The Washington Post announced new survey/study results today showing that some 40% of children (2007) are now being born out of wedlock. This is a substantial increase over the past 30 years. It is up from 34% to almost 40% since 2002 alone. Signficiantly, says the report, most of the change appears to be taking place among women in their 20s. The figures are striking in that it is women in their early 20s - those born in the 1980s -- that are leading the change. "Sixty percent of those who had babies between 20 and 24 were single, up from 52 percent in 2002, and nearly one-third of those giving birth at ages 25 to 29 unmarried, up from one-fourth in 2002. Nearly one in five women who gave birth in their 30s were unmarried, compared with one in seven in 2002." The most interesting coment is that this figure is putting the USA more in line with Europe, where out-of-wedlock births account for 44% (UK), 50% (France) and 55% (Sweden).
I don't know what this means for our country, but it must mean substantial changes to come in the median or typical family. I wonder if some of this is not to be laid at the feet of the wedding industry. Weddings today are viewed as very expensive affairs costing $10-$20K at the low end, with $30K-$40K being quite normal. The inflation has been striking of late. The cost of these affairs is beyond the reach of a large number of Americans, particularly young ones. We have also moved to a new era in who pays for weddings. The 1950s norm was that a marriage was between two people who were little more than teenagers with no financial support of their own; the wedding was paid for by the bride's parents. That has changed in very many ways. Combined with a general slackening of social norms concerning marriage, many couples may be forgoing weddings for financial reasons too.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
More on Birth and Marriage
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 12:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
LTG, it was only fair for the bride's parents to pay for the wedding back in the day. After all, they wouldn't be paying for a college education for her would they.
But joking aside, this is interesting. I'd be interested to see how this new trend breaks down by social class and urban-rural characteristics. Since we also know that women of higher socio-economic status tend not to have children in their 20s, I'd guess that this trend is concentrated among the working class and poor. And I'll go further and guess that out of wedlock births are higher in rural areas (per capita) than in urban areas.
What does that lead me to suspect? That this trend is much more prominent in precisely those populations most receptive to the socially conservative theocratic-populism of today's Republican party. They are seeing the results of their Christian policies. I'd say it serves them right if I weren't likely to have to pay (through taxes) to support their kids while they brain wash them for the next generation of culture wars.
Could be the echo boomers method of rebellion...I think RBR touched on the other issue as well, the religious Indoctrination. Also, so many have seen their parents divorced and lived through that trauma...probably do not want to repeat that scenario.
I would've thought that single mums would be more of an urban phenomenon, but I don't know why - just a gut feeling really. I agree about the working class/poor point. Interesting how the percentages drop off as the ages go up - people getting old enough to feel ready for marriage perhaps?
And the point about parental divorce is an interesting one - for quite a few years after my parents finally, messily, divorced when I was sixteen, I would tell people when asked that I didn't know if I ever wanted to get married, because I'd watched my parents divorce. Secretly though, I always wanted to get married some day, partly to attain the stability my parents failed to provide (that's not the only reason of course, but I'm sufficiently self-aware to know it's one of them at least).
I found this USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-07-teenbirths_N.htm
"The highest teen birth rates are in the South and Southwest; Mississippi is highest with 68.4 per 1,000, followed by New Mexico, with a rate of 64.1 and Texas, with 63.1. The lowest rates are in the Northeast. New Hampshire had the fewest teen births with 18.7 per 1,000. Vermont, with 20.8 per 1,000, and Massachusetts, with 21.3 per 1,000, were also low. Decreases were noted in New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia."
It's interesting that teen pregnancy is higher in conservative parts of the country and lower in the supposedly degenerate liberal parts of the country.
So, a naive person might find a strong negative correlation between teenage pregnancy and laws permitting civil unions, domestic partnerships, or gay marriage.
I don't go for the "oh a wedding is so expensive" thing. A justice of the peace and 2 witnesses is like what? $50-$100? A religious person will do it for a donation.
I have problems with stats like these and don't take them too seriously. They are a very small part of the story.
What I'd like to know is how may of those single mothers ended up married after giving birth? How many of those mothers are getting support from the fathers even if they aren't married? Someone may be unwed, but not single.
USWest - spot on with the unwed but not single point, I forgot to mention that. De facto couples aren't exactly uncommon these days, so it's entirely possible for a (planned) child to be born into a stable, committed, long-term relationship that isn't a marriage.
I said (planned) because I always get the impression from these stats that they're trying to push a story of 'accidental' pregnancies.
The graph I'd like to see is the one plotting rate of teenage pregnancy against rate of sex education in school / parental attitudes to sex education/contraception. I think the European (Scandinavian I believe) countries that start sex education the youngest at school have the lowest teen pregnancy/STD rates in Europe. Not that I can find a source for that right now, but anyway...
RE: Unwed but not single...My impression of life in Europe is that this is very common over there. My impression of life here in the States is that is much less common here. I would guess that a much higher percentage of the "unwed" parents here are actually on their own as well. But that is changing and the real question is how much of the increase can be accounted for by the increase in the kind of phenomenon US West and Pombat are talking about.
USWEst- you are totally right that a wedding can be very cheap. I was suggesting that (watch Bridezillas, for example) there is a growing belief even among the lower middle class that a wedding is supposed to be the Biggest Day Of All, an expensive fancy gala that is the fulfillment of (presumably her) lifelong dream. I say "presumably" her because while wedding marketers have in mind the adolescent girl's fantasy of ponies and white fluff everywhere, with a "theme" or "color" for the wedding, many men also want to have big occasions. The dream of a multi-day-vacation bachelor party (one friend of mine whose invitation I declined is having one this month in Cabo San Lucas) requires that the wedding be an even bigger.
Now, if you can afford it, this is a fine indulgence. But the one thing television and easy credit have done is ramp up the aspirations of the middle classes in particular.
So I wonder if young women (and to a lesser extent men) don't start thinking that they can't afford to have a wedding.
What is obviously missing in this equation is idea that marriage, per se, is important. The declining social importance of marriage permits people to think that they may just remain living together with kids without "signing a piece of paper" as I have heard it explained. Once this social change occurs, it becomes easy to start thinking of weddings as necessarily part of the upper-middle-class milieu, beyond the reach of ordinary folk.
So while I agree that weddings need not cost much, I argue that the idea is growing among younger people that if they can't have a "real" wedding with all the bells and whistles, they aren't going to get married at all.
Fair point, LTG. People make a big mistake when they think that they are entitled to exactly the same things as those above their class. That is why I keep pounding on this problem of percieved entitlement that drives people to spend more than they should. The growing income gaps haven't helped either.
I also think culture plays a roll. Where I grew up, we had a lot of Portuguese. They always had 500 guests and the like at the wedding. I work with people from all over the world, particularly the Middle East, where big weddings are expected as a sign of your economic and social class. It less about the bride and groom than about the parents.
My old hometown lacks job opportunities or any real industry outside of education and agriculture. Unemployment has toped at this point around 20% because farm laborers can't find work now. The town made a huge investment in revitalizing its old downtown, bricking in sidewalks and redoing storefronts. But it hasn't worked. So the latest plan is to turn it into wedding central with bridal shops and the like. Makes us all want to puke.( By the way, it's very centrally located, has a multicultural population, is somewhat conservative but turning purple, and has a ton of affordable housing for anyone thinking of starting a green or white collar business! Turlock, Turlock, yeah Turlock! Plug plug!) But then I went to high school with girls who did in fact think of that big party. It would be the one day of their lives where they would be the central figure and be treated like a princess. But those marriages didn't last. So I'd rather young people didn't marry at all than spend $20K for a big party, and then divorce for $50K and a kid three years later.
I also think young people these are less willing to be pushed into marriage for the sake of children. They have options that women didn't have in the past. And in some instances, single mom's get incentives and financial aid to go to college or job training that their childless peers don't get. Conservatives aren't all wrong when they complain about such things. But it depends on your goal for social policy -to give people a better shot at success, or to solidify "moral values"?
This isn't limited to weddings, by the way. NPR did a story back in February, I think, about Bar Mitzvah's. Apparently, they have gotten crazy expensive as well with ponies and live music, and the like where everyone is trying to outdo the last guy. However, the story went on to say that this has been scaled back as the economic situation changed.
One stat not discussed yet, at least I don't think it has, is that on this very blog I think, there was a posting about a new statistical finding that the action a new teenage mom takes within the first three years or so, after the birth of the first child, they have another child...out of wedlock. This could lend support to a point brought up earlier, that just because the girls are not married, it doesn't mean they are not with the father. Personally, I am not sure that it matters, I think the family unit is important but I can just jump over a broom stick with my life mate choice and be done with it.
Hey, would somebody send me an email. I would like to contact you, but you're too anonymous.
Hey, I'm pretty slow this am. Don't give you an email, and I give you the wrong url. It is obie.holmen@gmail.com.
Obie Holmen: I think the anonymity is rather the point...
We're going to an Asian wedding next week - a colleague of Spotted H's (so I don't know exactly where they're from, I haven't even *met* the bride yet!) - and apparently the groom's dad has invited most of his suburb. Definitely about the family, rather than the bride & groom.
And I totally agree on the whole "Big Day" thing - there seem to be so many people out there now who are utterly obsessed with the wedding, to the point that they're totally failing to look beyond it to the marriage that will then need maintaining, and will have both highes and lows. It's almost like they've read far too many fairytales, and want to play the part of the princess living happily ever after. Although even that seems to be morphing somewhat - a fairly down to earth friend of ours got married a couple of years ago, and whilst hunting for the few professionals they really wanted for the wedding (photographer, dressmaker, restaurant/caterers/venue, celebrant), ending up talking to a wedding planner who was trying to convince her that the wedding day was when she should be not just a princess, but a celebrity for the day. Insert usual rant here about the failings of a celebrity obsessed instant gratification society that doesn't believe in working at anything anymore...
Post a Comment