too high?
Mont D. Law says:
Very astute observation, Mont D., and an age-old one for scapegoating the weakest and most vulnerable among us for what’s really happening in society.
Great points, Mont D. I think we need input from FS folks like Elizabeth, Amy, and clarification about the following:
Questions arise from this Mission Statement:
1.) Who pays the bills, who are the funders of this think-tank?
This is not a question that needs answers for anyone participating here, but it is an issue Mont D., insofar, as who pays the bills, calls the tune. The poor, and working class poor have no think-tank, have no access to the levers of power that can make a difference in their lives.
2.) In the first paragraph of FS Mission Statement, about the bolded section; how does study ‘strengthen’ marriage?
These questions are not meant to disparage anyone at FS. But, my struggle is how does it change things for the intended. I salute the pastors and others here, who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis … real lives coming together, to heal one another. They are making a difference, and what they do matters.
The cognitive dissonance I’m trying to overcome is a variant of:
“those can, do … those who can’t, teach.”
@Teresa – I really don’t think Sawhill scapegoats anyone in her article.
As for study, I think it has a value in helping us figure out directions for social policy. Sometimes it’s a way to identify a problem and get people to pay attention to it.
Diane M, a wonderful conversation we’re having here.
Scapegoating depends on who’s wearing the shoe, and does it fit. In this case, the shoe I’m wearing is: I’m one of the notorious 47%. I’m a ‘taker’. I’m helping to drive our economy ‘over the fiscal cliff’. I’m seen as one of those upending marriage. So, I’m left with seeing me as a social problem. I see the article as scapegoating, because the university elite (and, I’m not using those words disparagingly, btw) refuse to see they are part of the problem.
Furthermore, nothing, absolutely nothing separates them from their ‘project studies’ but money … not their morals, not their marriages, not their kids. Take away their money, or their current access to it, and let’s see how in a few years, all those other things fracture.
(Do you have any evidence that cultural influences don’t play a part in this whole debate?)
The evidence is in the way the problem is spreading. In 1968 it was assumed that cultural deficiencies in the black family, inculcated by slavery, were the source of the problem. But now that the problem is expanding into other populations that is clearly not the case. When you eliminate that you have to start looking at other things the affected populations have in common. Thus the redefinition of problem as one of class and not culture. What these populations have in common is primarily a lack of educational opportunities and meaningful work that pays a living wage. Conservative and neo-liberal policies have expanded the structural dysfunctions destabilizing black families and now family destabilization is spreading.
Diane M questions:
Diane M, I’m thinking FS answers ‘Yes’ to all your questions. I think you would answer ‘Yes’ to all your questions. Simplistically, I would answer ‘Yes’ to your questions; but, I’d further add those may be not the relevant questions we should be asking.
A question for you, Diane M and FS, in general; following this:
that after the nearly 60 years, the African American family is in worse trouble, the middle class (read white) family is collapsing
(although Sawhill went out of her way to place this as a class issue and not race, and rightly so, in some ways … but, somehow it’s taken on new importance in people’s minds now that it’s white America being impacted)
back to original thought, isn’t it odd, Diane and others, that after nearly 65 years, study upon study, policy group after policy group with their suggestions; the problem has only become worse?
Diane, you stated:
I would counter, the evidence for your statements is factually untrue. Please, understand, I’m in no way maligning your integrity, your compassion, your wish to do good, your search for truth; those all come through loud-and-clear in your comments.
I am, like you, and Mont D., and maybe others, depressed by the results of this study. I would simply ask all of us, what do we do with the results of these studies? How can each one of us make a difference with the study results?
@Teresa – so when I read Sawhill, I hear a woman who is saying that there’s a problem and then talking about economic causes.
What do you hear that sounds like scapegoating?
@Mont D Law – I am reading “cultural influences” to mean that the whole of American culture has changed. That we all accept behaviors like postponing marriage and cohabitation and that we (mostly) all believe in women having opportunities. In other words, that college-educated people behave generally like non-college-educated except that they postpone childbearing until after marriage and stay married.
But thanks for explaining where your thinking is coming from.
( I am reading “cultural influences” to mean that the whole of American culture has changed. That we all accept behaviors like postponing marriage and cohabitation and that we (mostly) all believe in women having opportunities.)
That is all well and good, except those are exactly the factors people pointed to as cultural behaviors that were wide spread in the black community, causing the instability. Over the last 40 odd years these cultual beliefs, once seen as unique to the black community, were extended to the whole society. If the change in culture was responsible for the spread of instability you would see that instability in all families. But you don’t. In fact family instability is decreasing in some groups and increasing in others. So then you have to look for the differences between the groups. Those differences are not cultural.
“That is all well and good, except those are exactly the factors people pointed to as cultural behaviors that were wide spread in the black community, causing the instability”
Mont D Law, I haven’t read the Moynihan report, but are those the factors it pointed to? Acceptance of late marriage age and cohabitation? Equality for women? I had always thought he was blaming welfare.
“If the change in culture was responsible for the spread of instability you would see that instability in all families. But you don’t. In fact family instability is decreasing in some groups and increasing in others. So then you have to look for the differences between the groups. Those differences are not cultural.”
It’s more complicated than that. There could be a change in culture that affects all classes, but that for different groups has a different effect. So the difference from the past is partly due too economic changes and partly due to changes in the culture.
For example, most college-educated women in America have pre-marital sex and live with a man before they get married. But they rarely end up having a child before they get married. They have economic reasons to wait and they are able to find husbands.
Remember, in the past, people of all classes were more likely to get and stay married. It can’t just be economics either.
@ Teresa – “Simplistically, I would answer ‘Yes’ to your questions; but, I’d further add those may be not the relevant questions we should be asking.”
What are the questions you think people should be asking?
I pose the questions because at times I can’t figure out what people are disagreeing with or why. Sawhill’s report seems to me to present an argument that is hard to disagree with.
I have much more faith in the importance of studies than you do. For one thing, I think that 60 years ago the argument was put forward that single motherhood was not a problem. I think we now have evidence that children really do benefit from having two involved parents and that it would help children if more parents were married and stayed married. How to get to that result is what we don’t know – and we can’t really wait another 60 years to figure out.
“How can each one of us make a difference with the study results?” I wish I knew. I am optimistic enough to think that talking about it can make a difference.
(There could be a change in culture that affects all classes, but that for different groups has a different effect)
Then the variable producing the different effect is not the change in culture, which is constant across all groups.
(Sawhill’s report seems to me to present an argument that is hard to disagree with.)
The only one here disagreeing with her article is you.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with her article. Where do you get that idea?
Your arguement isn’t making sense to me. There has been a change since the past. More than one thing has changed since the past. One is culture. One is fewer good jobs. Both may explain the change that has affected the middle class.
The fact that class matters does not mean that nothing else does. The fact that class and economics matter actually helps to explain why some changes that are the same have differently effects for different people.
Diane M. stated:
“As for study, I think it has a value in helping us figure out directions for social policy. Sometimes it’s a way to identify a problem and get people to pay attention to it.
Yes, Diane, after reading the new Posts on equality and health, I have to agree with your view. Thank you for pointing out the strong suit of studies.
Diane M asked:
“@Teresa – so when I read Sawhill, I hear a woman who is saying that there’s a problem and then talking about economic causes.
What do you hear that sounds like scapegoating?
Diane, is not so much what I hear/read in the study; but, the lack of acknowledgement on the part of elite academia not owning their part of the problem. It’s always ‘those folks’ that are exhibiting dysfunction. That’s what I perceive as scapegoating.
You, yourself, have said that most college educated women/men have cohabited before marriage. I’d add further that if a woman finds herself pregnant, she may well abort the child. A not insignificant number of college educated spouses find themselves divorcing. Sure, maybe, not at the percent that middle-to-lower classes do; but, nevertheless, divorce cannot be considered uncommon.
My contention is that it is only money keeping them from being one of the subjects in their study. I consider this much like the parable in the Bible concerning the woman caught in adultery. She was going to be stoned by those who’d decided they were good, and she was bad. We know how that ended up when Our Lord said to the righteous men, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” as he began writing in the sand.
Now, I’ll readily admit, Diane, that I’m pretty sensitive on stuff like this; so, I may well be reading into, creating a tempest in a teapot … but, I cannot help but see, that the academic elites do pretty much whatever they like in the area of sexual morality … and get away with it.
Diane asked:
“What are the questions you think people should be asking?”
For starters, here’s a question:
Without meaning any disrespect to anyone at FS; but, what’s up with this comment? An FS scholar is delighted by the photographs. OK, I accept she’s delighted; but how does this fit with helping marriage? How does acceptance of this help society?
At one time, what you did before marriage was a very big deal. It mattered as a point of social cohesion to ‘wait’ before marriage; or, at least, not to get pregnant. It mattered because it showed a level of maturity of one’s behavior. It mattered because the individual had a purpose greater than him/herself. Healthy restraint in behavior was a social as well as personal good. Customs mattered. Convention mattered. Continuity mattered.
OK, I’ll admit I’m perplexed, Diane. So, help me out here.
Family scholars is very very far from the academic elite.
Family scholars are not the academic elite.