Gold diggers

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

— Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

All else being equal, a household with two earners bringing in two incomes will obtain twice as much money as a household with a single earner bringing in a single income.

Conversely, all else being equal, a household with a single earning bringing in a single income will obtain only about half as much money as a household with two earners bringing in two incomes.

Or, in other words, 2 > 1. How much greater? Some experts say nearly twice as great. (See Fig. 1; Fig. 2.)

Depending on your political agenda, the is either: A) a restatement of the fantastically obvious and a waste of time; or B) "scientific" evidence supporting "pro-family" legislation that "encourages" marriage while discouraging, stigmatizing and punishing divorce.

CJR Daily's Liz Cox Barrett examines the latest "scientific" repackaging of 2>1 in an article titled, "Marriage Boosts Income, Says Media Because Someone Said It":

This study, published in the Journal of Sociology and conducted by Ohio State University researcher Jay Zagorsky, found — as the CNN headline tells readers — that "married individuals have almost double the net worth of those that are divorced [or] single" with wealth being defined "by such factors as home value, stocks, cash, and savings vehicles." Double the net worth, you say? As in two times the size? Intriguing. Tell me more.

Well, the reason that "married individuals fared better building wealth," says Zagorsky, is — hold on to your hat — "primarily because they share expenses and may have two incomes." …

Was it really necessary to mount a study of "9,055 young baby boomers aged 41 to 49" to figure this out?

Barrett is right — the study was an absurd example of research as the statistical approximation of the known. There is nothing newsworthy about the fact that married couples "share expenses and may have two incomes." Yet, as Barrett notes, this utter lack of newsworthiness didn't prevent this study from being reported as breaking "news" in dozens of newspapers and broadcasts.

But, as noted above, there is a political — even a partisan — reason that such flagrantly useless "studies" are conducted and promoted as news: They provide supposed statistical evidence for "traditional marriage" and "family values."

But this is an oddly pragmatic, utilitarian argument for the "pro-family" crowd to be making: Marriage as an economic contract and a means to income security. This is, indeed, a traditional view — but it literally sells off the argument that marriage is also a "sacred" institution.