The Atlantic's Derek Thompson looks at income inequality.
[L]ook closer at where all the money's come from in the last few decades. It's not the husband. It's coming from the wife.

Marriage used to be a pairing of opposites: Men would work for pay and women would work at home. But in the second half of the 20th century, women flooded the labor force, raising their participation rate from 32 percent, in 1950, to nearly 60 percent in the last decade. As women closed the education gap, the very nature of marriage has changed. It has slowly become an arrangement pairing similarly rich and educated people. Ambitious workaholics used to seek partners who were happy to take care of the house. Today, they're more likely to seek another ambitious workaholic.

Married workaholics both want to work—and, often, they do. Married women have nearly tripled their average workweek since the 1950s, absolutely crushing the working-hour growth of every other demographic.
What comes next should not surprise anybody.
In America today, a healthy, growing family income is a two-person job.

Just look what happens otherwise. The typical family with a stay-at-home wife/mom has seen incomes grow only 1 percent, after inflation, since 1980. But dual-earner households have seen a 29 percent raise, according to 2012 Census data.
The conclusion, though, is too strong.
The marriage inequality crisis creates a virtuous cycle at the top and a vicious one at the bottom. It pushes educated and non-educated Americans into entirely different worlds.
There is no social science consensus on the rising bastardy rate among the poor and less-educated.  Wealthy people are more likely to defer gratification (that ambitious workaholic may not be your high school locker partner or a next door neighbor).  There's no reason the common schools can't attempt to teach that skill.

No comments: