7 ms·

What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

78 points by monort 10y ago

acchow 10y ago
Enjoyed the analysis. I wonder if our educational system will ever reach the point where the layperson doesn't immediately think "I should get married to increase my income". Tho many people seem to believe that moving to the Bay Area will increase their earnings... post hoc ergo propter hoc.
- dibujante 10y ago
  If the third hypothesis (signaling) is correct, then you _should_ get married to increase your income.
  - mtanski 10y ago
    If domestic partnerships are still possible in the bay area (they were when I lived there 5 years ago). You can get all the upsides without the downsides (taxes & AMT).... and just call the other person your partner, they'll assume you're married.
  - acchow 10y ago
    Right, but there are other possible explanations - none of which the layperson ever considers. It's especially common for health advice.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  "Children raised in families that own a home reach higher levels of achievement" "Let's promote home ownership..."
ianai 10y ago
They routinely give the men with children/wives the better hours, pay, and whatever else at my work. They just changed several peoples' schedules so that my peer could have Saturdays off with his kid. Contrast that with myself: I have requested the same shift and been denied. I don't have kids. I also have better reasons to be on that shift. In my anecdotal experience, it appears classist. I would file that under 'human capital'.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  You say you have "better reasons", childcare is pretty important when you consider all the downstream effects. Are you certain you are objective on this?
  - ianai 10y ago
    Of course I'm not objective. I can't be objective since it's my direct experience. I'm also asking you to take my word on me having the overriding reasons. There's too much going on for me to explain fully in an internet forum. My point is they have two workers vying for the same shift. Overriding corporate policy and business interests would put me on that shift. But they're going with a married guy because he has a kid. That's all I can give you for the circumstances. Judge away. My judgement is that they're choosing someone based on social standing. I think they'd classify that as 'human capital' in this article.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      > Of course I'm not objective. I can't be objective since it's my direct experience. I'm also asking you to take my word on me having the overriding reasons. It's kinda hard to. What are you doing on that time? Caring for your elderly and sick grandmother? Tutoring orphans? It's kinda hard to come up with a legitimate reason that is better than that guy spending time with his kids. "Spending time with" being shorthand here for performing quality parenting that over time makes their kids grow up to be well-adjusted, valued members of society. What could a single, childless person possibly do with that schedule that is more important than improving the future of a dependent that has more life ahead of them than you or I? No, you don't have to provide an answer if you choose not to. But don't expect us to take you on your word either.
    - bluGill 10y ago
      You say your reasons are more important, but your actions don't seem to back that up. If your reasons were more important you would find a new job - perhaps making less money (it is understood that you might have to work the bad hours for a couple months while looking). Beyond that, importance is different to everyone. To the company it isn't just your reasons, it is also if they give you the better shift they look anti-family. So they are not only risking you or the other guy quitting, they are also risking dozens of other people deciding this isn't a company they want to work for.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mason240 10y ago
I think it's mostly of the first. Having an income makes dating easier, having a higher one makes it even more so. One way to test that might be to follow a group of unmarried men who are all the same age, and then 10 years later and compare the still unmarried with the long-time married (5+ years).
tyingq 10y ago
Would have been interesting to see a breakdown by dual-income vs single-income, unmarried with/without dependants, etc. If you get married, and find yourself supporting a spouse, and potentially, children, you have new motivation to make more money.
- sjg007 10y ago
  They probably controlled for dual-income and dependents.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Probably, but a comparison of the two would seem more enlightened than just a comparison vs "shotgun weddings"...which is called out specifically.
- VygmraMGVl 10y ago
  On the flip side, if you find yourself with a partner at home who isn't employed, you may work longer or harder because you feel less pressure to cook and clean.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    That depends on the partner...
anqh4 10y ago
1. Women seek men with high income, 2. Having a housewife leaves the man with more free time to work. See, no need to make a study.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Those are the first and third of the the three hypotheses that they consider. They attempt to figure out how large the impact of each hypothesis is.
- civilian 10y ago
  > 2. Having a housewife leaves the man with more free time to work. That's hypothesis 2 of the three that they looked at, that marriage "makes a man a more productive worker". There is a need for a study. What if employers are simply assuming that married men are better workers (hypothesis 3), but married men aren't actually better workers? Than as an unmarried man, I'm getting discriminated against, and marital status is a protected class. This is good shit to look at.
  - lemonsqueeze 10y ago
    No, marriage does not make a man more productive. A productive man is more likely to get married (He's a good catch) It's a selection bias on the part of the woman (or man, not that there's anything wrong with that)
  - anqh4 10y ago
    I forgot 3, then: 3. Employers assume married men, especially if they have children, are hard workers and responsible
    - civilian 10y ago
      I'm glad you're being complete :) But, can you see why it'd be good to study this? Which one of the three is it? Or if it a mix, and what is the mix?
      - 10y ago
boshfpngr 10y ago
This is pure causation. Men with more income and stability in their lives are more capable of attracting women, therefore more likely to be married. How could they miss such an obvious answer?
- civilian 10y ago
  I mean, that was the first hypothesis of three that they offered.
- nnspace 10y ago
  "Explanation #1: Ability bias. The causal effect of marriage on male income is smaller than it seems....Maybe income makes it easier to attract a spouse".
  - lemonsqueeze 10y ago
    Yep. No need to make a study.
Spooky23 10y ago
How much is the unmarried disparity correlated with divorce? For people paying a % of income in child support/alimony, the incentive to make more money is often missing or inverted.
ouid 10y ago
There is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting your data to shotgun weddings would control for the things that they claimed to be controlling for.
- sirclueless 10y ago
  The number of confounding factors is enormous. 1. The man may be more likely to acquiesce to the wedding if they have a stable income and can support a family. 2. The interested parties on the bride's side may be more interested in pursuing a shotgun wedding if the man has a stable income. 3. The same reasons that lead women to pursue marriage with high-income men may also lead them to pursue pre-marital unprotected sex with those men. I'm sure you can think of more. This seems like a very suspect way to segment a population.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    It's even further compounded by the fact that weddings with preconceived children are unlikely to be genuine shotgun weddings in 2017. The social pressure to reluctantly marry after conception is drastically less intense than it was 60 years ago.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      They'd probably need to conduct them in the regions where the "shotgun" part isn't a metaphor, like deep Appalachia or rural Missouri. I'm from Missouri and I promise, it's not always just a figure of speech.
      - linkregister 10y ago
        If they did so, then the scope of their study wouldn't be national; it would only be regional. It wouldn't be relevant to national employment.
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  I want to know more about those shotgun tattoos...
mettamage 10y ago
I'm noticing that the right type of girl stimulates me to be a better me. It also stabilizes my sleeping rhythm. -- not married by the way, just my observations with GFs
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  > I'm noticing that the right type of girl stimulates me to be a better me. Also a dude and I agree. I wonder if there's a gender difference on this point, at least as far as impact on job performance.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  I agree. There's a measurable relationship "bonus" to my life in happy relationships - having someone who double checks my logic, notices things I missed, works when I'm sick, etc. make things much smoother.
lemonsqueeze 10y ago
Isn't obvious? Higher value men are more likely to get married (He's a "good catch")
- Arizhel 10y ago
  That's assuming there's high-value women to be had. From what I hear, that's just not the case in Silicon Valley; the single-male/single-female ratio is horribly skewed. I also hear Seattle is almost as bad. Over in NYC, however, there's scads of single women who can't find a boyfriend.
strictnein 10y ago
Follow up posts: What Is the Female Marriage Penalty? http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.... Policy Implications of the Marriage Premium http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/policy_implicat.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/policy_implicat.... 9 Short Observations about the Marriage Premium http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....
geebee 10y ago
There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizing_Men_Who_Request_a_Family_Leave_Is_Flexibility_Stigma_a_Femininity_Stigma https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizin... There is clearly a correlation between men having children and men getting higher salaries, and the reverse for women. However, this may reflect the fact that women are more likely to withdraw from work to take care of children (regardless of whether they'd prefer to), and men may double down on work. Women are more likely to incur a penalty for taking time off due to child care needs, but that is largely because they are more likely to do so in the first place. Men do this much less often. However, there is evidence that the relatively small number of men who do this pay an unusually heavy career penalty for it. This can be a problem for women. If we reduce the stigma for taking time off and provide generous leave, but only for women, but penalize men for doing this, then we actually end up putting even more pressure on women to carry this obligation.
- kefka 10y ago
  So, is it fair to pay women less? /dons firesuit Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this. Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, legally. What is this... scheduling latitude actually worth? I'd really like to see statistics on this. But on a sniff-test, this seems probably true and the reason why women are paid less: more risk. Men don't have the same options here, at least in the US. Ideally, to "Level the Playing Field", I'd like to see men with the same rights as women. But alas, we're not really headed into more workers' rights territory.
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result.
cm2187 10y ago
Let's read this through the current hysterical liberal lens: unmarried men are unacceptably discriminated! Companies must publish statistics on how they pay married vs unmarried male employees. And they need to train their staff to understand and fight their own bias against unmarried men! The reason for this imbalance can only be outrageous discrimination. Anyone who thinks or suggests otherwise should be silenced.
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  It sounds like you're looking through some kind of lens that makes liberals look hysterical to you, and you sound pretty hysterical about liberals yourself. You should get your prescription checked, because you're seeing things that aren't there. Remember: liberals are the one who are for paid family leave, which today's "family values" conservatives are against (except for themselves). [1] "Speaker of the House Paul Ryan drew scrutiny this fall when he said, “I cannot and will not give up my family time” as a condition of his speaker candidacy. Ryan, who is a devout Catholic, has opposed family leave measures proposed over the past several years. A spokeswoman for Ryan declined to share the office’s policy on family leave for its congressional employees." [2] [1] http://abetterminnesota.org/2016/05/conservatives-rally-against-paid-family-leave/ http://abetterminnesota.org/2016/05/conservatives-rally-agai... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/30/in-the-paid-family-leave-debate-pro-life-pro-family-groups-parental-leave-policies-are-all-over-the-map/?utm_term=.4bc1b4d503d8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11...
  - dasil003 10y ago
    I think it's valuable to have multiple lenses. One thing I feel has increased dramatically over the last few decades is that if you use the wrong lens when speaking the wrong audience then a witch hunt ensues. Something about the internet has enabled tribalism without personal liability, which is a powder keg of situation that leads to the sort of political outcomes we are currently seeing.
    - DonHopkins 10y ago
rlpb 10y ago
Have they controlled for age? Or is that included in their claim of having controlled for experience? Older men are more likely to be married (since finding a partner takes a variable amount of time, and the marriage rate is higher than the divorce rate). And salaries also tend to go up over time as employees build their careers. This would of course be part of the author's "Explanation #1: Ability bias.". I'm just surprised that this sub-explanation isn't explicitly called out.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Yes, it is mentioned further in the series they have controlled for age. How effective that control was is not described. I'd like a full methodology.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thecity2 10y ago
I'm 41 and am hoping to be engaged very soon (god and my gf willing!). I sure as hell don't expect to earn a raise. lol
trevyn 10y ago
Until a couple weeks ago, I worked at a large Bay Area tech company with very generous parental leave. I noticed that a lot of people there were having kids. I think it makes sense from a conpany perspective, because having kids (and a marriage) seems to make people much more risk-averse, so they're more likely to stay at the nice, stable company. Which is helpful for the company when attrition is one of your big problems.
zaroth 10y ago
I didn't get much past the 3 hypothesis in TFA because I stopped and had to ask, isn't it obvious that married men earn more because they have to in order to support their families? It seems to me that the biggest factor in earnings is how hard you work. Nothing quite as motivating as needing to support your family... Married men earn more because they have to. There is definitely a secondary effect I have seen though, it seems like having kids can boost your salary independent of ability/productivity due to the boss believing your are justified in asking for more money. Pay is set more based on what your boss thinks you need than what you are worth.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  Your points are encompassed in hypotheses #2 & #3...
  - zaroth 10y ago
    Not at all! Married men are certainly not more productive because they are married -- marriage, and kids in particular, are a massive drain on productivity. And being married certainly isn't a signal of being more productive, if anything the opposite. I think the OP is assuming far more rationality in wage-setting than actually exists. A single man in his 20s or 30s will be way more productive than the married man with the same experience. But the married man will be paid more "because he has a family to support."
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      You want stereotypes? OK, I'll give you stereotypes. A single man in his 20s is a slacker. He works hard enough to not get fired, and not much past that. A married man of the same age works hard enough to try to get promoted so he gets paid more. Which is going to be more productive? (Yeah, I know, you say the married man has a lot more distractions - but the single guy is hitting Tinder every minute his boss's back is turned. That single guy is less distracted? I doubt it's an unambiguous win.)
      - 10y ago
Mz 10y ago
They missed the obvious: Married men are more productive because they have a woman at home doing the "women's work." This both raises their quality of life AND frees up both time and energy to put into their job instead of into self-maintenance. I have seen this from both sides of the equation: I was a full time wife and mom for a lot of years. Then, I got divorced. I told my sons I would rather they take over the "women's work" so I could put more into my job than for them to get some kind of part time, minimum wage job. This is basically a form of transferring her energy to him and the employer paying for getting the extra energy and mental focus he can now bring to the table. This works reasonably well (societally speaking) in a traditional society where women are primarily homemakers and moms. It works less well in a world where people are getting married later, we are actively discouraging people from having more kids because there are already more than 7 billion people on the planet, etc. We need to find another answer, one that allows for young, single people, childless couples, etc to all have full lives. Otherwise, it is just the married men who get The Good Life and everyone else is shorted.
- svv 10y ago
  This falls under the Explanation #2: Human capital. By the way, the post does not mention whether the study controlled for wives staying at home.
  - Mz 10y ago
    Except for the detail that the article entirely credits the man with being more productive and in no way whatsoever suggests that his wife's work in any way whatsoever contributes to it: Maybe marriage makes men work more hours; maybe it makes them work harder per hour; maybe it makes them control their tempers better; maybe all of these and more. It gives zero credit to the wife somehow genuinely enhancing his life by cooking, cleaning, having sex with him, etc. It just suggests that married men choose to be more virtuous. Done.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      Yeah, the omission of unpaid female labor at home as a factor to consider is glaring.
drblast 10y ago
In my own case, I'm working and making as much as I do because I'm married and have kids and my wife is a stay-at-home-mom. This is still a very socially acceptable arrangement. If I weren't married with kids, I'd be a semi-retired snowboard instructor. I am not driven by my career at all. I'm good at it, and I make good money, but I wouldn't otherwise be doing it.
- zaroth 10y ago
  Right! I guess economically you are "more productive" than your unmarried counterpart but it's important to note this isn't the result of natural ability manifesting in greater likelihood of being selected by a partner (utter nonsense) but rather, now that you have a partner you have a responsibility to someone else to maximize your income.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I'll be married myself in a month and the mere thought of children at some point in the future has caused me to begin accepting any overtime offered to me. I can't imagine a more powerful motivator except a gun to my head.
jbmorgado 10y ago
It would be interesting to see the number of working hours for married men vs unmarried men. And I guess that data should actually be relatively simple to get. That could explain some unanswered questions in this article. I.E. If a married men is working more time than an unmarried one, that would be a good indication that a married men felt more pressured to work more after getting married and that was where this premium was mostly coming from.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bmh_ca 10y ago
I've always wondered what, if any, is the multi-generational benefit/penalty of mothers working full time in lieu of raising their own children.
tryitnow 10y ago
I don't really see a full fledged regression analysis here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_college_pre.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_college_pre.... There are several potentially correlated variables (College grad and cognitive ability?). That's not necessarily a problem but I think it would necessitate showing different models, not just one. It's also atheoretical - it's not advisable just to slap a model together and find regression coefficients with high t-stats. In economics, it's important to start with a believable hypothesis grounded in reasonable theory. This study is like a half-hearted attempt at exploratory data analysis - half-hearted because only the results of one model are shown and there are no charts or graphs to give a feel for the data. You really can't just jump to a conversation about causes unless you've done more work on the data (maybe Caplan did, but he really needs to show it to stimulate the conversation he wants to have).
scarface74 10y ago
In the U.S., even with the ACA, it's still easier to have health insurance through your job. When I was single and solely responsible for having health insurance, I couldn't as easily jump back and forth between contract jobs and permanent jobs. I couldn't take advantage of high pay with no benefits like I can now. My wife having good family health insurance has allowed me to be more aggressive about opportunities. I know other people who own a business and their wife works at low paying government jobs with good benefits.
Agathe 10y ago
Suggested reading related to the topic: Smart & Sexy by R. Kaynes (https://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sexy-Evolutionary-Underpinnings-Differences/dp/1910524743 https://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sexy-Evolutionary-Underpinnings...) I wonder how he would comment this study... - higher IQ men are more likely to get married (because a higher IQ gives them an advantage hence they are more desirable to women), and higher IQ men earn more - married men have more pressure to dedicate their time and effort to provide for their family, hence they end up earning more - married men have more pressure and make different career choices to better provide for their family - this is a small leftover from a past, more conservative, more family oriented society (before women entered the workforce) which valued married men more (because more useful to society)
squozzer 10y ago
I'm not buying the article's premise, i.e. that pay is determined by productivity or its fascimile. As a counter-hypothesis, I offer the following: Men are selected / promoted / rewarded based on reliability, women on desirability. By reliability, I don't mean something mechanical such as defects per million, but closer in meaning to political reliability -- the tendency to adhere to norms and expectations. By desirability, I don't mean attractiveness, though that might form the largest component, but also availability (would she like me if our situation were a little different?)

78 points by monort 10y ago

Enjoyed the analysis. I wonder if our educational system will ever reach the point where the layperson doesn't immediately think "I should get married to increase my income". Tho many people seem to believe that moving to the Bay Area will increase their earnings... post hoc ergo propter hoc.

dibujante 10y ago
If the third hypothesis (signaling) is correct, then you _should_ get married to increase your income.
- mtanski 10y ago
  If domestic partnerships are still possible in the bay area (they were when I lived there 5 years ago). You can get all the upsides without the downsides (taxes & AMT).... and just call the other person your partner, they'll assume you're married.
- acchow 10y ago
  Right, but there are other possible explanations - none of which the layperson ever considers. It's especially common for health advice.
clarkmoody 10y ago
"Children raised in families that own a home reach higher levels of achievement" "Let's promote home ownership..."

ianai 10y ago

They routinely give the men with children/wives the better hours, pay, and whatever else at my work. They just changed several peoples' schedules so that my peer could have Saturdays off with his kid. Contrast that with myself: I have requested the same shift and been denied. I don't have kids. I also have better reasons to be on that shift. In my anecdotal experience, it appears classist. I would file that under 'human capital'.

cmdrfred 10y ago
You say you have "better reasons", childcare is pretty important when you consider all the downstream effects. Are you certain you are objective on this?
- ianai 10y ago
  Of course I'm not objective. I can't be objective since it's my direct experience. I'm also asking you to take my word on me having the overriding reasons. There's too much going on for me to explain fully in an internet forum. My point is they have two workers vying for the same shift. Overriding corporate policy and business interests would put me on that shift. But they're going with a married guy because he has a kid. That's all I can give you for the circumstances. Judge away. My judgement is that they're choosing someone based on social standing. I think they'd classify that as 'human capital' in this article.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    > Of course I'm not objective. I can't be objective since it's my direct experience. I'm also asking you to take my word on me having the overriding reasons. It's kinda hard to. What are you doing on that time? Caring for your elderly and sick grandmother? Tutoring orphans? It's kinda hard to come up with a legitimate reason that is better than that guy spending time with his kids. "Spending time with" being shorthand here for performing quality parenting that over time makes their kids grow up to be well-adjusted, valued members of society. What could a single, childless person possibly do with that schedule that is more important than improving the future of a dependent that has more life ahead of them than you or I? No, you don't have to provide an answer if you choose not to. But don't expect us to take you on your word either.
  - bluGill 10y ago
    You say your reasons are more important, but your actions don't seem to back that up. If your reasons were more important you would find a new job - perhaps making less money (it is understood that you might have to work the bad hours for a couple months while looking). Beyond that, importance is different to everyone. To the company it isn't just your reasons, it is also if they give you the better shift they look anti-family. So they are not only risking you or the other guy quitting, they are also risking dozens of other people deciding this isn't a company they want to work for.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mason240 10y ago

I think it's mostly of the first. Having an income makes dating easier, having a higher one makes it even more so. One way to test that might be to follow a group of unmarried men who are all the same age, and then 10 years later and compare the still unmarried with the long-time married (5+ years).

tyingq 10y ago

Would have been interesting to see a breakdown by dual-income vs single-income, unmarried with/without dependants, etc. If you get married, and find yourself supporting a spouse, and potentially, children, you have new motivation to make more money.

sjg007 10y ago
They probably controlled for dual-income and dependents.
- tyingq 10y ago
  Probably, but a comparison of the two would seem more enlightened than just a comparison vs "shotgun weddings"...which is called out specifically.
VygmraMGVl 10y ago
On the flip side, if you find yourself with a partner at home who isn't employed, you may work longer or harder because you feel less pressure to cook and clean.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  That depends on the partner...

anqh4 10y ago

1. Women seek men with high income, 2. Having a housewife leaves the man with more free time to work. See, no need to make a study.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Those are the first and third of the the three hypotheses that they consider. They attempt to figure out how large the impact of each hypothesis is.
civilian 10y ago
> 2. Having a housewife leaves the man with more free time to work. That's hypothesis 2 of the three that they looked at, that marriage "makes a man a more productive worker". There is a need for a study. What if employers are simply assuming that married men are better workers (hypothesis 3), but married men aren't actually better workers? Than as an unmarried man, I'm getting discriminated against, and marital status is a protected class. This is good shit to look at.
- lemonsqueeze 10y ago
  No, marriage does not make a man more productive. A productive man is more likely to get married (He's a good catch) It's a selection bias on the part of the woman (or man, not that there's anything wrong with that)
- anqh4 10y ago
  I forgot 3, then: 3. Employers assume married men, especially if they have children, are hard workers and responsible
  - civilian 10y ago
    I'm glad you're being complete :) But, can you see why it'd be good to study this? Which one of the three is it? Or if it a mix, and what is the mix?
    - 10y ago

boshfpngr 10y ago

This is pure causation. Men with more income and stability in their lives are more capable of attracting women, therefore more likely to be married. How could they miss such an obvious answer?

civilian 10y ago
I mean, that was the first hypothesis of three that they offered.
nnspace 10y ago
"Explanation #1: Ability bias. The causal effect of marriage on male income is smaller than it seems....Maybe income makes it easier to attract a spouse".
- lemonsqueeze 10y ago
  Yep. No need to make a study.

Spooky23 10y ago

How much is the unmarried disparity correlated with divorce? For people paying a % of income in child support/alimony, the incentive to make more money is often missing or inverted.

ouid 10y ago

There is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting your data to shotgun weddings would control for the things that they claimed to be controlling for.

sirclueless 10y ago
The number of confounding factors is enormous. 1. The man may be more likely to acquiesce to the wedding if they have a stable income and can support a family. 2. The interested parties on the bride's side may be more interested in pursuing a shotgun wedding if the man has a stable income. 3. The same reasons that lead women to pursue marriage with high-income men may also lead them to pursue pre-marital unprotected sex with those men. I'm sure you can think of more. This seems like a very suspect way to segment a population.
- linkregister 10y ago
  It's even further compounded by the fact that weddings with preconceived children are unlikely to be genuine shotgun weddings in 2017. The social pressure to reluctantly marry after conception is drastically less intense than it was 60 years ago.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    They'd probably need to conduct them in the regions where the "shotgun" part isn't a metaphor, like deep Appalachia or rural Missouri. I'm from Missouri and I promise, it's not always just a figure of speech.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      If they did so, then the scope of their study wouldn't be national; it would only be regional. It wouldn't be relevant to national employment.
DonHopkins 10y ago
I want to know more about those shotgun tattoos...

mettamage 10y ago

I'm noticing that the right type of girl stimulates me to be a better me. It also stabilizes my sleeping rhythm. -- not married by the way, just my observations with GFs

TulliusCicero 10y ago
> I'm noticing that the right type of girl stimulates me to be a better me. Also a dude and I agree. I wonder if there's a gender difference on this point, at least as far as impact on job performance.
JBReefer 10y ago
I agree. There's a measurable relationship "bonus" to my life in happy relationships - having someone who double checks my logic, notices things I missed, works when I'm sick, etc. make things much smoother.

lemonsqueeze 10y ago

Isn't obvious? Higher value men are more likely to get married (He's a "good catch")

Arizhel 10y ago
That's assuming there's high-value women to be had. From what I hear, that's just not the case in Silicon Valley; the single-male/single-female ratio is horribly skewed. I also hear Seattle is almost as bad. Over in NYC, however, there's scads of single women who can't find a boyfriend.

strictnein 10y ago

Follow up posts: What Is the Female Marriage Penalty? http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.... Policy Implications of the Marriage Premium http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/policy_implicat.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/policy_implicat.... 9 Short Observations about the Marriage Premium http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/22_short_argume....

geebee 10y ago

There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizing_Men_Who_Request_a_Family_Leave_Is_Flexibility_Stigma_a_Femininity_Stigma https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizin... There is clearly a correlation between men having children and men getting higher salaries, and the reverse for women. However, this may reflect the fact that women are more likely to withdraw from work to take care of children (regardless of whether they'd prefer to), and men may double down on work. Women are more likely to incur a penalty for taking time off due to child care needs, but that is largely because they are more likely to do so in the first place. Men do this much less often. However, there is evidence that the relatively small number of men who do this pay an unusually heavy career penalty for it. This can be a problem for women. If we reduce the stigma for taking time off and provide generous leave, but only for women, but penalize men for doing this, then we actually end up putting even more pressure on women to carry this obligation.

kefka 10y ago
So, is it fair to pay women less? /dons firesuit Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this. Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, legally. What is this... scheduling latitude actually worth? I'd really like to see statistics on this. But on a sniff-test, this seems probably true and the reason why women are paid less: more risk. Men don't have the same options here, at least in the US. Ideally, to "Level the Playing Field", I'd like to see men with the same rights as women. But alas, we're not really headed into more workers' rights territory.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result.

cm2187 10y ago

Let's read this through the current hysterical liberal lens: unmarried men are unacceptably discriminated! Companies must publish statistics on how they pay married vs unmarried male employees. And they need to train their staff to understand and fight their own bias against unmarried men! The reason for this imbalance can only be outrageous discrimination. Anyone who thinks or suggests otherwise should be silenced.

DonHopkins 10y ago
It sounds like you're looking through some kind of lens that makes liberals look hysterical to you, and you sound pretty hysterical about liberals yourself. You should get your prescription checked, because you're seeing things that aren't there. Remember: liberals are the one who are for paid family leave, which today's "family values" conservatives are against (except for themselves). [1] "Speaker of the House Paul Ryan drew scrutiny this fall when he said, “I cannot and will not give up my family time” as a condition of his speaker candidacy. Ryan, who is a devout Catholic, has opposed family leave measures proposed over the past several years. A spokeswoman for Ryan declined to share the office’s policy on family leave for its congressional employees." [2] [1] http://abetterminnesota.org/2016/05/conservatives-rally-against-paid-family-leave/ http://abetterminnesota.org/2016/05/conservatives-rally-agai... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/30/in-the-paid-family-leave-debate-pro-life-pro-family-groups-parental-leave-policies-are-all-over-the-map/?utm_term=.4bc1b4d503d8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11...
- dasil003 10y ago
  I think it's valuable to have multiple lenses. One thing I feel has increased dramatically over the last few decades is that if you use the wrong lens when speaking the wrong audience then a witch hunt ensues. Something about the internet has enabled tribalism without personal liability, which is a powder keg of situation that leads to the sort of political outcomes we are currently seeing.
  - DonHopkins 10y ago

rlpb 10y ago

Have they controlled for age? Or is that included in their claim of having controlled for experience? Older men are more likely to be married (since finding a partner takes a variable amount of time, and the marriage rate is higher than the divorce rate). And salaries also tend to go up over time as employees build their careers. This would of course be part of the author's "Explanation #1: Ability bias.". I'm just surprised that this sub-explanation isn't explicitly called out.

AstralStorm 10y ago
Yes, it is mentioned further in the series they have controlled for age. How effective that control was is not described. I'd like a full methodology.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

thecity2 10y ago

I'm 41 and am hoping to be engaged very soon (god and my gf willing!). I sure as hell don't expect to earn a raise. lol

trevyn 10y ago

Until a couple weeks ago, I worked at a large Bay Area tech company with very generous parental leave. I noticed that a lot of people there were having kids. I think it makes sense from a conpany perspective, because having kids (and a marriage) seems to make people much more risk-averse, so they're more likely to stay at the nice, stable company. Which is helpful for the company when attrition is one of your big problems.

zaroth 10y ago

I didn't get much past the 3 hypothesis in TFA because I stopped and had to ask, isn't it obvious that married men earn more because they have to in order to support their families? It seems to me that the biggest factor in earnings is how hard you work. Nothing quite as motivating as needing to support your family... Married men earn more because they have to. There is definitely a secondary effect I have seen though, it seems like having kids can boost your salary independent of ability/productivity due to the boss believing your are justified in asking for more money. Pay is set more based on what your boss thinks you need than what you are worth.

clarkmoody 10y ago
Your points are encompassed in hypotheses #2 & #3...
- zaroth 10y ago
  Not at all! Married men are certainly not more productive because they are married -- marriage, and kids in particular, are a massive drain on productivity. And being married certainly isn't a signal of being more productive, if anything the opposite. I think the OP is assuming far more rationality in wage-setting than actually exists. A single man in his 20s or 30s will be way more productive than the married man with the same experience. But the married man will be paid more "because he has a family to support."
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    You want stereotypes? OK, I'll give you stereotypes. A single man in his 20s is a slacker. He works hard enough to not get fired, and not much past that. A married man of the same age works hard enough to try to get promoted so he gets paid more. Which is going to be more productive? (Yeah, I know, you say the married man has a lot more distractions - but the single guy is hitting Tinder every minute his boss's back is turned. That single guy is less distracted? I doubt it's an unambiguous win.)
    - 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

They missed the obvious: Married men are more productive because they have a woman at home doing the "women's work." This both raises their quality of life AND frees up both time and energy to put into their job instead of into self-maintenance. I have seen this from both sides of the equation: I was a full time wife and mom for a lot of years. Then, I got divorced. I told my sons I would rather they take over the "women's work" so I could put more into my job than for them to get some kind of part time, minimum wage job. This is basically a form of transferring her energy to him and the employer paying for getting the extra energy and mental focus he can now bring to the table. This works reasonably well (societally speaking) in a traditional society where women are primarily homemakers and moms. It works less well in a world where people are getting married later, we are actively discouraging people from having more kids because there are already more than 7 billion people on the planet, etc. We need to find another answer, one that allows for young, single people, childless couples, etc to all have full lives. Otherwise, it is just the married men who get The Good Life and everyone else is shorted.

svv 10y ago
This falls under the Explanation #2: Human capital. By the way, the post does not mention whether the study controlled for wives staying at home.
- Mz 10y ago
  Except for the detail that the article entirely credits the man with being more productive and in no way whatsoever suggests that his wife's work in any way whatsoever contributes to it: Maybe marriage makes men work more hours; maybe it makes them work harder per hour; maybe it makes them control their tempers better; maybe all of these and more. It gives zero credit to the wife somehow genuinely enhancing his life by cooking, cleaning, having sex with him, etc. It just suggests that married men choose to be more virtuous. Done.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Yeah, the omission of unpaid female labor at home as a factor to consider is glaring.

drblast 10y ago

In my own case, I'm working and making as much as I do because I'm married and have kids and my wife is a stay-at-home-mom. This is still a very socially acceptable arrangement. If I weren't married with kids, I'd be a semi-retired snowboard instructor. I am not driven by my career at all. I'm good at it, and I make good money, but I wouldn't otherwise be doing it.

zaroth 10y ago
Right! I guess economically you are "more productive" than your unmarried counterpart but it's important to note this isn't the result of natural ability manifesting in greater likelihood of being selected by a partner (utter nonsense) but rather, now that you have a partner you have a responsibility to someone else to maximize your income.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I'll be married myself in a month and the mere thought of children at some point in the future has caused me to begin accepting any overtime offered to me. I can't imagine a more powerful motivator except a gun to my head.

jbmorgado 10y ago

It would be interesting to see the number of working hours for married men vs unmarried men. And I guess that data should actually be relatively simple to get. That could explain some unanswered questions in this article. I.E. If a married men is working more time than an unmarried one, that would be a good indication that a married men felt more pressured to work more after getting married and that was where this premium was mostly coming from.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bmh_ca 10y ago

I've always wondered what, if any, is the multi-generational benefit/penalty of mothers working full time in lieu of raising their own children.

tryitnow 10y ago

I don't really see a full fledged regression analysis here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_college_pre.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/the_college_pre.... There are several potentially correlated variables (College grad and cognitive ability?). That's not necessarily a problem but I think it would necessitate showing different models, not just one. It's also atheoretical - it's not advisable just to slap a model together and find regression coefficients with high t-stats. In economics, it's important to start with a believable hypothesis grounded in reasonable theory. This study is like a half-hearted attempt at exploratory data analysis - half-hearted because only the results of one model are shown and there are no charts or graphs to give a feel for the data. You really can't just jump to a conversation about causes unless you've done more work on the data (maybe Caplan did, but he really needs to show it to stimulate the conversation he wants to have).

scarface74 10y ago

In the U.S., even with the ACA, it's still easier to have health insurance through your job. When I was single and solely responsible for having health insurance, I couldn't as easily jump back and forth between contract jobs and permanent jobs. I couldn't take advantage of high pay with no benefits like I can now. My wife having good family health insurance has allowed me to be more aggressive about opportunities. I know other people who own a business and their wife works at low paying government jobs with good benefits.

Agathe 10y ago

Suggested reading related to the topic: Smart & Sexy by R. Kaynes (https://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sexy-Evolutionary-Underpinnings-Differences/dp/1910524743 https://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sexy-Evolutionary-Underpinnings...) I wonder how he would comment this study... - higher IQ men are more likely to get married (because a higher IQ gives them an advantage hence they are more desirable to women), and higher IQ men earn more - married men have more pressure to dedicate their time and effort to provide for their family, hence they end up earning more - married men have more pressure and make different career choices to better provide for their family - this is a small leftover from a past, more conservative, more family oriented society (before women entered the workforce) which valued married men more (because more useful to society)

squozzer 10y ago

I'm not buying the article's premise, i.e. that pay is determined by productivity or its fascimile. As a counter-hypothesis, I offer the following: Men are selected / promoted / rewarded based on reliability, women on desirability. By reliability, I don't mean something mechanical such as defects per million, but closer in meaning to political reliability -- the tendency to adhere to norms and expectations. By desirability, I don't mean attractiveness, though that might form the largest component, but also availability (would she like me if our situation were a little different?)