Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (93902)	1/5/2005 6:12:02 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

I do understand the difference between correlation and causation. I just don't see how one can prove that getting married makes it less likely that a child will experience poverty during its lifetime other than statistical correlation. Nevertheless, children whose parents never marry have an 81% chance of living in poverty during the 17 years of childhood. By age 6, 68% of children in never married households experience at least one year of poverty, versus 12% in married households; by age 12, 78% versus 18%, by age 18, 81% versus 22%. (Source: The Economic Risk of Childhood in America: Estimating the Probability of Poverty across the Formative Years, Mark R. Rank; Thomas A. Hirschl, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Nov., 1999), pp. 1058-1067). There are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Still, my experience in representing people in divorce suggests to me that the reason isn't hard to see -- two earner families are financially better off than one earner families. Both parents contribute, not only to the economic well-being of their children, but many other ways. Not just parenting the children, but contributing to the family unit. It's a very rare man or woman who contributes nothing of value to the family.