…marriage brings economic benefits. It usually means two breadwinners, or one breadwinner and a full-time, stay-at-home parent with no significant child-care expenses. Unlike Murphy Brown \u201d\u201d who always had the able Eldin by her side \u201d\u201d most women do not have the flexibility afforded a presumably highly paid broadcast journalist. And it\u2019s not just a cliche that two can live more cheaply than one; a single set of bills for rent, utilities and other household expenses makes a difference. Though not necessarily better off than a cohabiting couple, a married family is much better off than its single-parent counterpart.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been studying single mothers since long before \u201cMurphy Brown\u201d\u009d was on the air. In a study I co-authored with Adam Thomas, I put them into hypothetical households with demographically similar unmarried men who, in principle, would be good marriage partners. Through this virtual matchmaking, we showed that child poverty rates would fall by as much as 20 percent in an America with more two-parent households.<\/p>\n
In later research, Ron Haskins and I learned that if individuals do just three things \u201d\u201d finish high school, work full time and marry before they have children \u201d\u201d their chances of being poor drop from 15 percent to 2 percent.<\/p>\n