There was a recent article in Fortune titled, "Gen Z has a different attitude about one-night-stands than Millennials did 20 years ago. Their idea of marriage has changed too," by Emma Burleigh. It shows Gen Z seems much more open to marriage than millennials were. I don't know how that trend distributes across racial demographics, but it seems like something worth investigating.
There's an old saying, "It's like putting lipstick on a pig." It means that you can dress up the pig all you want, but it's still a pig.
Several generations ago, progressives convinced themselves that the Nanny State was the ultimate solution to everything. The more of it we had, the better it would get. The Nanny State has conditioned us to believe that, whatever our problems are, we should turn to the Nanny State to solve them.
This post is just a deeper shade of lipstick. Progressivism is still a pig. You can dress it up, add cosmetics, whatever you want. It's still a pig.
America was always called the land of opportunity. It was never called the land of guaranteed outcomes. Instead of having 'programs' that perpetuate the problem, we need to reeducate every American into recognizing that their life is their responsibility. That will take a whole new kind of teacher. Lipstick alone will change nothing.
Was not an effort to undermine your comments at all. The data at the Center for American Progress, specifically as to ethnicity, differs markedly from the Census Bureau numbers used to introduce your perspective. This is a big issue regardless. [Visual Capitalist had a better graphic, which was based on the CAP data. Went with the data and deeper reporting than the eye candy.]
No worries. I didn't take your comment that way. I just wanted to make sure that readers understood that the Visual Capitalist/CAP data was accurate, but didn't paint the full picture.
Why don't you emphasis the effective concepts of deterrence, hardship, responsibility and accountability? Leave morality and psychometrics out of the considerations. Concentrate public policy on forcing 'dunderheads' to think twice. Stop enticing sensible behaviour, concentrate on consequences. The WOKE would give the farm away rather than do the work to plant and harvest a crop. Empathise is okay, to sympathise is NOT okay.
Society has been wrestling with how to approach this for a while. We may not know exactly what to do, but neither scorn or stigma seem to work. Vice President Quayle called out the "Murphy Brown" show for promoting single-parenting 30 years ago. Even Brookings eventually acknowledged that Quayle was right, but the public didn't back him:
The horse had left the barn by the time Quayle took up the argument. About a quarter of America's households with children under the age of 18 were led by single parents in 1990. Congress had created "National Single Parent Day" in 1984:
[H.J. Res 2001 Designating March 21, 1984, as "National Single Parent Day".
Whereas there are fourteen million single parents in the United States, the number doubling in the last ten years;
Whereas 20 per centum of all our Nation's children are now living in single parent families, and an estimated 50 per centum of this Nation's children will live with a single parent before the age of eighteen;
Whereas in the past, single parent families have not always been an accepted part of society;
Whereas single parents have struggled courageously to raise their children to a healthy maturity, with the full sense of being loved and accepted as persons, and with the same prospects for adult-hood as children who mature with their two parents together; and
Whereas it is time to recognize the courage and dedication of these parents who work to maintain strong family units and to be responsible members of American society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 21, 1984, is designated "National Single Parent Day". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Approved March 21, 1984.
Given where we are today, let's focus on developing policy ideas for strengthening families and family structures that the public might support. That includes eliminating the marriage penalties that Conn Carroll talked about during today's TGS episode, creating more stackable certificate programs that would give men better career prospects and make them more attractive marriage partners to the mothers of their children, and developing voluntary programs for improving the parenting and coping skills for single mothers. I mentioned some other ideas in my post that are worth considering as well.
There's also a conversation to be had about the importance of role models who could talk up the value of marriage and its benefits for children.
To make a long story short, we'll have to try several approaches and stay the course if we want to reduce the percentage of America's households with children that are led by single parents.
Thanks for your comment. I'm a big fan of Visual Capitalist.
What they reported is the percentage of children, by race, living with single mothers.
The numbers I shared are the percentages of total single-parent households by race and the percentages of children living in single-parent households by race.
The Visual Capitalist data shows that black children are more likely to live with single mothers than their peers. The data I shared shows that the total number of children living with single parents is diverse. Here are the percentages - 33% white, 32% Hispanic, 24% black, and 11% other. I quoted 2022 data from Kids Count, which used Census Bureau data. You get slightly different figures if you look at total single-parent household as of 2023, by race, from the Census Bureau. Here's my best guess of the percentages, by race - 37.6% white, 28.3% black, 25.1% Hispanic, and 9% other.
"Single parent" is a misleading statistic. Widows with children do quite well because they have a two-family support system including grandfathers and uncles. The widowed mothers have to work harder than they did before their husbands died, but their effort forces them to marshal their resources, which are admittedly greater than an unmarried or divorced mother.
I’m encouraged that we’re having this conversation: IMO it’s exactly the problem (dramatic increases in family breakdown/ fatherlessness among working class Americans) that needs to be addressed to encourage economic and social mobility, and to reduce a whole host of dangerous pathologies that currently plague our communities (crime, homelessness, alcohol/ substance abuse, mental health crisis, gang violence, etc).
For me, there’s absolutely a positive role for government to play in encouraging family formation. But first: government must STOP doing HARM to working class families by incentivizing behaviors that we know lead to wrenching poverty: means-tested programs with income limits that penalize gainful employment and/or 2-income families, generous benefits (at least the illusion thereof!) for children born out of wedlock, income limitations for public housing and Section 8 programs, etc.
Pat Moynihan was exactly right when he wrote “The Case of the Negro Family” in 1964, warning of a dangerous spike in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for Black Americans that threatened to undermine the “War on Poverty” public assistance programs that were about to be rolled out by the LBJ administration. His caution was disparaged as “blaming the victim” at the time and ignored, but just a few years after that the 23% rate he had been concerned with had more than doubled; now it has TRIPLED (roughly 7 out of 10 Black children in the US are born into a single parent household today 😳). At the same time, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for White Americans has risen from 6% to 30%: easily surpassing the figure for Black Americans that had inspired Moynihan’s concern six decades ago.
Until we figure out how to provide a social safety net for Americans that doesn’t trap our neighbors in generational cycles of poverty, we will continue to reap a bitter harvest of broken families, fatherlessness, and the whole witches’ brew of brokenness and despair. To do that, we must figure out how to encourage twin pillars of gainful employment and family formation for all Americans, rather that penalizing both as we do currently. I remain hopeful… 🙏
As a child of divorced parents, after they split up, the significant change in our economic situation was due to the cost of housing.
We moved from our lovely home to two one bedroom apartments (one for mom, one for dad). I lived with my mom, a teacher, and shared a bedroom with her.
Fortunately we were able to continue to live in our 'nice' neighborhood, because there were significant apartment developments and I could continue to access the same quality schools and maintain friendships and social ties to my many friends with married parents (IF, per the hypothesis, it's important to be exposed to conventional family structures).
So, how about we build some actual affordable housing? How about we give the unskilled men (and women) the skills to build and maintain residences AND zone neighborhoods so that they aren't so single family residence dominated ??? And, as far as I can tell, the only way to do this is with non profit real estate / housing development companies large and small. The profit motive encourages cutting corners, huge salaries for CEOs, and gives no incentives to include training programs.
I think the "Again" in MAGA refers to the post war time when there was affordable housing ... that one working parent could afford (paying an average of ~25% of their income). It's luxury real estate developers like someone who shall remain unnamed who don't exactly help the situation (especially when they build housing and exclude black folks ... and, of course, now that ability to sue for housing discrimination is being removed).
Yes, there are many examples of failed public housing ... a la the infamous Pruitt Igoe ... BUT maybe we could LEARN from past failures and any past successes??
I haven't done personal research ... BUT this seems to be an example:
"We Should Look to Vienna for Answers to Our Housing Crisis
Vienna’s social housing triumphs show that when governments invest in housing as a human right, they can combat homelessness and inequality. It is an inspiration for what cities can accomplish if they elevate human needs over the pursuit of private profits."
Why can't we ever look to successful models to duplicate?
And I love the idea of social service help / assistance AND as much support in schools as possible. I really think we need to look to Finland and Japan as models for quality education (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/opinion/japan-education-childhood.html?) and I am all for promotion of COOPERATION and CIVID responsiblity in schools. Including in higher education. I think, e.g. the elite schools like Harvard and Stanford are so focused on cultivating greed, thtey need a BIG reset.
You make a good point about affordable housing, but the solution isn't obvious. I saw a stat this morning that said the median age of a home buyer in America last year was 56:
That's up from 45 in 2021 and 31 in 1981. The analysis illustrated the affordability issue and used data from National Association of Realtors (NAR) reports:
The latest report showed that the percentage of first time home buyers was 24% last year, down from 32% the year before and the lowest percentage since 1981. By contrast, 26% of home buyers paid cash for their homes last year, an all-time high.
Rental affordability is deteriorating as well, according to this analysis from Harvard that was released in December:
I bought my first house in 1988 for ~$90K. The last time it sold was in 2021 for $1,240K. That is absurd. And I take no consolation in the appreciation given that it makes it clear how challenging it is for young people now, including my children. (To be clear, this is a 1000 square foot home in a borderline sketchy neighborhood.)
Again, it would be nice to investigate other successful models ... e.g. this one:
which I wouldn't expect billionaire real estate tycoons who want to turn Gaza into a resort to advocate for or even comprehend.
"Vienna’s social housing is an inspiring model for what governments can accomplish when they elevate human needs over the pursuit of private profits. That makes Vienna a very dangerous precedent for US private housing capital and its apologists"
"The residents of those apartments pay a maximum of 25 percent of their income"
And I like the added idea that building housing could also teach these much needed and valued construction skills (as mentioned in Glenn's essay ... to empower a responsible work ethic and value added to provide and contribute to a household).
I don't understand how 'trickle down' can even pretend to address the basic needs at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Air, Water, Food, Heat, Clothes, Reproduction, Shelter, Sleep, and Safety.
Some might say this is the dreaded 'socialism', but capitalism has never been allowed to meet housing needs ... because of NIMBYISM and zoning. Affordable housing demand? How about supplying it?
I am enthused about working on policies that improve the lives of blacks and, even better, all lives. I don't know enough about what can work, but this is much better than criticizing people's choices.
Kearney said we should NOT do this: Stigmatize single mothers or encourage unhealthy marriages.
That was interesting to me because I kept thinking as I read, "The only way to effect such a change in behavior is to revive the stigma." If there's no stigma, there better be very strong economic pressure.
The second part was just as interesting, as I'm not on board with the idea that "two parents" is a magic solution. I know a thing or two about "unhealthy marriages." I grew up with an unstable heavy drinker who stole from my paper route money and was not above physical abuse. The day I came home from school and found a farewell note from him on the kitchen table was one of the happiest of my life. Haha, total truth. We really shouldn't conflate "two parents" with "stable homelife."
Anyway, another great piece, Clifton. I always appreciate the conciseness and the way you anticipate and address objections that might form in a reader's mind.
I would be interested in seeing a more nuanced breakdown of income and achievement in one-parent households. I suspect a segment of this group closely resembles or even beats two-parent households in education, achievement, and income. Having one child would likely be different than having several. The educational level and income of the custodial parent would also make a crucial difference. This notwithstanding, I'd like to know whether interventions can be effectively targeted and scaled in a free society.
Many of us know single parents who've done wonderful jobs with their children, so your point is well taken. That said, the macro numbers Melissa Kearney provides in her book speak for themselves.
I'm not aware of an analysis that covers all the issues raised in your comment. Pew Research and the Annie E. Casey Foundation have published things that touch on some of them, but not in detail:
I would be remiss if I didn't thank Dr. G for indulging my prattles and acknowledge Mark Sussman's fine work as an editor. The final version of a post is always better than the initial draft.
Until the actual people want to make a change government programs are not going to help. Until the people actually realize that single-parent households are a ticket to failure and they want to change that, I don't care what the government does, it probably will not make it better in fact it'll probably make it worse.
Yes, but... maybe the mothers think they already hold a "ticket to failure." My biological clock is running, my prospects are not great, maybe this guy will marry me if I have a kid, or at least cohabit.
Then like you said, when the government steps in, it changes things. A woman's calculation is altered by knowing the government will force the man to pay child support. "If he won't marry me, or live with me, at least he'll have to contribute financially.
Child support awards are often modest. The Census Bureau says the mean amount awarded to a custodial mother in 2022 was $6,458, but the mean amount actually received was $4,157. The median amount awarded was even lower, $4,849 vs. $2,902 actually received. Use this link and download Table 2a if you want to do a deep dive:
The mean and median amounts above are a fraction of the costs to raise a child. It's not surprising that so many single mothers struggle to make ends meet.
Table 2b provides more context. It shows that 23-24% of custodial parents who were awarded child support didn't receive any at all.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that we can't force people to change, but am cautiously optimistic that the percentage of households led by single parents can be reduced given the huge drop in teen birth rates (> 80%) that took place between 1990 and 2022. Use this HHS link and see Figures 3 and 4 for details:
If we can persuade teens that having babies isn't a good idea, why cant we persuade adults that having children outside marriage isn't a good idea as well?
specifics, Mr. Roscoe, specifics. How do we "persuade" adults that having children outside of marriage isn't a good idea? (I think most of them instinctually deep in their hearts already know this anyway?? yet they keep on doing it? I'm very torn on this issue. I believe in marriage (OR better said . joint parenting, as it's crystal clear it helps chidren, but as a libertarian I am VERY VERY suspicious of giving the state any power whatsoever over my life, over my social life, over my associations, over my social activities, etc etc
Thanks for your comment. I don't know if I'm a libertarian, but I share your concerns about government overreach and the importance of protecting civil liberties. That said, there are things we can do that I don't think are worrisome. We can eliminate the marriage penalties that Conn Carroll talked about in today's episode of TGS. We can create more "stackable" certificate programs to help men boost their career prospects and attractiveness as potential marriage partners to the mothers of their children. Home nurse visits for single mothers may be helpful as well, as long as they're voluntary.
To make a long story short, there's no silver bullet to solve this problem, so we'll have to tinker with various approaches but do so in a way that avoids government overreach and the trampling of civil liberties.
I have no issue with any of these suggestions and I also support Mr. Carrol's idea of eliminating "marriage penalties" in taxation. In fact, I would even support slight benefit in taxation to married people, especially since it's the lower socio economic strata that are least likely to marry and stay married. But that's as far as I'd be willing to go I think.
Do we know for sure what caused the prodigious drop in teen birth rates? Have people done surveys of teens to find out what they're thinking is on this issue?
Everything I've read says we don't know for sure why teen birth rates dropped the way they did. A combination of factors seem to have contributed to the drop according to this analysis from Pew Research:
I suggest one change that could help is to stop talking about birth rates (the horse has left the stable) and talk about how early, unprotected sex while legally unattached to the sex partner very likely leads to poverty and an 18-year commitment to provide for another person. The implication from the focus on birth rates is that unprotected sex and any resulting pregnancy is okay as long as a birth doesn't happen, whether by miscarriage or abortion.
Gen Z is having less sex than all prior generations for which we have data, but the reasons are depressing—social isolation, internet porn, inability to move out of parental households, etc. So we may be in a monkey's paw situation, where we achieve the desired goal of much less single-parenthood but at the cost of much less parenthood, period, along with less marriage, more loneliness and despair, and the creeping loss of the benefits of marriage, or at least longterm partnership. One set of social ills supplants the other. It's not clear which is better—even contemplating the calculation is grim business.
There was a recent article in Fortune titled, "Gen Z has a different attitude about one-night-stands than Millennials did 20 years ago. Their idea of marriage has changed too," by Emma Burleigh. It shows Gen Z seems much more open to marriage than millennials were. I don't know how that trend distributes across racial demographics, but it seems like something worth investigating.
There's an old saying, "It's like putting lipstick on a pig." It means that you can dress up the pig all you want, but it's still a pig.
Several generations ago, progressives convinced themselves that the Nanny State was the ultimate solution to everything. The more of it we had, the better it would get. The Nanny State has conditioned us to believe that, whatever our problems are, we should turn to the Nanny State to solve them.
This post is just a deeper shade of lipstick. Progressivism is still a pig. You can dress it up, add cosmetics, whatever you want. It's still a pig.
America was always called the land of opportunity. It was never called the land of guaranteed outcomes. Instead of having 'programs' that perpetuate the problem, we need to reeducate every American into recognizing that their life is their responsibility. That will take a whole new kind of teacher. Lipstick alone will change nothing.
A dramatically different look at the topic is available here https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-status-of-single-mothers/
The original version of you post had a Visual Capitalist link:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-single-mothers-in-america-by-ethnicity/
They quoted the CAP analysis that you referenced in your edited comment. My comments below still apply.
Was not an effort to undermine your comments at all. The data at the Center for American Progress, specifically as to ethnicity, differs markedly from the Census Bureau numbers used to introduce your perspective. This is a big issue regardless. [Visual Capitalist had a better graphic, which was based on the CAP data. Went with the data and deeper reporting than the eye candy.]
No worries. I didn't take your comment that way. I just wanted to make sure that readers understood that the Visual Capitalist/CAP data was accurate, but didn't paint the full picture.
Why don't you emphasis the effective concepts of deterrence, hardship, responsibility and accountability? Leave morality and psychometrics out of the considerations. Concentrate public policy on forcing 'dunderheads' to think twice. Stop enticing sensible behaviour, concentrate on consequences. The WOKE would give the farm away rather than do the work to plant and harvest a crop. Empathise is okay, to sympathise is NOT okay.
Thanks for your comment.
Society has been wrestling with how to approach this for a while. We may not know exactly what to do, but neither scorn or stigma seem to work. Vice President Quayle called out the "Murphy Brown" show for promoting single-parenting 30 years ago. Even Brookings eventually acknowledged that Quayle was right, but the public didn't back him:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twenty-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/
The horse had left the barn by the time Quayle took up the argument. About a quarter of America's households with children under the age of 18 were led by single parents in 1990. Congress had created "National Single Parent Day" in 1984:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-joint-resolution/200/text
Here's an excerpt:
Joint Resolution Mar. 21, 1984
[H.J. Res 2001 Designating March 21, 1984, as "National Single Parent Day".
Whereas there are fourteen million single parents in the United States, the number doubling in the last ten years;
Whereas 20 per centum of all our Nation's children are now living in single parent families, and an estimated 50 per centum of this Nation's children will live with a single parent before the age of eighteen;
Whereas in the past, single parent families have not always been an accepted part of society;
Whereas single parents have struggled courageously to raise their children to a healthy maturity, with the full sense of being loved and accepted as persons, and with the same prospects for adult-hood as children who mature with their two parents together; and
Whereas it is time to recognize the courage and dedication of these parents who work to maintain strong family units and to be responsible members of American society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 21, 1984, is designated "National Single Parent Day". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Approved March 21, 1984.
Given where we are today, let's focus on developing policy ideas for strengthening families and family structures that the public might support. That includes eliminating the marriage penalties that Conn Carroll talked about during today's TGS episode, creating more stackable certificate programs that would give men better career prospects and make them more attractive marriage partners to the mothers of their children, and developing voluntary programs for improving the parenting and coping skills for single mothers. I mentioned some other ideas in my post that are worth considering as well.
There's also a conversation to be had about the importance of role models who could talk up the value of marriage and its benefits for children.
To make a long story short, we'll have to try several approaches and stay the course if we want to reduce the percentage of America's households with children that are led by single parents.
Thanks for your comment. I'm a big fan of Visual Capitalist.
What they reported is the percentage of children, by race, living with single mothers.
The numbers I shared are the percentages of total single-parent households by race and the percentages of children living in single-parent households by race.
The Visual Capitalist data shows that black children are more likely to live with single mothers than their peers. The data I shared shows that the total number of children living with single parents is diverse. Here are the percentages - 33% white, 32% Hispanic, 24% black, and 11% other. I quoted 2022 data from Kids Count, which used Census Bureau data. You get slightly different figures if you look at total single-parent household as of 2023, by race, from the Census Bureau. Here's my best guess of the percentages, by race - 37.6% white, 28.3% black, 25.1% Hispanic, and 9% other.
"Single parent" is a misleading statistic. Widows with children do quite well because they have a two-family support system including grandfathers and uncles. The widowed mothers have to work harder than they did before their husbands died, but their effort forces them to marshal their resources, which are admittedly greater than an unmarried or divorced mother.
I’m encouraged that we’re having this conversation: IMO it’s exactly the problem (dramatic increases in family breakdown/ fatherlessness among working class Americans) that needs to be addressed to encourage economic and social mobility, and to reduce a whole host of dangerous pathologies that currently plague our communities (crime, homelessness, alcohol/ substance abuse, mental health crisis, gang violence, etc).
For me, there’s absolutely a positive role for government to play in encouraging family formation. But first: government must STOP doing HARM to working class families by incentivizing behaviors that we know lead to wrenching poverty: means-tested programs with income limits that penalize gainful employment and/or 2-income families, generous benefits (at least the illusion thereof!) for children born out of wedlock, income limitations for public housing and Section 8 programs, etc.
Pat Moynihan was exactly right when he wrote “The Case of the Negro Family” in 1964, warning of a dangerous spike in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for Black Americans that threatened to undermine the “War on Poverty” public assistance programs that were about to be rolled out by the LBJ administration. His caution was disparaged as “blaming the victim” at the time and ignored, but just a few years after that the 23% rate he had been concerned with had more than doubled; now it has TRIPLED (roughly 7 out of 10 Black children in the US are born into a single parent household today 😳). At the same time, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for White Americans has risen from 6% to 30%: easily surpassing the figure for Black Americans that had inspired Moynihan’s concern six decades ago.
Until we figure out how to provide a social safety net for Americans that doesn’t trap our neighbors in generational cycles of poverty, we will continue to reap a bitter harvest of broken families, fatherlessness, and the whole witches’ brew of brokenness and despair. To do that, we must figure out how to encourage twin pillars of gainful employment and family formation for all Americans, rather that penalizing both as we do currently. I remain hopeful… 🙏
This is a very thoughtful essay.
So ... I have a suggestion ...
As a child of divorced parents, after they split up, the significant change in our economic situation was due to the cost of housing.
We moved from our lovely home to two one bedroom apartments (one for mom, one for dad). I lived with my mom, a teacher, and shared a bedroom with her.
Fortunately we were able to continue to live in our 'nice' neighborhood, because there were significant apartment developments and I could continue to access the same quality schools and maintain friendships and social ties to my many friends with married parents (IF, per the hypothesis, it's important to be exposed to conventional family structures).
So, how about we build some actual affordable housing? How about we give the unskilled men (and women) the skills to build and maintain residences AND zone neighborhoods so that they aren't so single family residence dominated ??? And, as far as I can tell, the only way to do this is with non profit real estate / housing development companies large and small. The profit motive encourages cutting corners, huge salaries for CEOs, and gives no incentives to include training programs.
I think the "Again" in MAGA refers to the post war time when there was affordable housing ... that one working parent could afford (paying an average of ~25% of their income). It's luxury real estate developers like someone who shall remain unnamed who don't exactly help the situation (especially when they build housing and exclude black folks ... and, of course, now that ability to sue for housing discrimination is being removed).
Yes, there are many examples of failed public housing ... a la the infamous Pruitt Igoe ... BUT maybe we could LEARN from past failures and any past successes??
I haven't done personal research ... BUT this seems to be an example:
"We Should Look to Vienna for Answers to Our Housing Crisis
Vienna’s social housing triumphs show that when governments invest in housing as a human right, they can combat homelessness and inequality. It is an inspiration for what cities can accomplish if they elevate human needs over the pursuit of private profits."
https://jacobin.com/2023/10/red-vienna-public-affordable-housing-homelessness-matthew-yglesias
Why can't we ever look to successful models to duplicate?
And I love the idea of social service help / assistance AND as much support in schools as possible. I really think we need to look to Finland and Japan as models for quality education (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/opinion/japan-education-childhood.html?) and I am all for promotion of COOPERATION and CIVID responsiblity in schools. Including in higher education. I think, e.g. the elite schools like Harvard and Stanford are so focused on cultivating greed, thtey need a BIG reset.
Good luck America!
Thanks for your comment.
You make a good point about affordable housing, but the solution isn't obvious. I saw a stat this morning that said the median age of a home buyer in America last year was 56:
https://www.apolloacademy.com/median-age-of-homebuyers-56/
That's up from 45 in 2021 and 31 in 1981. The analysis illustrated the affordability issue and used data from National Association of Realtors (NAR) reports:
https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports/highlights-from-the-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers
The latest report showed that the percentage of first time home buyers was 24% last year, down from 32% the year before and the lowest percentage since 1981. By contrast, 26% of home buyers paid cash for their homes last year, an all-time high.
Rental affordability is deteriorating as well, according to this analysis from Harvard that was released in December:
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research-areas/research-briefs/deteriorating-rental-affordability-update-americas-rental-housing
I'll defer to those with more knowledge of housing markets, but addressing this problem won't be easy.
AGREED!
I bought my first house in 1988 for ~$90K. The last time it sold was in 2021 for $1,240K. That is absurd. And I take no consolation in the appreciation given that it makes it clear how challenging it is for young people now, including my children. (To be clear, this is a 1000 square foot home in a borderline sketchy neighborhood.)
Again, it would be nice to investigate other successful models ... e.g. this one:
https://jacobin.com/2023/10/red-vienna-public-affordable-housing-homelessness-matthew-yglesias
which I wouldn't expect billionaire real estate tycoons who want to turn Gaza into a resort to advocate for or even comprehend.
"Vienna’s social housing is an inspiring model for what governments can accomplish when they elevate human needs over the pursuit of private profits. That makes Vienna a very dangerous precedent for US private housing capital and its apologists"
"The residents of those apartments pay a maximum of 25 percent of their income"
And I like the added idea that building housing could also teach these much needed and valued construction skills (as mentioned in Glenn's essay ... to empower a responsible work ethic and value added to provide and contribute to a household).
I don't understand how 'trickle down' can even pretend to address the basic needs at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Air, Water, Food, Heat, Clothes, Reproduction, Shelter, Sleep, and Safety.
Some might say this is the dreaded 'socialism', but capitalism has never been allowed to meet housing needs ... because of NIMBYISM and zoning. Affordable housing demand? How about supplying it?
I am enthused about working on policies that improve the lives of blacks and, even better, all lives. I don't know enough about what can work, but this is much better than criticizing people's choices.
Kearney said we should NOT do this: Stigmatize single mothers or encourage unhealthy marriages.
That was interesting to me because I kept thinking as I read, "The only way to effect such a change in behavior is to revive the stigma." If there's no stigma, there better be very strong economic pressure.
The second part was just as interesting, as I'm not on board with the idea that "two parents" is a magic solution. I know a thing or two about "unhealthy marriages." I grew up with an unstable heavy drinker who stole from my paper route money and was not above physical abuse. The day I came home from school and found a farewell note from him on the kitchen table was one of the happiest of my life. Haha, total truth. We really shouldn't conflate "two parents" with "stable homelife."
Anyway, another great piece, Clifton. I always appreciate the conciseness and the way you anticipate and address objections that might form in a reader's mind.
Thanks for the kind words.
I would be interested in seeing a more nuanced breakdown of income and achievement in one-parent households. I suspect a segment of this group closely resembles or even beats two-parent households in education, achievement, and income. Having one child would likely be different than having several. The educational level and income of the custodial parent would also make a crucial difference. This notwithstanding, I'd like to know whether interventions can be effectively targeted and scaled in a free society.
Many of us know single parents who've done wonderful jobs with their children, so your point is well taken. That said, the macro numbers Melissa Kearney provides in her book speak for themselves.
I'm not aware of an analysis that covers all the issues raised in your comment. Pew Research and the Annie E. Casey Foundation have published things that touch on some of them, but not in detail:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/
https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-being-in-single-parent-families
I would be remiss if I didn't thank Dr. G for indulging my prattles and acknowledge Mark Sussman's fine work as an editor. The final version of a post is always better than the initial draft.
Until the actual people want to make a change government programs are not going to help. Until the people actually realize that single-parent households are a ticket to failure and they want to change that, I don't care what the government does, it probably will not make it better in fact it'll probably make it worse.
Yes, but... maybe the mothers think they already hold a "ticket to failure." My biological clock is running, my prospects are not great, maybe this guy will marry me if I have a kid, or at least cohabit.
Then like you said, when the government steps in, it changes things. A woman's calculation is altered by knowing the government will force the man to pay child support. "If he won't marry me, or live with me, at least he'll have to contribute financially.
Child support awards are often modest. The Census Bureau says the mean amount awarded to a custodial mother in 2022 was $6,458, but the mean amount actually received was $4,157. The median amount awarded was even lower, $4,849 vs. $2,902 actually received. Use this link and download Table 2a if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/families/2022-cps-childsupport.html
The mean and median amounts above are a fraction of the costs to raise a child. It's not surprising that so many single mothers struggle to make ends meet.
Table 2b provides more context. It shows that 23-24% of custodial parents who were awarded child support didn't receive any at all.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that we can't force people to change, but am cautiously optimistic that the percentage of households led by single parents can be reduced given the huge drop in teen birth rates (> 80%) that took place between 1990 and 2022. Use this HHS link and see Figures 3 and 4 for details:
https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health/adolescent-sexual-and-reproductive-health/data-and-statistics-on-adolescent-sexual-and-reproductive-health
If we can persuade teens that having babies isn't a good idea, why cant we persuade adults that having children outside marriage isn't a good idea as well?
specifics, Mr. Roscoe, specifics. How do we "persuade" adults that having children outside of marriage isn't a good idea? (I think most of them instinctually deep in their hearts already know this anyway?? yet they keep on doing it? I'm very torn on this issue. I believe in marriage (OR better said . joint parenting, as it's crystal clear it helps chidren, but as a libertarian I am VERY VERY suspicious of giving the state any power whatsoever over my life, over my social life, over my associations, over my social activities, etc etc
Thanks for your comment. I don't know if I'm a libertarian, but I share your concerns about government overreach and the importance of protecting civil liberties. That said, there are things we can do that I don't think are worrisome. We can eliminate the marriage penalties that Conn Carroll talked about in today's episode of TGS. We can create more "stackable" certificate programs to help men boost their career prospects and attractiveness as potential marriage partners to the mothers of their children. Home nurse visits for single mothers may be helpful as well, as long as they're voluntary.
To make a long story short, there's no silver bullet to solve this problem, so we'll have to tinker with various approaches but do so in a way that avoids government overreach and the trampling of civil liberties.
I have no issue with any of these suggestions and I also support Mr. Carrol's idea of eliminating "marriage penalties" in taxation. In fact, I would even support slight benefit in taxation to married people, especially since it's the lower socio economic strata that are least likely to marry and stay married. But that's as far as I'd be willing to go I think.
I will also say, that it looks like the AIDS epidemic which flared up in the early nineties may have played a part in this.
Do we know for sure what caused the prodigious drop in teen birth rates? Have people done surveys of teens to find out what they're thinking is on this issue?
Everything I've read says we don't know for sure why teen birth rates dropped the way they did. A combination of factors seem to have contributed to the drop according to this analysis from Pew Research:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/02/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/
I suggest one change that could help is to stop talking about birth rates (the horse has left the stable) and talk about how early, unprotected sex while legally unattached to the sex partner very likely leads to poverty and an 18-year commitment to provide for another person. The implication from the focus on birth rates is that unprotected sex and any resulting pregnancy is okay as long as a birth doesn't happen, whether by miscarriage or abortion.
Gen Z is having less sex than all prior generations for which we have data, but the reasons are depressing—social isolation, internet porn, inability to move out of parental households, etc. So we may be in a monkey's paw situation, where we achieve the desired goal of much less single-parenthood but at the cost of much less parenthood, period, along with less marriage, more loneliness and despair, and the creeping loss of the benefits of marriage, or at least longterm partnership. One set of social ills supplants the other. It's not clear which is better—even contemplating the calculation is grim business.