The article makes a provocative point.So then we must ask, why deny
same sex couples these economic benefits of marriage?
To answer the question posed in the headline:Because nobody in the
history or mankind has ever said "I'm really sorry I rushed into
college so soon. Neither of us were ready for that kind of commitment. If I had
it do over again, I would've gotten married right out of high school and
starting crankin' out kids."That said, I will enourage my
kids to get married whenever they really feel it is time, while emphasizing that
there IS NO "CORRECT" AGE at which to marry. I don't think
it's possible to dispute that in LDS culture the pressure to get married
mounts as you move towards 30 . . or even 25. It may work out, it may not, but
"looking" for a spouse because, well, it's time, is a really,
really bad idea.
There are all kinds of studies that conclude that marriage is a much more
healthy and beneficial state than non marriage for both men and women. Finances
are just one example. This is based on both scientific research and thousands
of years of experience. Only messed up social agendas and propoganda in this
day and age lead some to believe otherwise.
This article and talk of the so-called "marriage premium" seems to have
the causal relationship backwards. It talks as if marriage (like college) is a
causal determinant of success at work. It talks as if marriage is something
government ought to encourage in order to improve productivity. The
fact is, women tend to marry men who are good providers (or potentially so).
When choosing a marriage partner, women sniff-out many of the same things an
employer looks for--hard worker, ambitious, stable, etc. ...And, likewise, men
who are hard working ambitious, and stable, also tend to want to start families
and get married. That's 80% of the so-called marriage premium right there.
And that's not a direct causal relationship.That said,
there's some truth that, once married with children, such men do go on to
earn slightly more at work than their unmarried counterparts. But in contrast to
this article's first paragraph, this effect is nowhere near the effect of
going to college. Hence, our culture encourages college.See Loh
(1996), "Productivity differences and the marriage wage premium for white
males" in Journal of Human Resources for a nice summary.
[ "the marriage premium (for men) and marriage penalty (for women) persists
after controlling for age, education, race, and a long list of other confounding
variables."]So it seems like marriage may be beneficial for men,
but not for women, but college is beneficial for everybody. Seems a good enough
reason to encourage college, but not marriage.But this isn't
just earning power, from what I've read married men live long than
unmarried, but unmarried women live longer than married.
Quite simply, the reason all these "enlightened" economists encourage
college but not marriage is because of a shift in priorities in our society. It
used to be that having a strong family was the priority, and money was one thing
you needed to support that, and once you had enough money to make your family
work there was no need to make more money. And you know what? People had
little but they were happy.Now we are about making money first so we
can be made happy by more stuff. Family just gets in the way of making money
because they cost more money than they produce. So people reject family so they
can accumulate money/stuff...the problem is when they are young they work so
many hours (in order to make more money) that they can't ever enjoy their
stuff. By the time they retire so they can enjoy their stuff, they realize that
stuff doesn't make them happy. So now people have everything but they are
unhappy. Then they write regret-filled books about how they wasted their lives.
These article are just getting embarrassing for the Dnews. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with putting an education before marriage from the age of 18 to 25
or so. Humans are much better off being educated, that cannot be debated. Too
many kids marry young and forgo an education only to have the rest of their
lives unsettled due to lack of opportunity that education would have given them.
Use a little objectivity in these articles.
None of the academic sources in the article have apparent LDS church
affiliation. And yes, the LDS church advocates marriage, but they didn't
invent it. A recent list of marriage-friendly universities includes West Point
ranked in first place, Brigham Young University at second, Harvard University at
fourth and Yale at eight. Hutterite (Hutterites do not marry.) must think the
LDS church has infiltrated all of the above universities.
UtahBlueDevil: But you could say the same thing about college. Is it the stuff
you actually learn in college that brings higher wages going forward, or is it
just that the kind of person who goes to college and studies hard enough to
graduate is the same kind of person who will be successful in other
endeavors?The relationship between marriage and success may be
causal or just correlated, but so is the relationship between college and
success.The author's point is about why college is encouraged
and supported by the government and by the 'elite' while marriage is
completely ignored as a possible success factor. Bias against traditional values
seems to be the answer.
Because college is a good precursor to marriage, and marriage is just a drum the
DN is banging for the church.
Is it marriage causes a man to be able to earn more money...... or is it that
the type of a man that can commit to marriage is also of the same persona that
will commit to other tasks and endeavors.So ofter I think we look at
correlations like this, searching for causal factors, in reverse. Ability to
commit and stay focused on task - marriage or a job - is a leading indicator of
success. Its not to say innovators can't or are not successful... they
indeed are. And many of the super successful are indeed very poor with
commitment to marriage.But, looking at "normal"
distributions...... commitment and lack of commitment fit very nicely with