Why Economic Inequality Exists, Part V:
The Effects of Family Fragmentation (1 of 2)
A “Stay Out of Poverty Now” Card
Are you, or someone you know, interested in avoiding poverty? ProofsandSpoofs.com is here to help, as usual. In the early 1990’s, Brookings Institute scholar William Galston, former Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton, extracted a formula from scholarly research that, if followed, drastically reduces one’s chances of being poor. Galston discovered that 92 percent of those who’d done these three things were not poor: 1) graduate from high school; 2) marry before having children; and 3) wait until age 21 to have a baby. In other words, just 8 percent of men and women adhering to these rules were poor. (Hats off to Google calculator.)
More recently, the same left-leaning Brookings Institute reported that finishing high school, getting a full-time job (any job), and waiting until the age of 21 to marry and have children lowered the odds of poverty to 2 percent. Moreover, fully 75 percent of folks complying with these simple rules find themselves fully ensconced in the middle class. 
Our astute ProofsandSpoofs.com subscribers will instantly pick up on the role of marriage as a powerful poverty prophylactic. (Try saying that ten times fast.) Social science has long demonstrated the reality that marriage and marital childbearing, or the lack thereof, is a formidable predictor of a family’s financial condition.
In fact, the weakening of marriage has been disastrous for the economic well-being of children and families. Given the high levels of poverty among black Americans, it is often assumed that race is the pivotal issue. But research says otherwise: the absence of marriage is far more important. A recent report from the highly regarded non-partisan research group, Child Trends, is a bracing tonic for marriage apathy:
Children are much more likely to be poor if they live in a family headed by a single mother than if they live in a married-couple family. In 2017, 41 percent of children living in single-mother families were poor, compared with 8 percent of children living in married-couple families. This pattern holds for white, black, Hispanic, and Asian children. (My emphasis.) For example, nearly half of black and Hispanic children in single-mother families lived below the federal poverty line in 2017 (43 and 48 percent, respectively). However, only 10 percent of black children and 15 percent of Hispanic children in married-couple families lived in poverty in 2017.
Sadly, the source of so much pain for children is now culturally entrenched: an astounding 40 percent of children were born to unmarried parents in 2016.
Divorce is also a significant contributor to poverty. Back in 2005, some our nation’s best family scholars issued the report, “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-six Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Second Edition” summarizing the wide-ranging negative impacts of family fragmentation. (Poverty is just one; we strongly recommend reading the whole report.) But, as regards poverty, according to these scholars, “Divorce as well as unmarried childbearing plays a role: Between one-fifth and one-third of divorcing women end up in poverty following their divorce.” So, children of divorce often get the double whammy of heartache at their parent’s break-up and a plunge into dire financial circumstances.
But, is it really a marriage license — a stupid piece of paper — that makes the difference for children? Perhaps it’s just the number of parents in the same household who are ready, willing, and able to care and provide for their kids? If so, cohabiting and step-families should generate similar financial conditions and other outcomes for children as intact first marriages, right?
We shall see, but here’s a sneak preview: that stupid piece of paper ain’t as dumb as you may think.