Thursday, January 17, 2008
The influences on our propensity to marry
Slate has published a fascinating excerpt from Tim Harford's new book, The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World
What might cause an imbalance in some of these local marriage markets? Imbalances in cities might be caused by unskilled young men rationally deciding to give up and move to the country, or stay there in the first place. But another major reason for men being absent from local marriage markets is prison. There are two million men in US prisons and just 100,000 women; and the men in prison are spread unevenly across age, race and geography. Huge numbers of young black men are in prison, and that is bound to pose a problem for the young black women they might otherwise have married. (It might also pose a problem for women of other races and in other states—but only if some women were inclined and able to hop from one marriage market to a better one. That does not seem to happen often enough to cancel out the effect of the shortage of marriageable young black men.)
In New Mexico, for example, 30 percent of young black men, aged 20-35, are in prison (or, less commonly, in a secure mental institution). That is an extreme case, but there are 32 states with more than one in ten young black men in prison, and ten states where one in six young black men are behind bars. That is a serious business for young black women.
According to economists Kerwin Kofi Charles and Ming Ching Luoh, where a large number of a particular racial group is in prison, women of the same age and race in that state do not enjoy the gains from marriage, or a stable relationship, that women in a more equitable situation do.
Charles and Luoh show that young black women facing a shortage of men try to increase their attractiveness as marriage prospects. The more men are in prison, the more likely women are to get themselves a job, and the more likely they are to go to college. College-educated people are much more likely to marry other college-educated people, so an education doesn't just make you smart, it wins you a smart husband or wife.
Improving their bargaining position in the marriage market is, of course, not the only likely reason for these decisions. Since the high incarceration rates of young black men mean young black women are less likely to marry, a college degree and a job look like a rational investment for a single girl who can't rely on a partner as a source of income. What's more, the likelihood of young black women not marrying is greatly exacerbated by another trend: it appears that young black men who are not in prison typically take advantage of their strong bargaining position by not bothering to marry at all. (bold emphasis added)
Whether you are left-wing and believe that the high levels of black incarceration are the result of racist constructs or right-wing and believe them to spring from bad personal choices, this point seems clear: If Harford is right and if single-parent households are as socially troublesome as conservatives maintain (and they almost certainly are), then African-Americans are trapped in a vicious cycle. The more men who are incarcerated, the fewer marriages there will be even among those men who are not incarcerated, and greater will be the proportion of women who do not reproduce or do so out of wedlock. Those incomplete households will produce more socially troubled children who will in turn land in the clink, and the cycle resumes. The two ways out (it seems to me) are to lower the rates of black male incarceration (which is tough to do if the crime rate remains high, unless we reduce crime by liberalizing drug laws) or expand the marriage market for black women by increasing the social acceptability of inter-marriage. What are the prospects for either? Are there other solutions I may have missed?
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Jan 17, 09:38:00 AM:
TH,
While an interesting article, I quibble with some of your phrasing.
It's entirely possible to be right wing and believe that the high levels of black imprisonment is at least partially the result of racist constructs. The most glaring (and most repeated) is the difference in punishment for the possesion of various forms of chemically identical cocaine. We could lower the rate of black incareration by equalizing (not liberalizing) the punishments between crack and powdered cocaine at the current powdered cocaine level.
However, that's a side issue.
Another solution you've missed: Import more black men. The best we can find anywhere who are willing to come to this country.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 09:52:00 AM:
That phrase also stuck in my craw. So left wing people believe that the high level of black incarceration is only due to racist constructs? I wouldn't be so quick to judge liberals the same way some judge conservatives. Some of us conservatives aren't Jesus-freak, NASCAR loving, gun toting rednecks. :)
But maybe that's not what you meant. If so, no offense.
David
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 10:30:00 AM:
Any real marrage is between one man and one woman otherwise its not legal at all
By 
Georg Felis, at
Thu Jan 17, 10:43:00 AM:
Is it Racist to assume that these young black unmarried women have no alternative except young black unmarried men? Is it Gay-Bashing to point out that the women are not marrying each other in droves? Is it Edwards-Bashing to point out that young educated black people who do not commit crimes and avoid teen pregnancy tend to rise to a higher socioeconomic pay scale than their drug-dealing counterparts? Is it Democrat-bashing to point out that most of these problems were caused by Democrat policies? Is it Demagogy for the ones who want to make a life for themselves to move somewhere else, get an education, work furiously, send their children to a school where they do not get shot at, and stop acting like (fill in stereotype here)?
I do not view myself as Right-wing. I am a centrist. It is just that the Left-Wing has slid a few miles over that-a-way. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the Democratic party, it left me.” Now if we could only get a couple candidates talking this way…
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 17, 11:38:00 AM:
I appreciate that my "left-wing" and "right-wing" characterizations were simplistic and, probably, a bit unfair. In matters such as this shorthand is always dangerous. Still, I do think that (in general) the left is inclined to believe that "society" is the cause of crime, whereas the right is inclined to believe that poor individual choices are the cause of crime. In reality, both are true to some degree, and the argument is over which cause dominates. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 11:43:00 AM:
The problem untouched by the candidates because of the gordean nature of it. At the moment, legally, in America, you can't get Married, and you can't get Divorced. There is no way to stop a wife from leaving a marriage if she is bored. There is no way to stop her from getting support if she does end the marriage. There is no way to stop her from getting child support if there are children(that's why we're worried about the state of Marriage, remember). Now that we have brought back Debtor's prison for "Deadbeat Dads", a poor choice of woman, or a woman who changes after Marriage(what are the odds?) can destroy not just her husband, but his family as well. You want men to be responsible to their families, and that means avoiding women now. What responsible man would risk the family who raised him so well, on the chance that this stranger will build a family with him? "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" is a parable for responsible people. The only way to fix this is to create legal protections for Fathers. No one is going to push for that, Men are Pigs, don't you know. The only legal efforts we have seen are attempts to give women the protection of Marriage without the bother. Palimony and Child Support from men they couldn't be bothered to marry; all the more reason to avoid women if you are a responsible man. All it takes is a moment of weakness, and your life is no longer your own.
Robert Mitchell Jr.
By Georg Felis, at
Thu Jan 17, 01:30:00 PM:
“Society” bears a bit of the burden, as we have penalized young men who take responsibility for their actions, and rewarded those who skip out with spotty enforcement of the same child welfare laws. i.e. “You must pay for the child you have created, but you have no rights as to how they are raised.” A gender-blind or even gender-moderated view of child support/custody laws would be a start. Strange that Feminists have not seriously faced-off against this area of sex-biased law. Not.
By jj mollo, at
Thu Jan 17, 04:29:00 PM:
This strikes me as yet another self-destructive aspect of the War on Drugs. All these relatively decent young men who end up in jail for the crime of doing what everyone is doing. Tell me you were different at ages 16 or 20.
The easy money is much more destructive than the drug itself. It offers a phantom step on the ladder of success which leads nowhere. Drugs do not provide a very profitable career path, and finding yourself at age 30 with no marketable skills is not much of an asset to mark on your e-harmony resume. A lot of young black women would just rather support themselves than make a permanent match with an unemployable man.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 05:01:00 PM:
Solution not mentioned - single black women don't have children and don't marry. They have careers instead. A European solution coupling declining birth rate with increased money and status for black women.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 05:24:00 PM:
A post on another site recently asked why would any man agree to marriage ? What benefits are there that outweigh the huge potential costs should the marriage go sour. Women can be easily enticed, relatively so, to part with their intimacy and company; a common reason for marriage in the past. Children are not, if they were ever, that important to men, generally speaking. The instances of men being raped and pillaged for child support and alimony after the collapse of a marriage is all too common. Despite sorry tales to the contrary, women whom could easily fend for themselves instead become addicted to after divorce monetary support. The abuse inflicted on fathers over visitation rights and child support can certainly be seen to drive off any sane man from marriage. All of that being said, tonight, I will gladly return home to the company and comfort of my wife and son. Of course there is always this as well" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323565,00.html "
By Andrewdb, at
Thu Jan 17, 06:44:00 PM:
Warning: not being married at the time the children are born (or created0 does not protect the father from child support obligations.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 08:16:00 PM:
The third alternative is simply to mandate societally wide that young black men eschew criminality in favor of "white" attitudes towards education, deferred gratitude, monogamous relationships, etc.
However, the Slate article does not cover is that women have vastly different preferences. If women can and do control their fertility, and can and do have their own income, why do they need a man? Why make compromises selecting for faithfulness, loyalty, dependability, etc?
When you can have the baddest bad boy thug gangsta around?
Watch any Rap video -- even the hardest bad boy rappers know that women can and will move on over to the even badder bad boy. A woman with three kids by three different fathers does not inspire confidence. And by and large this is the rule not exception within poor urban Black neighborhoods.
This is also a current within lower income whites. It's not just Britney and so on. Fox News specializes in beautiful young women who go off with their murderer because he's the baddest bad boy and they overestimate their ability to get out of bad situations. The triumph of feminism.
Women unconstrained, in control of their fertility and with independent incomes will generally choose unless highly educated, the baddest bad boy around. Those with education end up chasing the highest status guy around (Sex and the City, Mr. Big).
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 09:04:00 PM:
"All these relatively decent young men who end up in jail for the crime of doing what everyone is doing. Tell me you were different at ages 16 or 20."
Relatively decent? There's a huge difference between lighting up a joint a few times, and being actively involved in the drug trade. I and my friends experimented with drugs when we were kids, but we never murdered anyone. Can't say the same for our local 'source.'
We were relatively decent. But the relatively decent dealers quickly lose to the ruthless ones.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 09:53:00 PM:
W edward lunny
Children are not, if they were ever, that important to men, generally speaking.
Unfortunately, you are on the money, judging by the high illegitimacy rate, in which men love 'em and leave 'em, with children as an afterthought.
The instances of men being raped and pillaged for child support and alimony after the collapse of a marriage is all too common.
Certainly there are cases of men being taken to the cleaners in divorce cases.However, judging by the high illegitimacy rate, which has risen for whites also in the last 40 years, there are proportionally more men who shirk their paternal responsibilities than men who are taken to the cleaners in divorce cases.
By , at
Fri Jan 18, 08:45:00 AM:
I think the obvious thing is that black children should in large measure be turned over to non-black families to be raised. How else is 70% illegitimacy/12% incarceration rate going to resolve itself?
It isn't. So, let's break the chain. Besides, race doesn't matter, right? So - here's your answer. Suck it up.
By , at
Fri Jan 18, 08:48:00 AM:
Yeah and don't be a flaming idiot: people go to jail because they are assholes who break the law - save this socialist bullshit for another site. Have you ever been to a muni court and watched and listened for a few hours? These people are not "relatively decent," they're relatively scum, genius.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 18, 08:49:00 AM:
Anonymous 8:45 -
I hope you have not thought too deeply about your proposal. It makes no sense, and even if your proposal "solved" the problem on the table the solution would be worse than the problem itself.
By , at
Fri Jan 18, 08:15:00 PM:
Boludo Tejano, your comment is um, lacking in depth. One Bill Clinton can have hundreds of children. Children are important to most men. But Bill got there first. Even if a single mother has her act together, I would avoid her like the plague, because I am not getting married to Bill, secondhand. Given the control women have in America over reproduction, it would seem the rates show how little legitimacy means to women.
As to you second point, again, one dirtbag can nail many willing women. You also fail to consider how many men are not allowed to live up to their paternal responsibilities, because his "wife" has kicked him out of the home. Being a father is more cash once a month.
Robert Mitchell Jr.
