What do you think?
Rate this book
The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind
The surprising story of how declining marriage rates are driving many of the country’s biggest economic problems.
In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity.
Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But The Two-Parent Privilege makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
In The Two-Parent Privilege, Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline has led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. Studies show that these effects are today starker, and more unevenly distributed, than ever before. Kearney examines the underlying causes of the marriage decline in the US and draws lessons for how the US can reverse this trend to ensure the country’s future prosperity.
Based on more than a decade of economic research, including her original work, Kearney shows that a household that includes two married parents—holding steady among upper-class adults, increasingly rare among most everyone else—functions as an economic vehicle that advantages some children over others. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire. Their effects include not just children’s behavioral and educational outcomes, but a surprisingly devastating effect on adult men, whose role in the workforce and society appears intractably damaged by the emerging economics of America’s new social norms.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But The Two-Parent Privilege makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
237 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 18, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
September 19, 2023
The word “important” is overused in describing books. Part of why overusing it is a problem is that it diminishes the power it carries when it is truly merited. And Melissa Kearney’s The Two-Parent Privilege truly deserves to be called important.
Economists' discussions of poverty have largely shied away from “cultural” issues like marriage because of the fear of falling into cultural judgments, the belief that they are entirely a consequence of economic outcomes not a cause of them, and a worry that we do not have any solutions to them. All three of these have some truth to them. Nevertheless I have always been a bit guilty that my own writing, reading, and policy work has been on conventional poverty issues like tax-and-transfer programs and ways to facilitate and encourage work while avoiding culture entirely.
Enter Kearney with a thoughtful, non-judgmental account of the undesirable consequences of the decline in children’t being raised by married couples—much of it based on her previous scholarly research as well as the research of others (including a number of sociologists, which is nice to see in a book by an economist). She documents this trend which is particularly pronounced for lower-income families, rebuts a number of ways of explaining it away (e.g., there is not much cohabitation without marriage and the little there is tends to be relatively unstable), establishes its importance for outcomes for children and the channels by which it is important, and discusses a number of the causes as well. For good measure there is also a discussion of declining birthrates. And woven throughout is a set of policy conclusions from specific programs (e.g., fatherhood programs and what they need to do to improve) to a broader plea that we should all be taking marriage more seriously.
The story is a complicated one because the decline in marriage is partly caused by economic developments (most notably the decline in earnings for men) but also causes them. Moreover her earlier research found that when men got more opportunities from fracking it did not lead to more marriage so the economic relationships may not work in reverse and there may be persistence in a new set of norms. Moreover the programs that deal with these issues are complicated too, with mixed success and nothing particularly huge. The result is not a magic bullet solution to the problem Kearney so ably documents so much as a plea for all of us to care more about it—a process that holds out the hope of developing more solutions in the future.
Economists' discussions of poverty have largely shied away from “cultural” issues like marriage because of the fear of falling into cultural judgments, the belief that they are entirely a consequence of economic outcomes not a cause of them, and a worry that we do not have any solutions to them. All three of these have some truth to them. Nevertheless I have always been a bit guilty that my own writing, reading, and policy work has been on conventional poverty issues like tax-and-transfer programs and ways to facilitate and encourage work while avoiding culture entirely.
Enter Kearney with a thoughtful, non-judgmental account of the undesirable consequences of the decline in children’t being raised by married couples—much of it based on her previous scholarly research as well as the research of others (including a number of sociologists, which is nice to see in a book by an economist). She documents this trend which is particularly pronounced for lower-income families, rebuts a number of ways of explaining it away (e.g., there is not much cohabitation without marriage and the little there is tends to be relatively unstable), establishes its importance for outcomes for children and the channels by which it is important, and discusses a number of the causes as well. For good measure there is also a discussion of declining birthrates. And woven throughout is a set of policy conclusions from specific programs (e.g., fatherhood programs and what they need to do to improve) to a broader plea that we should all be taking marriage more seriously.
The story is a complicated one because the decline in marriage is partly caused by economic developments (most notably the decline in earnings for men) but also causes them. Moreover her earlier research found that when men got more opportunities from fracking it did not lead to more marriage so the economic relationships may not work in reverse and there may be persistence in a new set of norms. Moreover the programs that deal with these issues are complicated too, with mixed success and nothing particularly huge. The result is not a magic bullet solution to the problem Kearney so ably documents so much as a plea for all of us to care more about it—a process that holds out the hope of developing more solutions in the future.
March 16, 2024
I was a bit wary of this book going into it, but my worries were quickly assuaged. The author doesn’t slam single mothers, nor does she advocate for a return to nuclear families with traditional gender roles (she herself is a working mom with a PhD). Rather, this book is a thoroughly researched economic exploration of the unique privileges experienced by children in families with two married parents, and the way this perpetuates class stratification across generations. The most interesting part for me was the part about how norms in specific regions or social groups affect whether parents have kids inside or outside of marriage. I’m not a parent, so I have no horse in this race, but I thought this was a super interesting read!
October 17, 2023
Not all childhoods are equal. The data shows that children from single-parent households are statistically less likely to succeed in almost every area of life (it doesn’t mean they won’t).
Published in 2023, the book offers the newest research on the matter. Although mainly focused on the USA, the findings can apply to all the countries with similar trends in family structures.
When we talk about a drop in marriages, we often say that it is because people are focusing more on careers. However, research shows the opposite—the more educated and career-driven you are, the more likely you are to marry. The marriage rates keep dropping the most among the uneducated and the poor.
Overall, the author carefully crafts her arguments not to mix causation with correlation. She also seems politically neutral in her approach. However, her writing is extremely dry and overly focused on numbers—it feels like reading a long research paper.
Here are a few facts from the book that are worth quoting:
1. “In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
2. “US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple; families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.”
3. “But by and large there is a consistent trend in which children growing up in mother-only households are at a relative disadvantage compared to children growing up in two-parent households, even despite all the parenting help that unpartnered mothers might get from nonresident fathers, other relatives, and government and community programs, among other sources.”
4. “The decrease in men’s earnings relative to women’s earnings has also led to a reduction in marriage. The standard model of marriage in the economics literature posits that as female wages rise relative to male wages, there will be a reduction in marriage because the returns to marriage are lower.¹⁵ This means that women have less to gain by entering into a marriage contract. It follows, then, that an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female “outside option” has improved.¹⁶”
5. “Another largescale study finds that adolescents who experienced their mother marrying a stepfather after parental divorce had worse behavioral outcomes and more negative feelings than adolescents whose biological parents remained continuously married.²¹”
Published in 2023, the book offers the newest research on the matter. Although mainly focused on the USA, the findings can apply to all the countries with similar trends in family structures.
When we talk about a drop in marriages, we often say that it is because people are focusing more on careers. However, research shows the opposite—the more educated and career-driven you are, the more likely you are to marry. The marriage rates keep dropping the most among the uneducated and the poor.
Overall, the author carefully crafts her arguments not to mix causation with correlation. She also seems politically neutral in her approach. However, her writing is extremely dry and overly focused on numbers—it feels like reading a long research paper.
Here are a few facts from the book that are worth quoting:
1. “In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
2. “US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple; families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.”
3. “But by and large there is a consistent trend in which children growing up in mother-only households are at a relative disadvantage compared to children growing up in two-parent households, even despite all the parenting help that unpartnered mothers might get from nonresident fathers, other relatives, and government and community programs, among other sources.”
4. “The decrease in men’s earnings relative to women’s earnings has also led to a reduction in marriage. The standard model of marriage in the economics literature posits that as female wages rise relative to male wages, there will be a reduction in marriage because the returns to marriage are lower.¹⁵ This means that women have less to gain by entering into a marriage contract. It follows, then, that an increase in women’s relative wages will lead to a reduction in marriage and an increase in divorce because the female “outside option” has improved.¹⁶”
5. “Another largescale study finds that adolescents who experienced their mother marrying a stepfather after parental divorce had worse behavioral outcomes and more negative feelings than adolescents whose biological parents remained continuously married.²¹”
December 4, 2023
A terrific synthesis of the advantages of being raised by married parents, the causes of the rise in single-parent households and how America has become the single-parent capital of the world. "The Two-Parent Privilege" is a careful, methodical and non-judgmental analysis of decades of research into parenting, and what the cultural shifts away from marriage have meant for children and eventually, adults.
According to Kearney, single-parenthood has been rising for decades largely as a result of cultural shifts in attitudes towards marriage and the decline of male marriageability. Consequentially, this has exacerbated economic inequality and reduced social mobility. According to her, an absence of male parents in particular hurts young boys, who are particularly vulnerable to absent dads. This strikes me as somewhat obvious, although as an academic Kearney buttresses these claims with cogent statistical analyses.
Surprisingly, single-parenthood isn't rising because of divorce, but rather because many mothers are choosing to never marry. I was very surprised to learn that about HALF of American children born in 2019 are born to unwed mothers. Kearney makes an important observation on this phenomenon - Never-married fathers are less likely to remain involved with their children than divorced ones, likely because they've moved to other relationships. Worryingly, this means raising the children will become the sole responsibility of a single-parent. Critically, Kearney assiduously emphasizes that this is largely happening amongst the less-affluent troughs of American society, and spends a non-trivial amount of time defending her case that single-parenthood is not just the cause of poverty, but also entrenches it.
I am not an economist, but candidly I think this must have been a challenging book to write. While the conclusions struck me as obvious, as an academic the arguments must nonetheless be grounded in statistics, and Kearney's claim that single-parenthood compounds poverty appears to my eyes as well-established. Simultaneously, I can imagine this is also very difficult to an ostensibly left-leaning Professor in that she risks considerable ostracization from amongst her ivory tower colleagues.
According to Kearney, single-parenthood has been rising for decades largely as a result of cultural shifts in attitudes towards marriage and the decline of male marriageability. Consequentially, this has exacerbated economic inequality and reduced social mobility. According to her, an absence of male parents in particular hurts young boys, who are particularly vulnerable to absent dads. This strikes me as somewhat obvious, although as an academic Kearney buttresses these claims with cogent statistical analyses.
Surprisingly, single-parenthood isn't rising because of divorce, but rather because many mothers are choosing to never marry. I was very surprised to learn that about HALF of American children born in 2019 are born to unwed mothers. Kearney makes an important observation on this phenomenon - Never-married fathers are less likely to remain involved with their children than divorced ones, likely because they've moved to other relationships. Worryingly, this means raising the children will become the sole responsibility of a single-parent. Critically, Kearney assiduously emphasizes that this is largely happening amongst the less-affluent troughs of American society, and spends a non-trivial amount of time defending her case that single-parenthood is not just the cause of poverty, but also entrenches it.
I am not an economist, but candidly I think this must have been a challenging book to write. While the conclusions struck me as obvious, as an academic the arguments must nonetheless be grounded in statistics, and Kearney's claim that single-parenthood compounds poverty appears to my eyes as well-established. Simultaneously, I can imagine this is also very difficult to an ostensibly left-leaning Professor in that she risks considerable ostracization from amongst her ivory tower colleagues.
February 16, 2024
I admire Kearney’s academic research in economics and I think the topic is important, but this doesn’t work as a “popular book.” It should be a literature review article in an academic journal. It is a fairly dry summary of descriptive facts and empirical studies pertaining to the long-run effects of childhood environment. She writes in a colloquial voice for an audience she expects to be unfamiliar with concepts such as RCT’s or causal evidence. However, I cannot imagine anyone from such an audience enjoying this book or digesting the evidence described. The belaboured explanations of techniques and interpretations unfortunately made this a dull read for me.
November 22, 2023
I didn't finish reading this because it was so heavy statistically. She also kept saying the same thing, that kids who have two parents go on to have better jobs and more stable lives. Which is not to say a child raised in a single parent home cannot achieve those things just that it is harder.
I heard her on a podcast talking about her book and thought just listening to the podcast was good enough for me.
I heard her on a podcast talking about her book and thought just listening to the podcast was good enough for me.
January 9, 2024
I’m glad I read you, I’ll think about you for a long time, but I’m not sure I’ll retain that much from you
April 17, 2024
lol i want to write about this
1) i don’t think most of the stories actually happened to her
2) she uses real economic data to make suggestions based on vibes
1) i don’t think most of the stories actually happened to her
2) she uses real economic data to make suggestions based on vibes
September 14, 2023
Accurate description of the sad state of this country.
December 10, 2023
This is a seven-star book or more in a five-star world. I heard the author interviewed by Bari Weiss earlier this week, and I knew I had to read the book.
Essentially, and I'm being extremely broad-brush here, the book points out that marriage and two-parent families remain the best solution for troubled young Americans and for society.
What's great about this is she sticks to what she knows. In her interview, she referred to the culture wars as "intractable," and they do seem to be that. She avoided dealing with any religious or spiritual aspects of the issue. She brilliantly focused on what she knew, and that made the book excellent. Her years as an economist who studies household economics come to life in vibrant ways in this book.
I want to go over it again in braille this time to just ferret out her numbers and digest them better. But her research fascinated me, and it will you as well if you read this.
American marriages just aren't happening in the way they did in 1980 and farther back. The percentage of kids living in single-parent homes has risen sharply since 1980, and fewer Americans with high-school degrees or less are marrying. The numbers are down among college graduates, but not by nearly as much. There's a fascinating chapter here on the importance of dads and the extreme difficulties boys face who grow up with a dad who is largely absent or not there at all. She looks at why this is happening. It's worth your time to read that chapter if you only superficially skim other parts. I don't recommend treating this book that way if you can help it. There's too much here to keep you thinking and exploring to do superficial scans of this. My explanations of it have been totally inadequate and far clumsier than she deserves. But if the state of the American family troubles you for whatever reason, this is a good book to carefully wend your way through. And what the heck! You may as well search the podcast sphere for that interview. Weiss does her usual excellent job of asking searching and fair questions, and Kearney's responses are concise and easily understood. I snagged this from Bookshare about five minutes into that interview.
Essentially, and I'm being extremely broad-brush here, the book points out that marriage and two-parent families remain the best solution for troubled young Americans and for society.
What's great about this is she sticks to what she knows. In her interview, she referred to the culture wars as "intractable," and they do seem to be that. She avoided dealing with any religious or spiritual aspects of the issue. She brilliantly focused on what she knew, and that made the book excellent. Her years as an economist who studies household economics come to life in vibrant ways in this book.
I want to go over it again in braille this time to just ferret out her numbers and digest them better. But her research fascinated me, and it will you as well if you read this.
American marriages just aren't happening in the way they did in 1980 and farther back. The percentage of kids living in single-parent homes has risen sharply since 1980, and fewer Americans with high-school degrees or less are marrying. The numbers are down among college graduates, but not by nearly as much. There's a fascinating chapter here on the importance of dads and the extreme difficulties boys face who grow up with a dad who is largely absent or not there at all. She looks at why this is happening. It's worth your time to read that chapter if you only superficially skim other parts. I don't recommend treating this book that way if you can help it. There's too much here to keep you thinking and exploring to do superficial scans of this. My explanations of it have been totally inadequate and far clumsier than she deserves. But if the state of the American family troubles you for whatever reason, this is a good book to carefully wend your way through. And what the heck! You may as well search the podcast sphere for that interview. Weiss does her usual excellent job of asking searching and fair questions, and Kearney's responses are concise and easily understood. I snagged this from Bookshare about five minutes into that interview.
January 31, 2024
4.5 stars
Very important. The author is very clear about what is supported by data and what is not. She also bends completely backward to make clear throughout the book that her findings should not be taken as a reason to bludgeon people. In the first 1% of the book: "It is reasonable to argue, for example, that a household with two parents has a greater capacity to provide financial and nonfinancial resources to a child than a one-parent household does. To argue this is not to judge, blame, or diminish households with a single parent; it is simply to acknowledge that (1) kids require a lot of work and a lot of resources, and (2) having two parents in the household generally means having more resources to devote to the task of raising a family. What I am doing is arguing, through an appeal to data and rigorous studies, that two parents tend to be able to provide their children with more resource advantages than one parent alone. And furthermore, that a two-parent family is increasingly becoming yet another privilege associated with more highly resourced groups in society."
Some fascinating tidbits I learned:
The increase in single-parent households has been driven by non-college educated parents, meaning that the people that benefit the most from getting married are the ones not doing so as much.
The trend is also NOT a case where we're becoming more like the Europeans (where committed adults live together and raise their children without getting formally married).
It's NOT being caused by teen pregnancies, which are at an all-time low.
The data suggest that people not getting married has been driven by a decrease in the economic attractiveness of non-college educated men. There were some fascinating studies done on manufacturing towns before and after jobs were shipped to China or automated, and it was clear that one of the results of this subsequent lack of stable jobs was a decline in marriage in those areas.
Very important. The author is very clear about what is supported by data and what is not. She also bends completely backward to make clear throughout the book that her findings should not be taken as a reason to bludgeon people. In the first 1% of the book: "It is reasonable to argue, for example, that a household with two parents has a greater capacity to provide financial and nonfinancial resources to a child than a one-parent household does. To argue this is not to judge, blame, or diminish households with a single parent; it is simply to acknowledge that (1) kids require a lot of work and a lot of resources, and (2) having two parents in the household generally means having more resources to devote to the task of raising a family. What I am doing is arguing, through an appeal to data and rigorous studies, that two parents tend to be able to provide their children with more resource advantages than one parent alone. And furthermore, that a two-parent family is increasingly becoming yet another privilege associated with more highly resourced groups in society."
Some fascinating tidbits I learned:
The increase in single-parent households has been driven by non-college educated parents, meaning that the people that benefit the most from getting married are the ones not doing so as much.
The trend is also NOT a case where we're becoming more like the Europeans (where committed adults live together and raise their children without getting formally married).
It's NOT being caused by teen pregnancies, which are at an all-time low.
The data suggest that people not getting married has been driven by a decrease in the economic attractiveness of non-college educated men. There were some fascinating studies done on manufacturing towns before and after jobs were shipped to China or automated, and it was clear that one of the results of this subsequent lack of stable jobs was a decline in marriage in those areas.
September 27, 2023
Well researched and fairly well argued. The author deserves credit for presenting a thorough analysis of the economic data available. However, throughout the book, dry data is used almost as a cudgel - because the text is dispassionate and focused on hard numbers, there is little engagement with the broader questions of marriage in a modern, increasingly class-stratified society. This book is a good starting place for the conversation, but it would be a shame to let it replace more status-quo critical accounts like The Whiteness of Wealth by Dorothy Brown. I also felt like Melissa Kearney based this book on the “simple math” of two parents = more resources, but never explored other forms of “simple math” like compounding generational advantages and disadvantages in wealth accumulation, our elder care crisis and the 4-2-1 pyramid, or even the relationship between the number of children and total allocation of parental resources. The focus was so narrowly on marriage that it felt defensive when it didn’t need to be.
October 26, 2023
In this incredibly brave and well-reasoned work the author, an economist, exposes the falsehood of the myth that children do well in any parental situation and calls for a return to the ideal of a two parent family, preferably in marriage. She shows that children, especially boys, are disadvantaged and damaged by living with one parent, usually a single mother, simply because (as one chapter is titled "2 > 1". Admitting that the wealthy can probably buy their way out of these shortfalls, she focuses on the role marriage plays for the poor and middle class, the very groups where marriage is most endangered. She also presents causes why many men are not in a position to bring much to a marriage, calls for remediation of problems like low wages for those with limited education and those who have been imprisoned. Finally, she insists that providing resources for impoverished children is somehting we can and must afford.
January 13, 2024
I liked this—a wonky, rigorous, and very carefully presented review of the economic impact of American marriage and parenting trends. The author’s desire to carefully navigate around controversy and avoid being accused of being a social conservative is palpable and constant. There’s a lot of hedging in here that can make the text pretty dry. But still feels like a good treatment of an important under-explored topic that is kind of hard to talk about in polite fancy circles, and I learned a lot.
April 26, 2024
"Children's outcome in life are profoundly shaped by their family and home experiences. Children who have the benefit of two parents in their home tend to have more highly resourced, enriching, stable childhoods, and they consequently do better in school and have fewer behavioral challenges. These children go on to complete more years of education, earn more in the workforce, and have a greater likelihood of being married."
This was an interesting study of the plummeting marriage rates in the U.S. and the profoundly negative effects on children.
What was missing was any discussion on the role of religious observance on marriage or out-of-wedlock births.
2024 A book of my choice
This was an interesting study of the plummeting marriage rates in the U.S. and the profoundly negative effects on children.
What was missing was any discussion on the role of religious observance on marriage or out-of-wedlock births.
2024 A book of my choice
December 14, 2023
Reasonable descriptive work on how married people are privileged, summary of previous economics research, and misguided / superficial policy pronouncements about promoting marriage. Full review to come.
December 27, 2023
Good insights. Lots of numbers and data supporting the thesis
May 3, 2024
Interesting read. Lists lots of studies and statistics and analyzes them. It did not bash single parent homes and reads like a thesis.
March 26, 2024
This book can be more or less summed up in a few sentences. Namely, the data overwhelmingly show that children fare better in households with two parents. Apart from that, however, the author practically twists herself into pretzels with disclaimers that she doesn't disfavor the patchwork of family formations that have become normalized in recent decades. Instead, the chapters unfold like a tapdance with precision to come right up to the line without actually crossing it. The author does not wish to offend, even though her research clearly demonstrates that single-parent households have been devastating to American society.
While the author's conclusions seem a bit like common sense, they are not accepted in fashionable circles as she herself points out. Cocktail parties and academic seminars in places like Washington and New York -- the usual suspects -- frown upon such hard cold truths even if the party participants will acknowledge off the record that they recognize and agree with the research. Such benevolence.
On one hand, I applaud the author for laying out her findings that boys in particular, but also girls, fare far better with both parents in the home; on the other hand, the author clearly seeks to avoid the wrath of cultural elites who don't want to hear it. She claims the data don't show that mothers and fathers are necessary (not many studies about that, turns out), but then spends a whole chapter saying boys need fathers. In other words, there are inconsistencies throughout, although I think the harm is negligible in light of the overarching findings of the book.
While the author's conclusions seem a bit like common sense, they are not accepted in fashionable circles as she herself points out. Cocktail parties and academic seminars in places like Washington and New York -- the usual suspects -- frown upon such hard cold truths even if the party participants will acknowledge off the record that they recognize and agree with the research. Such benevolence.
On one hand, I applaud the author for laying out her findings that boys in particular, but also girls, fare far better with both parents in the home; on the other hand, the author clearly seeks to avoid the wrath of cultural elites who don't want to hear it. She claims the data don't show that mothers and fathers are necessary (not many studies about that, turns out), but then spends a whole chapter saying boys need fathers. In other words, there are inconsistencies throughout, although I think the harm is negligible in light of the overarching findings of the book.
January 11, 2024
So much of the discourse around this book is fully deranged (no, she's not arguing for rolling back no-fault divorce or forcible marriage or whatever strawman her most vociferous critics made up), and the main problem (she has no evidence-based solutions for boosting the marriage rate) is so obvious and banal that I was tempted not to say anything at all. She's identified a real problem; we have no idea how to fix it; on we go.
But here's one point I haven't seen other reviewers pick up on: the reliance on the division between college grads and non-grads makes a lot of the stats in here vulnerable to the same endemic selection bias issues that make the Case/Deaton research on mortality so dubious. The share of the population attending and graduating from college is growing quickly throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as the gap between college and non-college grads on marriage is widening. This raises an obvious question: how much of the gap is due to some localized change in norms among disadvantaged couples, and how much is due to the people who still don't go to college in the year 2023 being, on the whole, less put-together, conscientious, likely to get married etc than the same group was in 1973?
Kearney divvies up the trends by educational attainment, and sure enough the decline exists in each subgroup, but each subgroup is also changing. College grads now are also on the whole less conscientious than they were in 1973, when they were a much more positively-selected group. I'd really love to see some research that tries to adjust for this by using, eg, the education bins that Novosad et al use in their research on mortality.
But here's one point I haven't seen other reviewers pick up on: the reliance on the division between college grads and non-grads makes a lot of the stats in here vulnerable to the same endemic selection bias issues that make the Case/Deaton research on mortality so dubious. The share of the population attending and graduating from college is growing quickly throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as the gap between college and non-college grads on marriage is widening. This raises an obvious question: how much of the gap is due to some localized change in norms among disadvantaged couples, and how much is due to the people who still don't go to college in the year 2023 being, on the whole, less put-together, conscientious, likely to get married etc than the same group was in 1973?
Kearney divvies up the trends by educational attainment, and sure enough the decline exists in each subgroup, but each subgroup is also changing. College grads now are also on the whole less conscientious than they were in 1973, when they were a much more positively-selected group. I'd really love to see some research that tries to adjust for this by using, eg, the education bins that Novosad et al use in their research on mortality.
February 19, 2024
Is the kind of household a child grows up in the most important determinant of their educational and employment outcomes?
Yes, according to economics professor Melissa Kearney, who documents the decline in social mobility occasioned by one-parent households in the United States.
Kearney makes an economic case for marriage as an institution that effectively pools resources, allowing parents greater money, time and emotional bandwidth to invest in their children. She does not make a religious or cultural case for marriage, and specifically says she is not advocating for marriage at the cost of unhealthy relationships or the financial independence of sole parents.
Her data-focused approach is narrow in scope, looking at married and unmarried households with different levels of educational attainment from no high-school, high-school, and four-year university degrees.
She observes startling statistics about the declines in children raised in two-parents households, from 77% in 1980 to 63% in 2019. But among mothers with a university degree the drop was 90% to 84%, then 83% to 63% among those with high-school certificates, and 80% to 57% among those with no higher education. Overall, that apparently works out as one in five children living with an unpartnered mother.
This is a societal problem as those children have access to fewer resources whereas marriage generally increases household income, allows for task specialisation, and allows each partner to invest time and energy into their child's development. She makes a data-driven case for an intuitive premise:
Kearney paints a clear picture of what this means in terms of daily life:
So why have these declines occurred?
One of the main reasons she points to is the lack of 'marriageable' men. There are no longer well-paying secure jobs for men without a college education. There are simply fewer men that can be reliable partners and economic contributors. Apparently, 70% of births to non-university educated mothers are fathered by men with no positive resources to contribute to the family environment. The problem is not a lack of marriage but a lack of men who are economically attractive and reliable partners.
However, Kearney shows empirical evidence from economic studies that increasing the economic prospects of men without higher education does not increase marriage rates, as shown by natural experiments when small U.S. towns experience mining booms. Social change is a major mitigating factor.
Kids are expensive and poverty is stressful. Most people want to have kids but appreciate the enormous investment of money, time and energy it requires. And so, rates of married households with children are relatively higher for those with higher levels of education which result in higher incomes.
So, what are the outcomes for kids in these educated and partnered households compared to those without?
They avoid poverty. The graduate university. They repeat the cycle of being well-resourced and coupled.
Kearney even develops a model showing the economic returns to marriage on primary childhood outcomes. For example, if a married parent has a university degree, 57% of their children will get one themselves compared to 28% if the parent was unmarried. A more highly educated sole parent will result in a better outcome for a child relative to a less educated sole parent, but adding marriage to the mix improves absolute outcomes across the board.
What about alternatives?
Cohabitation?
Kearney argues is does not result in the same long-term partnership of a committed marriage.
Step-families?
Apparently they give rise to behavioural issues rather than resource problems.
Same-sex marriage?
There is no difference in childhood outcomes between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
So what public policy solutions does Kearney prescribe?
She has four:
Foster norms of two-parent homes.
This is essentially about public awareness and attitudes towards parenting and the outcomes for children.
Improve the economic position of men without secondary or tertiary education.
Effectively, skills and education leads to better job prospects which make partners more attractive, stable and reliable.
Scale government and community programs that give families the skills required to be great parents or fill in the gaps for sole-parent households.
Think access to educational support, sport and music programs, role model programs, mental health programs, etc.
Provide a stronger safety net for families regardless of their structure.
Essentially, increase payments to single parents. It cannot close the gap in having a partner provide a second income and additional time and emotional investment, but it can do a lot of good and has been proven not to result in sole parents having more children.
Kearney clearly has a focus on traditional two-parent households and I appreciate the view of a Washington Post review of the book which took issue with her not considering more communal approaches to raising children. It takes a village, as the saying goes. There is also a concept I was reminded of called 'alloparenting' where diverse relationships in a child's life provides a much wider and deeper pool of resources from family and neighbourhood networks.
Still, I agree with Kearney and I aspire to the picture she paints of being in a well-resourced and healthy relationship that provides the strong foundation and enriching environment that children need to reach their full potential in education, work and relationships.
Yes, according to economics professor Melissa Kearney, who documents the decline in social mobility occasioned by one-parent households in the United States.
Kearney makes an economic case for marriage as an institution that effectively pools resources, allowing parents greater money, time and emotional bandwidth to invest in their children. She does not make a religious or cultural case for marriage, and specifically says she is not advocating for marriage at the cost of unhealthy relationships or the financial independence of sole parents.
Her data-focused approach is narrow in scope, looking at married and unmarried households with different levels of educational attainment from no high-school, high-school, and four-year university degrees.
She observes startling statistics about the declines in children raised in two-parents households, from 77% in 1980 to 63% in 2019. But among mothers with a university degree the drop was 90% to 84%, then 83% to 63% among those with high-school certificates, and 80% to 57% among those with no higher education. Overall, that apparently works out as one in five children living with an unpartnered mother.
This is a societal problem as those children have access to fewer resources whereas marriage generally increases household income, allows for task specialisation, and allows each partner to invest time and energy into their child's development. She makes a data-driven case for an intuitive premise:
“A strong, stable family life is the foundation upon which children find their surest footing in this difficult world.”
Kearney paints a clear picture of what this means in terms of daily life:
“Having a second parent typically means a higher level of income, and all the associated advantages that higher income can buy for a family, such as a home in a safer neighbourhood with better schools, healthier foods, enriching activities and trips, etc. A second parent also means another parent means another adult devoting time to the child, whether it be in the form of basic care (like feeding or dressing a young child), educational time (like reading to a child or helping them with their homework), travel time (like driving to sports practice or music lessons), or just time spent together in leisure and fun."
So why have these declines occurred?
One of the main reasons she points to is the lack of 'marriageable' men. There are no longer well-paying secure jobs for men without a college education. There are simply fewer men that can be reliable partners and economic contributors. Apparently, 70% of births to non-university educated mothers are fathered by men with no positive resources to contribute to the family environment. The problem is not a lack of marriage but a lack of men who are economically attractive and reliable partners.
However, Kearney shows empirical evidence from economic studies that increasing the economic prospects of men without higher education does not increase marriage rates, as shown by natural experiments when small U.S. towns experience mining booms. Social change is a major mitigating factor.
Kids are expensive and poverty is stressful. Most people want to have kids but appreciate the enormous investment of money, time and energy it requires. And so, rates of married households with children are relatively higher for those with higher levels of education which result in higher incomes.
So, what are the outcomes for kids in these educated and partnered households compared to those without?
They avoid poverty. The graduate university. They repeat the cycle of being well-resourced and coupled.
Kearney even develops a model showing the economic returns to marriage on primary childhood outcomes. For example, if a married parent has a university degree, 57% of their children will get one themselves compared to 28% if the parent was unmarried. A more highly educated sole parent will result in a better outcome for a child relative to a less educated sole parent, but adding marriage to the mix improves absolute outcomes across the board.
What about alternatives?
Cohabitation?
Kearney argues is does not result in the same long-term partnership of a committed marriage.
Step-families?
Apparently they give rise to behavioural issues rather than resource problems.
Same-sex marriage?
There is no difference in childhood outcomes between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
So what public policy solutions does Kearney prescribe?
She has four:
Foster norms of two-parent homes.
This is essentially about public awareness and attitudes towards parenting and the outcomes for children.
Improve the economic position of men without secondary or tertiary education.
Effectively, skills and education leads to better job prospects which make partners more attractive, stable and reliable.
Scale government and community programs that give families the skills required to be great parents or fill in the gaps for sole-parent households.
Think access to educational support, sport and music programs, role model programs, mental health programs, etc.
Provide a stronger safety net for families regardless of their structure.
Essentially, increase payments to single parents. It cannot close the gap in having a partner provide a second income and additional time and emotional investment, but it can do a lot of good and has been proven not to result in sole parents having more children.
Kearney clearly has a focus on traditional two-parent households and I appreciate the view of a Washington Post review of the book which took issue with her not considering more communal approaches to raising children. It takes a village, as the saying goes. There is also a concept I was reminded of called 'alloparenting' where diverse relationships in a child's life provides a much wider and deeper pool of resources from family and neighbourhood networks.
Still, I agree with Kearney and I aspire to the picture she paints of being in a well-resourced and healthy relationship that provides the strong foundation and enriching environment that children need to reach their full potential in education, work and relationships.
March 18, 2024
I feel like most of this book was the author clawing back/ qualifying the (not quite accurate) subtitle of this book. She is also palpably afraid of being accused of being socially conservative (so like maybe edit the subtitle and description??). The basic argument that children of two parent households on average have better socioeconomic outcomes than one parent households because two parents on average have more resources than one is well articulated. However, her research still primarily supports anti-poverty programs over “marriage promotion” policies as effective for helping families and children.
February 4, 2024
Super impressive book, especially given how brave it is to print a mainstream book on this topic (similar to Richard Reeves with Of Boys and Men)… Kearney shows both heart and head, with a thoughtful treatment of the evidence as well as the social/economic issues.
“The conventional mores in the United States today are to treat matters of family and family formation with a dedicated agnosticism, avoiding any suggestion that one type of family might be somehow preferable to another family type… children’s outcomes in life are profoundly shaped by their family and home experiences. Children who have the benefit of two parents in their home tend to have more highly resourced, enriching, stable childhoods, and they consequently do better in school and have fewer behavioral challenges. These children go on to complete more years of education, earn more in the workforce, and have a greater likelihood of being married… This family gap contributes to class gaps in childhood resources, experiences, and outcomes… It perpetuates divisions that are causing fragmentation and fractures in society.”
“This book necessarily puts a spotlight on the role of marriage between parents and the benefits that institution brings to children – not as a religious or cultural institution but as a practical and economic one that makes the challenging work of raising kids less impossible. Marriage is the most reliable institution for delivery a high level of resources and long-term stability to children.”
“In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
“We are living in a vicious cycle: the forces that have eroded the economic position of non-college-educated men are now having widespread, multifaceted effects on families and how children are raised. These affected children are straddled with disadvantages that make it harder for them to flourish.”
“The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Family Assistance currently funds dozens of grants to fatherhood and family programs through state and local governments and community-based organizations. This federal office also maintains the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (available on the internet at www.fatherhood.gov) as a federally funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs, state governments, and others “interested in supporting strong fathers and families.””
Her policy recommendations are to:
Work to restore and foster a norm of two-parent homes for children
Work to improve the economic position of men without a college level of education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
Scale up government and community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parents and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure
This is an exceptional, modern, comprehensive, and compelling book that deserves to be widely read…
“The conventional mores in the United States today are to treat matters of family and family formation with a dedicated agnosticism, avoiding any suggestion that one type of family might be somehow preferable to another family type… children’s outcomes in life are profoundly shaped by their family and home experiences. Children who have the benefit of two parents in their home tend to have more highly resourced, enriching, stable childhoods, and they consequently do better in school and have fewer behavioral challenges. These children go on to complete more years of education, earn more in the workforce, and have a greater likelihood of being married… This family gap contributes to class gaps in childhood resources, experiences, and outcomes… It perpetuates divisions that are causing fragmentation and fractures in society.”
“This book necessarily puts a spotlight on the role of marriage between parents and the benefits that institution brings to children – not as a religious or cultural institution but as a practical and economic one that makes the challenging work of raising kids less impossible. Marriage is the most reliable institution for delivery a high level of resources and long-term stability to children.”
“In 2019, almost half of all babies in the US were born to unmarried mothers. This figure represents a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers.”
“We are living in a vicious cycle: the forces that have eroded the economic position of non-college-educated men are now having widespread, multifaceted effects on families and how children are raised. These affected children are straddled with disadvantages that make it harder for them to flourish.”
“The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Family Assistance currently funds dozens of grants to fatherhood and family programs through state and local governments and community-based organizations. This federal office also maintains the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (available on the internet at www.fatherhood.gov) as a federally funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs, state governments, and others “interested in supporting strong fathers and families.””
Her policy recommendations are to:
Work to restore and foster a norm of two-parent homes for children
Work to improve the economic position of men without a college level of education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
Scale up government and community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parents and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure
This is an exceptional, modern, comprehensive, and compelling book that deserves to be widely read…
December 21, 2023
Quite easy to understand why many people, some who probably haven't read and never will read the book, are rolling their eyes about the facts of this publication. I loved it, though it told me nothing that wasn't rather obvious anyway. But I refuse to praise or rant about a book if I don't read it first. Data-driven and devoid of personal anecdotes, heart-warming snippets, or apologetics. Exactly what most people abhor. So much easier to argue and rail about feelings and individual tales of woe or success to try and turn a sociological argument when facts tell a totally different story. I loved that she even mentions this in the book, how conversations about marriage/family/childrearing often revolve around assumptions, beliefs, personal lives, and "common sense", when rather often none of these things show the true picture of things. I would say, unequivocally, that anyone who disputes her findings is a HUGE part of the problem, and probably of many other problems to boot. Children are an absolute handful, regardless of their personalities, so anyone who would claim it is easier (or better or safer or more sensible) to raise a child in a single-parent household just can't do basic math. Yes, it IS that simple. Two people raising a child is obviously better than one. Skip the "what if the biological father/mother is a psycho" diversion, please. That is a personal/individual diversion from the point. And to anyone who says a single parent can do it by themselves, just fine: wouldn't they and their child(ren) be oh so much better off in every way with a second person committed to that situation?? Too many people are reading this book as a judgment of single parents, which it most assuredly is not. I know single parents who are absolutely fucking amazing at raising their children, but every one of them has said they would prefer to NOT have to raise the children by themselves. Every, Single. One. Of. Them.
Facts are facts. Sure, in 2023 it is commonplace to ignore them or say they are falsified, especially when they call into question your beliefs, ideas, or personal experiences. Dismiss this books data at your own peril, and society's too.
Several reviews have complained Kearney offers no solutions. Well, she didn't state that as part of the project, did she? There are loads of books about what we need to do to fix the underlying social problems. Go check out the Verso Books imprint for readings on anti-capitalism, degrowth, and the like.
I am staunchly anti-capitalist. I truly believe unless we dismantle that system we are doomed. Any attempts to work inside capitalism to defeat it will fail since its principles are profit before anything else. Always.
Not a profound book for me, but one worth reading for fact-based support in my conversations with emotion-based people about social issues.
Facts are facts. Sure, in 2023 it is commonplace to ignore them or say they are falsified, especially when they call into question your beliefs, ideas, or personal experiences. Dismiss this books data at your own peril, and society's too.
Several reviews have complained Kearney offers no solutions. Well, she didn't state that as part of the project, did she? There are loads of books about what we need to do to fix the underlying social problems. Go check out the Verso Books imprint for readings on anti-capitalism, degrowth, and the like.
I am staunchly anti-capitalist. I truly believe unless we dismantle that system we are doomed. Any attempts to work inside capitalism to defeat it will fail since its principles are profit before anything else. Always.
Not a profound book for me, but one worth reading for fact-based support in my conversations with emotion-based people about social issues.
March 28, 2024
This book was statistically thorough and very well backed up with data. Lots of attention paid to parsing out causal effects from correlations, and addressing alternative narratives surrounding potential confounding factors. It was a little pedantic/repetitive in style - like a very long sociology paper that I could have just read the abstract for and been happy with.
Major findings:
- Over the past 40 years, there has been a dramatic decline in the share of children living with married parents; this shift has happened largely outside the college-educated class
- More than 20% of US children live with a single mother, way more than other OECD countries
- Family structure varies widely across mothers with different education levels - aka there is a huge college gap in family structure
- The growing class gap in family structure amplifies earnings inequality
- Families with two parents have a distinct resource advantage. Another way to put it: two-parent households are measurably better for kids, in their economic and behavioral outcomes
- Research has established a causal link from men's declining economic status to a decline in marriage shares
- We're in a vicious cycle: the forces that eroded the economic position of non-college-educated men are now having widespread effects on family structures and how kids are raised. Those affected children are then straddled with disadvantages that lead to further inequality and cement class gaps across generations
- Parenting is hard, kids are expensive and time-intensive. Investing parental time, energy, and attention on children is just objectively harder with one parent in the home
- The boys are not all right. The home environment, i.e. the parental inputs of time and nurturing behavior, has a substantially stronger affect on boys' outcomes than on girls, with the gender gap most pronounced among black boys
- The presence of more dads in a neighborhood benefits not just the children of those dads but on other boys in the neighborhood as well
- Helping children in this country will require helping dads
- Surprising finding: birth rates have steadily declined across all social/racial groups since 2007, but more kids are living with just their mom because so many fewer adults are getting married
Major findings:
- Over the past 40 years, there has been a dramatic decline in the share of children living with married parents; this shift has happened largely outside the college-educated class
- More than 20% of US children live with a single mother, way more than other OECD countries
- Family structure varies widely across mothers with different education levels - aka there is a huge college gap in family structure
- The growing class gap in family structure amplifies earnings inequality
- Families with two parents have a distinct resource advantage. Another way to put it: two-parent households are measurably better for kids, in their economic and behavioral outcomes
- Research has established a causal link from men's declining economic status to a decline in marriage shares
- We're in a vicious cycle: the forces that eroded the economic position of non-college-educated men are now having widespread effects on family structures and how kids are raised. Those affected children are then straddled with disadvantages that lead to further inequality and cement class gaps across generations
- Parenting is hard, kids are expensive and time-intensive. Investing parental time, energy, and attention on children is just objectively harder with one parent in the home
- The boys are not all right. The home environment, i.e. the parental inputs of time and nurturing behavior, has a substantially stronger affect on boys' outcomes than on girls, with the gender gap most pronounced among black boys
- The presence of more dads in a neighborhood benefits not just the children of those dads but on other boys in the neighborhood as well
- Helping children in this country will require helping dads
- Surprising finding: birth rates have steadily declined across all social/racial groups since 2007, but more kids are living with just their mom because so many fewer adults are getting married
November 11, 2023
Political nerds get excited when Steve Kornacki goes to town with his big board, but his wizardry is usually limited to predicting final outcomes based on polls or early returns. How popular would he be if he expanded his scope to include scientific studies that predict socio-economic results? "We just got the latest numbers from the census, and boy, it doesn't look good for children. The number of high school-educated single moms is trending up, which for their children means higher poverty, lower educational attainment, and less likelihood of getting married themselves..." MSNBC's audience is ok with analyzing number to predict who's going to win or lose an election. They're much less comfortable about numbers about basic life choices like marriage and children.
Kearney makes the case that there is a growing trend of children being born to single parents, and that being reared by one parent instead of two demonstrably hurts children. She does this not with arguments about the pros and cons of marriage and divorce, but with hard, cold numbers. This is a master class in how to serve up a mountain of data to general readers who are willing to meet her halfway. This book is more demanding of the reader than a long-form newspaper or magazine article. Personal anecdotes are few and far between. There are no profiles of parents or children that are shoehorned in to make the author's point, or silly Michael Kelly-esque lionization of researchers or experts as they solve a thorny research problem.
The book is scrupulously honest and precise about the research it cites. This results in sentences that are longer and more nuanced than a typical New York Times or New Yorker article. You have to think a little bit harder when you read this book, but it's a far sight easier than trying to read academic studies that are indecipherable (at least to me, anyway). The reader who tackles this book is rewarded with a comprehensive picture of how parental trends are going, and how proposed solutions might change the numbers. I'm glad she didn't dumb things down, but I suspect it will limit her audience.
Kearney makes the case that there is a growing trend of children being born to single parents, and that being reared by one parent instead of two demonstrably hurts children. She does this not with arguments about the pros and cons of marriage and divorce, but with hard, cold numbers. This is a master class in how to serve up a mountain of data to general readers who are willing to meet her halfway. This book is more demanding of the reader than a long-form newspaper or magazine article. Personal anecdotes are few and far between. There are no profiles of parents or children that are shoehorned in to make the author's point, or silly Michael Kelly-esque lionization of researchers or experts as they solve a thorny research problem.
The book is scrupulously honest and precise about the research it cites. This results in sentences that are longer and more nuanced than a typical New York Times or New Yorker article. You have to think a little bit harder when you read this book, but it's a far sight easier than trying to read academic studies that are indecipherable (at least to me, anyway). The reader who tackles this book is rewarded with a comprehensive picture of how parental trends are going, and how proposed solutions might change the numbers. I'm glad she didn't dumb things down, but I suspect it will limit her audience.
April 17, 2024
If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like for an economist to turn a very dry - yet very valuable - body of research into 200 pages of non-fiction, here is your chance.
This book does excel in making complex research more accessible. It does so while conveying a message that is both important and uncomfortable. It is weighed down by an author who is both very technical and very defensive.
I do not shy away from books written by researchers and their fans. I came to this book by way of Angels of Our Better Nature, which is also full of numbers and graphs and complex narratives about what is changing and why it is so difficult to say why. Yet, I struggled through this book.
The narrative of The Two Parent Privilege is disjointed. Each chapter focuses on a wide array of demographic groups, often with just a quick mention before moving on to the next group or combination of groups. Some of this confusion is alleviated with the included graphics, but leaning on this constantly left me wondering “why not just read the original research, then?”
The defensiveness of the author is a constant distraction. Perhaps this is a larger social problem. This is a woman who is using data to paint a picture to increase the understanding of American society. And she is clearly terrified of being cancelled for what she has to say. That’s a bigger reflection on you and I than the author. Never-the-less, the constant hedging and reminders that the author is not advocating for a spouse to remain in a violent relationship, is a non-stop distraction. At several points I found myself - out loud! - saying “yeah, I got it, geez!”
Despite the book’s shortcomings, it’s still worth your time. It does tell a vitally important story about what I happening in our society and how it is affecting children. The book is far outside of our modern culture war, and the author does an exceptional job sticking to what can actually be found in data and refraining from drawing unsubstantiated conclusions. As dry as the writing is, it is also quite evident that the author is as heartfelt as she is intelligent, as both passion and real empathy come through from each chapter.
This book does excel in making complex research more accessible. It does so while conveying a message that is both important and uncomfortable. It is weighed down by an author who is both very technical and very defensive.
I do not shy away from books written by researchers and their fans. I came to this book by way of Angels of Our Better Nature, which is also full of numbers and graphs and complex narratives about what is changing and why it is so difficult to say why. Yet, I struggled through this book.
The narrative of The Two Parent Privilege is disjointed. Each chapter focuses on a wide array of demographic groups, often with just a quick mention before moving on to the next group or combination of groups. Some of this confusion is alleviated with the included graphics, but leaning on this constantly left me wondering “why not just read the original research, then?”
The defensiveness of the author is a constant distraction. Perhaps this is a larger social problem. This is a woman who is using data to paint a picture to increase the understanding of American society. And she is clearly terrified of being cancelled for what she has to say. That’s a bigger reflection on you and I than the author. Never-the-less, the constant hedging and reminders that the author is not advocating for a spouse to remain in a violent relationship, is a non-stop distraction. At several points I found myself - out loud! - saying “yeah, I got it, geez!”
Despite the book’s shortcomings, it’s still worth your time. It does tell a vitally important story about what I happening in our society and how it is affecting children. The book is far outside of our modern culture war, and the author does an exceptional job sticking to what can actually be found in data and refraining from drawing unsubstantiated conclusions. As dry as the writing is, it is also quite evident that the author is as heartfelt as she is intelligent, as both passion and real empathy come through from each chapter.
February 28, 2024
The author makes an irrefutable case of the tremendous advantage of children from two parent families have in life. Sometimes it’s a simple as saying that two parent families are able to pour more monetary resources, time resources, parenting resources into the raising of their children, who in turn will be more successful in life. The flipside of this discussion is that a child with a poor education whocomes from a low income single parent family with a poor education will be handicapped from the get-go in terms of life choices.
She goes to great pains to emphasize that she is not making value judgments relating to peoples reproductive choices or marriage choices; simply that the data shows that children from two parent families fare better in terms of economics, education, and life stability. Even a simple metric, such as the population in jail and prisons shows a preponderance of people from a single parent families.
Perhaps even more interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint , she shows a strong correlation between the growing disparity in wealth and income and the rise of the single parent family. This disparity is a subject of a host of books, government policy research and so on. Perhaps it is as simple and complex as this one metric.
The factors driving the rise of the single parent family are complex . Women waiting longer in life to have children, a decided lack of eligible men who make decent fathers, a collapse of the public school systems, and the loss of our country’s historic base of industrial jobs with a decent wage.
All in all this book is fascinating reading , albeit a bit dry ,for students of this vital subject. The author is an MIT professor of economics.
She goes to great pains to emphasize that she is not making value judgments relating to peoples reproductive choices or marriage choices; simply that the data shows that children from two parent families fare better in terms of economics, education, and life stability. Even a simple metric, such as the population in jail and prisons shows a preponderance of people from a single parent families.
Perhaps even more interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint , she shows a strong correlation between the growing disparity in wealth and income and the rise of the single parent family. This disparity is a subject of a host of books, government policy research and so on. Perhaps it is as simple and complex as this one metric.
The factors driving the rise of the single parent family are complex . Women waiting longer in life to have children, a decided lack of eligible men who make decent fathers, a collapse of the public school systems, and the loss of our country’s historic base of industrial jobs with a decent wage.
All in all this book is fascinating reading , albeit a bit dry ,for students of this vital subject. The author is an MIT professor of economics.
January 13, 2024
Great talking points with selected data, but for every remarkable conjecture from common debate there came even more questioning about comnwci, causality, and coincidence. There's too much brought into the argument that isn't present with data. And the author is gracious to point out that any argument made is on data points that can be provided and showcases data she was she's was available because there just is too much that is not able to be displayed in a plethora of areas.
Yet, this book does a good job of presenting every day discussion points in a digestible format outside of faith or political party lines.
The personality of the author even peaks through at times, even if it a bit basic.
The breadth and depth of studies was refreshing to see. All in all, it felt like reading someone explaining as many points as possible without wavering from their side - a sort of unfinished confirmation bias shown through.
I thought it would cover more about what privileges are available. But was pleasantly surprised to see references from Obama, MTV, and scholarly articles perfectly interwoven to project the mindset of a nation. There's just too much missing (such as the millennial mindset of career and trauma or the environmental depression that has been lived through over the last decade or so). It's a good foundation and a good read for those who have been interested in the concept of how wealth, family, and school resources affect growth in America.
Yet, this book does a good job of presenting every day discussion points in a digestible format outside of faith or political party lines.
The personality of the author even peaks through at times, even if it a bit basic.
The breadth and depth of studies was refreshing to see. All in all, it felt like reading someone explaining as many points as possible without wavering from their side - a sort of unfinished confirmation bias shown through.
I thought it would cover more about what privileges are available. But was pleasantly surprised to see references from Obama, MTV, and scholarly articles perfectly interwoven to project the mindset of a nation. There's just too much missing (such as the millennial mindset of career and trauma or the environmental depression that has been lived through over the last decade or so). It's a good foundation and a good read for those who have been interested in the concept of how wealth, family, and school resources affect growth in America.
May 3, 2024
- As many manufacturing jobs shifts aboard, America is increasingly shifting into a country of 2: people with higher degrees and people with less higher degrees (however, I personally would caution all the technocrats lumping everyone in advanced degrees together - does a B.A in Psychology really have the same result as a B.S in Electrical Engineering?)
- The marriage rate among the college educated has stayed the same (albeit a bit lower than before). But there's a colossal drop in the marriage rate among less college educated group. Blacks in America are disproportionately affected (again - I find the technocrats' notion to lump all "blacks" together rather horrifying).
- Asian is the only outlier among other race in terms. Author speculated that culture is the reason why this happens. As Asian nations - unlike its Western counterparts - also happen to be the only region where child are vastly more likely to be born in a marriage rather than a wedlock
- Author finds that the trend is not intensely related to pay. In regions where males see a jump in salary (fracking regions), the marriage rate is still lower (although interestingly enough, the birth rate is higher). Author speculated that the income alone isn't enough for the reversal of children being born in a married family
- Author noted that many of the single mother in lower degree group don't want to marry because they find the father more or less "another child" rather than a husband material
- The marriage rate among the college educated has stayed the same (albeit a bit lower than before). But there's a colossal drop in the marriage rate among less college educated group. Blacks in America are disproportionately affected (again - I find the technocrats' notion to lump all "blacks" together rather horrifying).
- Asian is the only outlier among other race in terms. Author speculated that culture is the reason why this happens. As Asian nations - unlike its Western counterparts - also happen to be the only region where child are vastly more likely to be born in a marriage rather than a wedlock
- Author finds that the trend is not intensely related to pay. In regions where males see a jump in salary (fracking regions), the marriage rate is still lower (although interestingly enough, the birth rate is higher). Author speculated that the income alone isn't enough for the reversal of children being born in a married family
- Author noted that many of the single mother in lower degree group don't want to marry because they find the father more or less "another child" rather than a husband material
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews