Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s recent comments on the benefits of marriage in reducing poverty were soundly criticized by some left-leaning voices. Rubio had offered up “a very old idea”:
Social factors also play a major role in denying opportunity. The truth is that the greatest tool to lift people, to lift children and families from poverty, is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82 percent. But it isn’t a government program. It’s called marriage.
National Review Online clarified that “cajoling impoverished single mothers into marrying men who don’t have particularly bright labor market prospects” is not the solution proposed by Rubio or other conservatives. Rather, the idea is to encourage marriage before having children.
Even amid strong resistance to this idea among liberals, the New York Times has reported about the effect of marriage on poverty.
… changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40% of the growth in certain measures of inequality.
Another notable trend is how the rise of assortative mating has increased income inequality.
… Income inequality has gotten worse in past decades in part because college-educated, high-earning men and women are more likely to marry each other, rather than get hitched to partners with divergent education or wage levels.
This is the finding of a research paper, “Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality” authored by economists Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, Georgi Kocharkov, and Cezar Santos.
No “solution” is proposed.
… College-educated households are more likely to be married and thus more likely to have secondary earners contributing to household income.
… “assortative mating” … married college-educated persons are more likely to have a college-educated spouse. Thus, they are more likely to have a spouse with high earnings.