Idea of the Day: Marriage Isn’t the Answer to the Poverty Problem
This month the U.S. Census Bureau released new data on poverty in America—the verdict being that the numbers reflecting 15 percent of Americans living in poverty, while still unacceptably high, have stabilized after successive years of recession-related increases. Unfortunately, the release of the new numbers hasn’t been accompanied with a renewed and expansive national discussion about constructive ways of making serious progress in solving the nation’s poverty problem. Some conservatives (like those with the Heritage Foundation) continue to offer up overly simplistic solutions—mainly that more women need to get married. But putting the spotlight on marriage as a silver-bullet solution to poverty takes us in the wrong direction by placing the focus on a symptom rather than the larger disease of economic insecurity (or a lack of good jobs and wages).
There are significant reasons for focusing on jobs versus marriage in trying to solve poverty (even as marriage concerns are given the proper respect they deserve). Here are several approaches to take in addressing the problem of poverty:
- Pursue common-sense options. What is more reasonable: saying to a single mother, “We have created a job opportunity that is stable and pays well”—a job that allows her to provide for herself and her family; or saying to that same single mother, “You should just get married,” and then wait for her to find a partner (if she doesn’t already have one), hope he proposes, and hope the groom is not also having problems finding a stable, well-paying job? Not only is the first option a more direct route to the goal of lifting this single mother and her family out of poverty, but it also involves less hoping and more doing.
- Recognize that full-time, year-round work matters. Conservative marriage proponents accurately point out that single-mother families have higher poverty than married-couple families. Yet there is another important differential: The single-mother poverty rate of 40.9 percent dramatically drops to 13.4 percent for those single-mother families where the mother has full-time, year-round employment, suggesting the tremendous value of stable work for single mothers. In fact, this did help stabilize this year’s poverty numbers. Although real earnings dropped compared to last year, 2.2 million people (including 206,000 single mothers) moved into full-time, year-round work. Access to work supports such as stable and secure child care help women reach this goal of full-time, year-round employment.
- Acknowledge that men have their own challenges. Some advocating the marriage solution fail to acknowledge the challenges facing low-income men that limit their ability to provide for a family or be viewed as desirable marriage partners. Men with limited education have experienced declining employment rates and wages over the last couple decades. For the subset of single mothers already attached to a partner, the economic benefits of marriage may not be overwhelmingly clear. According to 2011 Census data on families with children, 27 percent of male live-in partners were not working, although most were looking for work. A significant number, 39 percent, earned less than $15,000 a year. These daunting numbers not only reflect the challenges tied to the recession and the ongoing period of recovery but they also point to the employment challenges of men with limited education. Most men who are live-in partners, 67 percent, have a high school diploma or less and typically have higher rates of unemployment than men who choose to marry.
For more on this topic, please see:
- Improving the Poverty Numbers Through Wedded Bliss? by Joy Moses
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, poverty, Half in Ten Education Fund)
202.741.6285 or email@example.com
Print: Anne Shoup (foreign policy and national security, energy, LGBT issues, health care, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7146 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Crystal Patterson (immigration)
202.478.6350 or email@example.com
Print: Madeline Meth (women's issues, Legal Progress, higher education)
202.741.6277 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Tanya Arditi
202.741.6258 or email@example.com
TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or email@example.com