@Drazen

Wow. What can I say -- except to say that you are absolutely correct -- your marriage and economics theory is much more convoluted than I first imagined. I am simply not capable of commenting intelligently on anything that complex.

Webster

Webster: You completely misinterpreted what I said. In fact, you've butchered my premise so much, I can't even tell what it is that you think I was saying.

Let's try again.

Someone posted that, on average, married men earn more than single men.

I am saying that high earners are _more likely to (eventually) end up getting married and staying that way_, because they have both a comparative AND competitive advantage over lower earners - namely, that it is an irrational decision to become legally linked to someone who is poor. That's just a cold, hard reality of our overly materialistic society.

This would raise the question, why, then, do the impoverished not even things out? Well, despite it being a rational decision to pool resources in times of hardship -- money is usually the #1 problem in relationships. And it's almost certainly a much bigger problem and bigger fight when nobody actually has any money -- thus destabilizing more of those relationships. (Also, it's an average, not a median -- so there may be some statistical trickery at play here, too.)

This all doesn't mean that low/middle earners do not WANT to be attractive, but they have to be attractive in some other way (not everyone can just run out and get a high-paying job), and like it or not, in the USA, money talks, so their flaws are less easily glossed over, most likely reducing their rate of marriage, as their dating pool is smaller - and more volatile.

@Drazen

So let me make sure I understand your theory, Drazen.

You believe that married men earn more than single men because married men wish to be attractive to ... their wives ... or possibly women that they are not married to?

And, in contrast, single men earn less than married men because ... they are somehow less interested in being attractive to women?

Sorry to ask you this favour in such a hash way ... but would you mind thinking these things through before you post a comment?

Webster

Correlation != causation.

Of course married men will earn more -- earning more will make them more desirable as husbands! Especially in the U$A.

Similarly, marriage is more attractive in an economically depressed area because 2 people can pool their resources and it eases the burden significantly. Although I enjoy living alone, it is vastly more expensive than the times that I lived with someone, as I'm effectively paying double what I did for most basic needs (rent, utilities) when there were 2 incomes.

Of course, in expensive places, you almost have to pool your resources to afford anything... I'm not sure how that factors in.

Scott, I'll give you the opposite. Where people get married late, and there is no entrepreneurship (generally speaking) - Singapore!

Well as some one has pointed out Gujaratis and Marwaris in India get married early, but they are risk takers since the society encourages risk taking, and enterpreneurship. (The same way society encourages arranged marriages within the community, to maintain social trust between families)

And well Americans get married earlier than europeans, but then I think America is more entrepreneurial than Europe.

And I have met many entrepreneurs who chucked cushy jobs to take the plunge as they had the support of an earning spouse. (both men or women)

As for married men earning more, I think the argument is otherway round.
Men who earn more are more likely to get married as they would find lots of women attracted to them.

Many kids do not go to college because they got into a relationship (in high school), they either get married early or move out to live with a girlfriend/boyfriend, in this case, the parents do not want to pay for their college.

They would tend to have kids early, the burden of supporting family prevents them from aggressive career choices. Women would have even bigger problem if they marry early or have kid early.

A person I know went to an ivy college where all students there, both genders, focus on their education and career, almost no one wants a relationship. This bright group will wait until they finish grad school and have solid career before they get married.

I disagree that marriage itself dampens entrepreneurial tendencies - it's the act of having to support other people that does that. If two people marry and both are working, I think one would be MORE likely to take risks since they have another source of income to rely on. I've known several sucessful couples that took advantage of this principle. The change happens when either children are brought into the picture or one spouse is unwilling or unable to work. The risk aversion comes with being responsible for supporting someone else, not marriage per se.

In response to Rich999's comment "Also, isn't the success of a man dependent on number of children he produces - that is the single most thing that has helped the life forms to survive." No, that may have been true hundreds of years ago, but now that we've got 6 billion people on the planet, NOT contributing to overpopulation is much more responsible. Octomom's sperm donor is NOT an example of success.

In India, we have the Gujarati and the Marwari communities where child marriage used to be the norm. These two communities have produced the most number of entrepreneurs in India.

Further to my post on the higher average income statistics associated with married men, here is an interesting article on the married/single income gap ...


Source: New York Times, 2004, Analysing the Marriage Gap
By Hal Varian

... To drive this point home, suppose Hamlet is considering proposing to Ophelia, but is consumed with doubts.

"To be married or not to be married, that is the question."

If the causal theories are correct, then if Hamlet proposes and Ophelia accepts, his future wages would be higher on average than if he stayed single. If the correlation theories are correct, then choosing to marry would have no effect on Hamlet's future wages, and he may as well remain single.

Recently two economists, Kate Antonovics and Robert Town of the University of California, San Diego and the University of Minnesota, respectively, have come up with a clever way to decide between the causal and the correlation theories. Their paper, "Are all the good men married? Uncovering the sources of the marital wage premium," was published in the May 2004 issue of The American Economic Review.

Their approach is based on looking at monozygotic, or identical, twins. The authors argue that twins have the same genetic endowment and (usually) the same upbringing. Since twins have the same underlying physical and mental capabilities, they should have similar productivity. Even if employers are biased toward certain irrelevant characteristics, monozygotic twins should be affected by such biases equally.

Hence differences in wages between married and unmarried twins should control for most of the effects that might cause a spurious marriage-wage correlation. If a married twin has a higher wage than his single brother, the difference is probably caused by marriage, not just correlated with it.

The economists drew on a unique dataset, the Minnesota Twins Registry, which tracked most twins born in Minnesota between 1936 and 1955. In the mid-1990's, the Registry sent the twins a questionnaire asking about their socioeconomic status.

Using this data, the researchers were able to construct a sample of 136 pairs of monozygotic twins, of whom 85 percent were married. In 23 percent of the cases, one twin was married, the other wasn't.

They extracted data from the survey on the hourly wages, weeks worked a year, age and educational attainment of the men in their sample and compared these with figures for all American males. The results implied that their sample was reasonably representative of the nation's population.

Consistent with other studies, they found a significant marriage premium: controlling for education, age and other variables, the married men in their sample earned about 19 percent more than unmarried men.

They then examined just the wage differences between twins, while still controlling for education. They found that married twins had 26 percent higher wages than their unmarried siblings. Hence, even among very similar men, those who are married earn substantially more.

The authors found essentially the same results if they factored in divorced or widowed status, or added variables like a spouse's work experience, number of children and wage history.

This result suggests that marriage really does have a causal impact on wages. Of course, it is not conclusive. After all, maybe the married twin really is different in some way from his brother, and that difference is important to both potential spouses and employers. Still, it is suggestive evidence.

So, here's the advice Hamlet would get from an economist: put your doubts aside and marry Ophelia. Stop moping around and go get a job. You may not be any happier, but at least you'll make more money.

Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and information management at the University of California, Berkeley (which is where Scott Adams received his MBA!)

Webster

I completely disagree with this hypothesis.

If there are fewer / late marriages or more divorce rates, there is good chance that the kids will be less cared for.
If there are fewer healthy and well-bred kids that's bad for the economy - kids are either more likely to commit crime in such cases or less likely to finish their college.
Also, if the birth rate is low, there will be much less productive people left in the economy.

How is that good?

Also, isn't the success of a man dependent on number of children he produces - that is the single most thing that has helped the life forms to survive.


This hypothesis, in my view, is unscientific.

Mr. Adams,

You probably can check your hypotesis yourself by using www.gapminder.org , it's a very cool website where you can look at various indicators from a lot of countries, and draw animated bubble graphs. I am not sure that the indicators include average age of marriage but maybe there are some other meaningful indicators.

Finally, it just seems obvious to me why marrying young, at least in the United States, usually is not good for your portfolio. Families cost money, time and energy. It's the loss of time and energy, not the loss of capacity for risk-taking or entrepreneurial endeavors, that cause this phenomenon. Scott might say that "risky business" takes time and energy, but if so he would basically be agreeing with me.

As you no doubt noticed Webster, since you read my post so carefully, I was speaking in averages. Your post only quotes statistics for males, which as I recall are about half the population. I wonder what the statistics on females would be like? Also I see no mention in those statistics of how old the men were when they got married, which is precisely the point at issue.

Scott is making a global hypothesis that cultures where the people marry young will be poorer because marriage reduces the capacity to take risks in business. Basically he is saying that marriage itself affects the entrepreneurial spirit negatively.

I'm saying that even if people who marry young end up poorer that doesn't mean that a lack of risk-taking is the reason they are poorer. First of all I kind of doubt that all people who are married take fewer risks than singles. In fact if the family is in trouble, the parents might take MORE risks because to them, more is at stake than just their own lives. They also have their spouse and sometimes children to consider. Furthermore, I don't think that taking risks is always the road to economic prosperity. For instance, financing a mortgage based on the belief that the value of your house will continue to rise at the same rate it has been for ten years seems to me to be a bit risky, don't you think? Look how that turned out. Even Scott has decried the high risk/high reward investment strategy, instead making the case for index funds. I'm sure he would agree that taking risks is not always the road to wealth. I think his hypothesis needs a lot of work before I could agree with it. He's making a couple leaps in logic that I don't think are warranted.

all good things require effort, nothing of value is easy or free.

economic security is one, so is loving fulfilling family life.

if you just decide to not contribute to next generation's greatest resource (via offspring who will become human resources), and only contribute taxes, you are gaming the system.

you were a deadweight on the system growing up in pub education, or with silver spoon!

not reproducing or being a 'breeder' is a false morality. its actually a scam on other contributors who make kind considerate offspring who grow up to obey law and join society. their parents sacrifice makes world better place AND pays your social security checks.

we have come a long way to villainize childrearing, what a world we live in. exclusively persuing wealth without family will generally make you richer, hard to argue against that...

TRAGICMISHAP said: "Married people have less time to work and pursue their career than singles. Therefore they will make less money. Duh."

... END QUOTE ...

First, all of your observations and conclusions focus on one economy (your local economy) -- and only consider income.

However, Scott's hypothesis is exploring a possible correlation between marital status and economic successes/entrepreneurship -- and asks us to consider various economies. .

Regardless, your core assumption about unmarried (single) people in the US economy is completely incorrect. Single men DO NOT earn more than married men.

From the US Census (2007 statistics):

Mean income for all males: $34,639

Mean income for married males: $42,183

Mean income for divorced males: $33,717

Mean income for single males (never married); $21,183

So, you might not want to be so quick to drop a "duh" on our host.

As the old proverb says, "If the duh fits, wear it". ;-)

Webster

I agree without a doubt. I thought about it a few year back when I saw that people in my hometown would get their kids married early off, even when they aren't settled and those like me (who are smarter) who would move out to work in Bigger cities and outside of the country would tend to remain unmarried for a long time. I will rather take your argument a step ahead and say that smarter lot with higher IQ tends to delay marriage till it happens to them. Says something about wise-ness of getting married, isnt it? :)

Look, it's obvious that marrying young generally means you end up poorer. But this has nothing to do with the idea that singles take more risks. It has everything to do with the simple fact that people who don't marry young have more time to pursue education and careers wholeheartedly before they start spending time and energy on a family. It has nothing to do with the entrepreneurial spirit or risk-taking. Also married people tend to have kids, which cost lots of money and take up a lot of time, usually severely restricting the career of at least one parent. Many moms and some dads do not work when they have kids. That effectively halves the average income of married people with kids versus singles.

This is kind of a no-brainer. Not sure why you are trying to make it into some sort of "entrepreneurial" character issue. That's a pretty big leap in logic you are glossing over. Married people have less time to work and pursue their career than singles. Therefore they will make less money. Duh.