Solid analysis on the cornerstone vs capstone distinction. The fecundability data from the UT Austin study is pretty stark, peak fertility in early 20s and the continuous decline through 20s/30s explains why Med Europe's average marriage age of 35 correlates with some of the lowest birthrates globally. I'veseen similar patterns where timing matters way more than people realize,especialy when couples want 3+ kids.
As a child, one of three, first born of parents who married in 1940, at the end of the depression era, when it was common for women to have all their teeth extracted and replaced by teeth that would never rot so that their wedding photo would look great, the expense met by their parents as a wedding gift, I was acutely aware that my parents did not own their own home, a situation that persisted for 25 years, and yet the price of houses at that time was 2.5 times annual earnings. Rent was low. So the financial pressure was a great deal less in those times and education to tertiary level was free. Children were more affordable. Fast forward to today when a house costs ten times the median income. Getting married, having children is problematic. When I started work I couldn't wait to build a house, and we moved into that house a a day after we were married. It's been a marriage with ups and downs as all marriages are, but ending it has never been a viable choice. Policy wise, if one wants an increase in the birth rate have a close look at all those circumstances that govern whether people can put a roof over their heads or not, and the circumstances associated with where that house is located, whether there is green space surrounding the home or not and whether kids will be able to find cohorts nearby, without a trip in a car.
What is the economic system responsible for? Do those in charge have the desire to see prosperity for all, or just a few.
All these benefits of marriage are driven by selection effects, it's like dividing the pop by "baccalaureate or not."
In fact, if you're looking at recent vintages, it basically IS doing that. If you stratify by male income, even without cutting by marriage vintage, women opt out of marriage at 62%+ rates at the median and below, and opt in at the top quintile in 80-90% rates. Needless to say, baccalaureate or not stratifies pretty hard by the same cuts, and this only goes up if you cut by more recent marriage vintage.
But wait, what about the "male marriage premium," don't married guys work hard and earn more because of their spouse / children?
Nope! All selection effects - women CHOOSE men who are already on a trajectory of earning more, who then go on to earn more. They also divorce men on a trajectory of earning less, who go on to earn less, so the split in the population is reinforced both ways.
And it's similar for happiness and everything else - happier, less disagreeable people are more likely to match up, and that matching inherently splits the population into more and less happy by marriage, it's a collider.
So yeah, trying to sell marriage to more people probably genuinely does bump fertility a little, but I think you're basically selling a false bill of goods here. The facts do not support those benefits for the great bulk of the population, it's all driven by selection effects.
And there ARE downsides to marriage! It's why divorces spiked in the vintages after no fault divorce in the sixties! Marriage is inherently a package deal of "increasing friction and difficulty of breaking up in return for stronger commitment / pair bonds."
But that implies that trying to sell a bunch of non-selected people on marriage might actually be net negative for them. If you're NOT getting any of the positive stuff from marriage, and ARE more permanently stuck with a serial cheater or abuser or just a general ne'er do well, then you're probably worse off than if you didn't have kids with them and could have broken up more easily.
Cremieux had a more comprehensive post on the income selection effect where he controls and cuts it a few different ways, it's a really strong effect:
It is always interesting to see the Overton Window poking its head into an otherwise sane article:
>>Marriage isn’t for everyone, and tons of wonderful families exist without it.
Solid analysis on the cornerstone vs capstone distinction. The fecundability data from the UT Austin study is pretty stark, peak fertility in early 20s and the continuous decline through 20s/30s explains why Med Europe's average marriage age of 35 correlates with some of the lowest birthrates globally. I'veseen similar patterns where timing matters way more than people realize,especialy when couples want 3+ kids.
As a child, one of three, first born of parents who married in 1940, at the end of the depression era, when it was common for women to have all their teeth extracted and replaced by teeth that would never rot so that their wedding photo would look great, the expense met by their parents as a wedding gift, I was acutely aware that my parents did not own their own home, a situation that persisted for 25 years, and yet the price of houses at that time was 2.5 times annual earnings. Rent was low. So the financial pressure was a great deal less in those times and education to tertiary level was free. Children were more affordable. Fast forward to today when a house costs ten times the median income. Getting married, having children is problematic. When I started work I couldn't wait to build a house, and we moved into that house a a day after we were married. It's been a marriage with ups and downs as all marriages are, but ending it has never been a viable choice. Policy wise, if one wants an increase in the birth rate have a close look at all those circumstances that govern whether people can put a roof over their heads or not, and the circumstances associated with where that house is located, whether there is green space surrounding the home or not and whether kids will be able to find cohorts nearby, without a trip in a car.
What is the economic system responsible for? Do those in charge have the desire to see prosperity for all, or just a few.
Interesting post, love the charts, one quibble.
All these benefits of marriage are driven by selection effects, it's like dividing the pop by "baccalaureate or not."
In fact, if you're looking at recent vintages, it basically IS doing that. If you stratify by male income, even without cutting by marriage vintage, women opt out of marriage at 62%+ rates at the median and below, and opt in at the top quintile in 80-90% rates. Needless to say, baccalaureate or not stratifies pretty hard by the same cuts, and this only goes up if you cut by more recent marriage vintage.
https://imgur.com/a/ZEYTIeG
But wait, what about the "male marriage premium," don't married guys work hard and earn more because of their spouse / children?
Nope! All selection effects - women CHOOSE men who are already on a trajectory of earning more, who then go on to earn more. They also divorce men on a trajectory of earning less, who go on to earn less, so the split in the population is reinforced both ways.
https://imgur.com/a/Tf8zlRK
And it's similar for happiness and everything else - happier, less disagreeable people are more likely to match up, and that matching inherently splits the population into more and less happy by marriage, it's a collider.
So yeah, trying to sell marriage to more people probably genuinely does bump fertility a little, but I think you're basically selling a false bill of goods here. The facts do not support those benefits for the great bulk of the population, it's all driven by selection effects.
And there ARE downsides to marriage! It's why divorces spiked in the vintages after no fault divorce in the sixties! Marriage is inherently a package deal of "increasing friction and difficulty of breaking up in return for stronger commitment / pair bonds."
But that implies that trying to sell a bunch of non-selected people on marriage might actually be net negative for them. If you're NOT getting any of the positive stuff from marriage, and ARE more permanently stuck with a serial cheater or abuser or just a general ne'er do well, then you're probably worse off than if you didn't have kids with them and could have broken up more easily.
Cremieux had a more comprehensive post on the income selection effect where he controls and cuts it a few different ways, it's a really strong effect:
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/are-all-the-good-men-married