Married couples no longer are a majority here.
Revealing analyses by the Census Bureau, the Brookings Institution, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and by Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, show that Americans have chosen increasingly non-traditional living arrangements in the last decade, and particularly when those patterns are contrasted with the dominant ones from the iconic 1950s.
Here are some of the new findings.
. Married couples are now fewer than half of all U.S. households, and this for the first time. They comprise just 48% of American households. (In 1950, 78% were headed by married couples.)
. Only 20% of American households are, now, what has in the past been seen as traditional, that is, families of married couples with children. (In 1950, 43% were.)
. Women with college degrees are more likely to marry now than women with high school diplomas only. This is a reversal of the traditional pattern.
. Men and women with college degrees are now much less likely to marry those without them than ever before.
. Degreed Americans marry later than ever and they tend to remain married.
. Women with a high school diploma only won't likely, now, marry their children's fathers.
. Because Americans are living longer than before, "an increasing number of households now include a number of elderly singles." (Sabrina Tavernese in the 'New York Times'.)
. There are 37 states where "married couples make up fewer than 50% of all households." This may, some researchers say, have increasing implications for how stable children's lives are in future.
Perhaps the most stunning change over the past decade has been the "jump in households headed by women without husbands--up 18%." And--there has been a one-decade increase of 16% in households whose occupants are not, under any traditional definition, a family at all.
This is a challenging set of findings. You will decide whether it's alarming, welcome, or of little consequence. What we cannot do is ignore its implications for tax, education, family-services, and health care/insurance policy, and what it now means, and what, in future it will mean, to be a family.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Max Rivlin-Nadler
Linda Seccaspina
nerd cred
SagCap
jmac1949
tg within
Salon.com
Comments
Compared to other countries, we don't have the built in maternity/paternity leave, daycare options, healthcare, etc. that would support families, and many workplaces have not kept up with the times, in taking families into consideration. While most parents are now in the workforce, children still need care and nurturing pretty much 24/7. I think parents need more time to parent, but many are just struggling to stay afloat financially.
I don't think the institution of marriage is obsolete--whether opposite sex or same sex--I think it gives a lot of economic and social stability to the children. A family can be a big safety net, especially when there are fewer government safety nets.
It seems it would make economic sense for our government and private sector to think more long-term for the benefit of employee health and overall family health...our economy is paying a huge price because families and children are not getting the care and resources they need.
The increasing number of elderly singles households is worrisome. I wonder about the loneliness of it.
Interesting stuff and you've laid it out well.
I, too, recall. And I doubt anyone after, say '63, saw those TV offerings as reflective of anything beyond an ideaslised reality.
I really appreciate your stopping by!
There is no family ratio around here.
Rated with hugs
Great article Jon!
Rated
I'd like to see how income comes into play. Not part of the story?
It seems as important as any of the other factors.
I live in a state that does not "create" common law marriages, but recognizes such marriages from other states if the appropriate documentation is provided. I have not yet seen any of those documents. In health care, your next of kin will make decisions if you cannot and there are no documents (POA, Heath Care Agent) to say otherwise. That person with whom you may have lived for 20 years has no legal standing (regardless of gender or sexual orientation). The MDs and RNs may be searching out a sibling you have not seen or heard from in decades for guidance. If you pissed them off years ago, it may not be pretty....but legal.
If you are just living with someone, be sure both names are on some document (bank accounts, deeds, etc), because if you are laid up in a hospital bed....you may have your power turned off, or your car repossessed or lose your house.
I have been married 32 years, I am lucky. We have gotten through some tough times but we remain committed to each other. If you decide that marriage is not for you, you certainly may. However, think of the consequences beyond yourself. Think of your children and their emotional well being. Think of yourself getting in a wreck and when decisions have to be made.......you will not be making them.
Oh and there is that other dirty little truth. If you die without funds to bury or cremate your body, healthcare workers will talk with family or friends who cannot or will not take responsibility either.
The phrase " I know she is my Mama, but I am not going to take care of this, you have her, it is your problem"...is not made up. So families are not always the answer either.
Damn, this is sad, I think I will quit now.
1. Feminism became a major mainstream movement
2. Real median incomes stopped rising but expenses didn't
The next step in the aftermath of these two things was a large number of women entering the workforce as a lot of families now had two wage-earners. At the time, people talked a lot about equality and the growing ability of women to chose careers other than the previous stereotypical paths but they didn't talk about why else the population of housewives (as an occupational description) was decreasing: financial necessity. Part of what was going on was that women going to work for financial reasons now wanted real options when they did; no one was looking at why they were going back to work in the first place.
Of course taking a full time parent out of the home with the kids was going to make a difference in how successfully families functioned. Logistically, there's no way around that.
These financial difficulties have gotten worse over time. Some of the phenomena you're reporting are a result of money driving social convention.
OK, I really hate it when people's comments go on and on like this and I apologize......so I will now shut up. My apologies if I have offended any of you.
Also, in the 50's, she wouldn't have had and kept that baby. The baby would have been placed for adoption or within family as "aunt Judy's baby." So there would have been no measurable statistic for marrying the father of your baby because that baby didn't count as "yours."
♥R
Another thing to consider is that marrying someone who you don't like or don't trust can have serious and long-lasting legal ramifications. While I'm no fan of intentional single parenthood, it is probably a better option than binding yourself legally to someone who can cause you serious mental and financial harm.
Thanks for the post, Jonathan!