« California's Dreaming | Main | Income Inequality and Consumption »

January 25, 2007

Love and Marriage...

See? Even when it's about love, it's really about class:

The emerging gulf is instead one of class — what demographers, sociologists and those who study the often depressing statistics about the wedded state call a “marriage gap” between the well-off and the less so.

Statistics show that college educated women are more likely to marry than non-college educated women — although they marry, on average, two years later...Now, marriage has become more one of equals; when more highly educated men marry, it tends to be more highly educated women...Women with more education also are becoming less likely to divorce, or inclined to divorce, than those with less education. They are even less likely to be widowed all in all, less likely to end up alone.[...]

The difference extends across race lines: black women are significantly less likely to marry than white women, but among blacks, women with a college education are more likely to marry than those who do not.

Among women ages 25-34, 59 percent of college graduates are married, compared with 51 percent of non-college graduates, according to an analysis of the Census Bureau’s June 2006 Current Population Survey by Steven P. Martin, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. The same is true at older age groups: the difference is 75 percent to 62 percent for those ages 35-44, and 50 percent to 41 percent among those 65 and older.

The difference is smaller between men and women. According to the census, 55 percent of men are married, down from 69.3 percent in 1960, and 51.5 percent of women are, down from 65.9 percent in 1960.

This may seem naive, and I'm sure there's an obvious statistical explanation for it, but how are fewer women than men married? Presumably, they're mostly married to each other, no?

Meanwhile, these marriage trends will be a powerful magnifier of economic inequality, as I've explained in more detail here.

Update: I ask and, internets, you answer. There are more women than men, because men die younger, so even though a roughly equal number are married, married women make up a smaller percentage of the female population than do men. Thanks to all you know-it-alls who e-mailed, IM'd, or commented.

January 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

There's more women than men.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 25, 2007 10:10:36 AM

Men die younger

Posted by: Brad DeLong | Jan 25, 2007 10:11:57 AM

A likely story, Brad. Clearly, this survey was taken in San Francisco or something!

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Jan 25, 2007 11:27:03 AM

Men die younger

'Cause men have to put up with all the nagging from women! Am I right? Am I right? C'mon guys, am I right?

Yuk yuk yuk!

I need a nap.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 25, 2007 11:45:45 AM

It used to be you heard a lot of talk from the GOP about "the marriage penalty", which they at some point claimed they fixed. And yet now it seems that marriage is more something for the upper classes and hence must be more expensive? Why do I have the suspicion that this "fixing" the marriage penalty, like so much else in GOP-speak, was somehow a sleight of hand that did the opposite of what the rhetoric claimed it was about?

Posted by: DAS | Jan 25, 2007 1:27:56 PM

Stephen's comment starts the ball rolling. More females are born than males and male mortality is higher. Humans would have evolved compensating for losses of females to childbirth. I suspect men are more prone to remarry as well.

Posted by: opit | Jan 25, 2007 2:38:58 PM

of course men must re-marry! Someone has to do the cooking , washing, house cleaning, have kids, take kids everywhere, etc, etc :)

Posted by: ETnguy | Jan 25, 2007 3:00:58 PM

Ezra's assumption is a symptom of "think-lite" which is prevelant when speaking about social issues. To accomplish this, you simply assume that all other variables are equal and then argue your case. Another really good example of this is the race discussion. Are all other vairables really equal when looking at the income levels by race? How 'bout incarceration?

Of course not!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 25, 2007 3:48:59 PM

Funny how it almost always comes back to race for Fred, our resident bigot.

Posted by: Seitz | Jan 25, 2007 7:11:11 PM

Funny how it almost always comes back to race for Fred, our resident bigot.

?

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 25, 2007 8:41:00 PM

Sanpete,

Another really good example of this is the race discussion. Are all other vairables really equal when looking at the income levels by race?

This may or may not prove that Fred is a bigot. However, it should be plain that when a post or thread brings up race, Fred brings up homosexuals. When it is about other distinctions, such as educational level like the current post, Fred tends to bring up race.

Race was mentioned in the blockquote, but only to point out that it seems to not be a factor in the referenced data. Since Fred brought up the racial differences when criticizing a post that explicitly showed an area where racial differences don't matter, it does make one wonder just what he's getting at.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 25, 2007 10:27:16 PM

I don't know why Fred brought up this "think-lite" thing here. The example might be a good one to illustrate that point, and might actually help explain the lower rate of marriage among black women, but Fred doesn't explain why Ezra or the report should be criticized as making that kind of error.

My question mark was about Seitz's remark, of course. I understand his or her point, I guess, but with a false premise and an implicit conclusion that wouldn't follow anyway, I just don't think it's warranted.

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 25, 2007 10:57:54 PM

Well, Sanpete, just to run down the rabbit trail a little farther, Seitz seemed to have two premises: that Fred always brings up race, and that he is a bigot. I'm not vouching for #2, and the "always" qualifier makes proving the case a bit hard for #1, but there is a case to be made that Fred, very often, tries to turn comment threads toward either race or homosexuality.

I imagine that it's clear why, and it has little to do with his attitudes toward any particular group, even if he does get into specifics about that.

Posted by: Stephen | Jan 26, 2007 12:02:50 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: JUDY | Sep 26, 2007 4:23:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.