This is nothing new. People have always married their own socioeconomic class. But in prior generations women had less work opportunity. Those who wanted to be professionals were discouraged and judged harshly. So they stayed home and had kids.
221
I find myself rather annoyed with this article.....if folks travel in the same social circles, have similar interests and education levels that make them compatible, so be it. It's their choice! Relationships are hard enough without certain other perceived barriers. To each his own.
328
The comments are almost as fascinating as the article--at least to those us addicted to the "Vows" section of the NYT. In a short article it appears to be impossible to address the complexity of marriage decisions and the research on the results of those decisions.
All "power" couples do not necessarily follow a traditional education path to high incomes. Many entrepreneurs, entertainers and sports figures are not college graduates but do have high incomes and often marry their "likes"-- or at least partner long enough to have children. The extraordinary talents of these couples rarely pass to their children who might however benefit from the security and opportunity wealth brings or might not.
In general as the comments and the article indicate, most people choose marriage partners the way they choose their friends and their neighbors: selecting people with similar interests, goals and lifestyles. Being a "power couple" seems an obvious outcome of that pattern just as being a "couch couple" does. Alas for those who seek mates by swiping photos without additional information--unless the next application uses credit scores to find not just the "right mate", but the right mate with the right wealth management skills: the pinnacle of assortative mating.
All "power" couples do not necessarily follow a traditional education path to high incomes. Many entrepreneurs, entertainers and sports figures are not college graduates but do have high incomes and often marry their "likes"-- or at least partner long enough to have children. The extraordinary talents of these couples rarely pass to their children who might however benefit from the security and opportunity wealth brings or might not.
In general as the comments and the article indicate, most people choose marriage partners the way they choose their friends and their neighbors: selecting people with similar interests, goals and lifestyles. Being a "power couple" seems an obvious outcome of that pattern just as being a "couch couple" does. Alas for those who seek mates by swiping photos without additional information--unless the next application uses credit scores to find not just the "right mate", but the right mate with the right wealth management skills: the pinnacle of assortative mating.
48
It's not so simple.
A relatively young power couple marrying may cause a tremendous degree of tension. Both are driven and pushing their careers. Any attempt at family or families might be a problem unless there is massive help and even for power couples, that might not be available at the beginning. Somebody usually has to make concessions. That might lead to divorce. An "unequal" marriage might have the concessions already built in.
A relatively older power couple or second marriage power couple, established in their careers and comfortable, that has a better chance of success.
All in all though, marriage is not about power or income but about "give and take". To live with someone, one has to make concessions, even with intellectual and career equals.
A relatively young power couple marrying may cause a tremendous degree of tension. Both are driven and pushing their careers. Any attempt at family or families might be a problem unless there is massive help and even for power couples, that might not be available at the beginning. Somebody usually has to make concessions. That might lead to divorce. An "unequal" marriage might have the concessions already built in.
A relatively older power couple or second marriage power couple, established in their careers and comfortable, that has a better chance of success.
All in all though, marriage is not about power or income but about "give and take". To live with someone, one has to make concessions, even with intellectual and career equals.
74
That's why nannies were born.
51
We should celebrate the day when "marrying up" officially falls out of favor as a wealth creation strategy (usually for women, though not always). It will have been replaced by strategies such as: take education seriously; work hard and earn your own money; live frugally enough to be financially independent. All better outcomes for society.
305
These are not experiments. Hasn't it always been so that couples will marry within their social class. It's not for society to decide who you should marry, it's the role of society to provide equal education opportunities & progressive tax policies so future generations can advance up the ladder
165
Even a police sergeant and a head nurse can make $250K combined in the NY metro area. They may not be able to compete with the married lawyers and financiers, but they are still in the top 3% of households nationwide.
135
In CA, MA and many other states, lifetime alimony is a likelihood in the event of a marriage lasting 10 years or more that ends in divorce. 95% of the $11,000,000,000 paid every year in the US is paid by men to women.
Women also receive the bulk of after tax child support, and receive custody of children 83% of the time.
If you want to end marriage between the wealthy, end this gender-based, anti-male bias. Why should a man risk everything by marrying "down"?
Oh, and who is lobbying against the end of lifetime alimony and against presumptive, rebuttable joint custody of children in the event of divorce? The National Organization for Women, of course.
Women also receive the bulk of after tax child support, and receive custody of children 83% of the time.
If you want to end marriage between the wealthy, end this gender-based, anti-male bias. Why should a man risk everything by marrying "down"?
Oh, and who is lobbying against the end of lifetime alimony and against presumptive, rebuttable joint custody of children in the event of divorce? The National Organization for Women, of course.
98
Of all the divorced couples I know I have never seen alimony paid where the wife's income was the same as the husband's. I only see alimony paid when one spouse earns less than the other.
122
Not only would it be boring for me to married to someone who is not at my level of education or cultural knowledge, but it would also be embarrassing in social gatherings. I wouldn't want to have the husband has no idea who Truman Capote or Edward Hopper or Watson and Crick are (I'm just naming random people a typical educated/cultured person would know or at least be aware of).
144
Mr. Cowen neglects the statistical concept of regression to the mean, which means that two intelligent spouses are likely to have children who are less intelligent. It is a tricky phenomenon but a real one nonetheless.
82
I was giving some thought to how really different it is being raised on the West coast. Their was certainly more tradition surrounding how my daughter was raised on the East coast. Perhaps it was weather related or such but it seemed like we did certain things each year while on the West coast there wasn't as much variety. West coast was perhaps more "free thinkers" but were they really. Just having more time on there hands to do nothing?
7
Really, Tyler Cowan should study a little more American history and sociology. That high school sweetheart that he thinks that high flyers would have married back in the 1950's would most likely have been of exactly the same social class as the guy. She may not have gone to college or, more likely, gone for a year or two and then dropped out to get married. If she did finish college, she most likely would have been steered to teaching or nursing. Law and finance and medicine would have been out of the question because those schools rarely admitted women. Americans have been marrying people of the same social class for generations and generations and will continue to.
321
I am certainly not going to marry down and support someone financially just to reduce income equality and I doubt anyone else has this goal. People are not genetically equal and there will always be people with more intelligence, motivation and skills to succeed even if they are taken from their families and raised in an institution. You cannot legislate economic and social equality.
193
The children of these unions however, could be complete idiots and end up, just to cite one admittedly ridiculous hypothetical, going to Yale and Harvard Business School based solely upon their pedigree rather than any actual merit. Once established, the inequality perpetuates itself despite a lack of intelligence, motivation and skills.
185
One thing we can do to correct income inequality is to end the tax advantages married couples enjoy. Tax breaks for your kids is one thing, but couples should not receive a tax break simply because they are married. I would also include ending tax breaks, such as the mortgage tax deduction, for higher earning couples and individuals.
57
That has already been done. The Pease provision has pretty much wiped out the mortgage deduction for wealthy couples.
33
The tax advantage provided by the joint return for married couples typically exists when the lawyer marries the waitress but it becomes a tax penalty when two lawyers marry. So, Joanne, the law as it is does tend to come down a bit on the side of favoring marriages which enhance social mobility and disfavors marriages which involve power couples.
109
My wife and I both have degrees, we could not get along for very long with others who do not have the same interests, and outlook on life.
Second marriage for both of us, and we both seem to have gravitated toward others with the same educational and intellectual level.
Second marriage for both of us, and we both seem to have gravitated toward others with the same educational and intellectual level.
65
When two top level professionals have children they create progeny with a rich genetic inheritance.Its not at all unusual to see the offspring of mathematicians or musicians follow in their parents footsteps.its not just that they have greater opportunities as children but they are born with inherited talents that can't be bought.
Not just income inequality is occurring but gene pool inequality is occurring which can't be changed through legislation.
Not just income inequality is occurring but gene pool inequality is occurring which can't be changed through legislation.
129
I am a medical geneticist with 36 yrs of experience, with working class origins; assortative mating (my corollary: "there's someone for everyone") is real and acts at all levels of the socioeconomic scale, with the societal, human and personal troubles caused by the matings at the top end less concerning than those matings at the bottom, given that we all hope that everyone has a satisfying and fruitful life. My janseniste bourgeois french grandfather worried greatly about the matings of his 7 children in the 40s and 50s, and only found 3 met his standards. He tried unsucessfully to practice his marital eugenics in a simpler time and it won't work now. Personally, I'm just happy my wife deigned to marry beneath her.
139
Why would I spend my life with someone who isn't my equal? Maybe not equal in income, but at least equal in ambition / education / goals / etc?
I want a partner, not someone I need to support the entire way.
I want a partner, not someone I need to support the entire way.
237
Reader wrote: "I want a partner, not someone I need to support the entire way."
This is so simplistic -- as if marriage was only about money, and who supports who.
I know people in excellent, long marriages where one spouse makes all the money, and the the other makes none. But it works, because the spouse who does not work for money keeps the family and home life together, and also provides emotional stability and support to the working spouse. And their lifestyle is much richer/better than if they both had to be earning money. Earners earn, but usually don't have time to spend. An intelligent spouse who does not work, but knows how to spend wisely, and how to cultivate social life is priceless.
This is so simplistic -- as if marriage was only about money, and who supports who.
I know people in excellent, long marriages where one spouse makes all the money, and the the other makes none. But it works, because the spouse who does not work for money keeps the family and home life together, and also provides emotional stability and support to the working spouse. And their lifestyle is much richer/better than if they both had to be earning money. Earners earn, but usually don't have time to spend. An intelligent spouse who does not work, but knows how to spend wisely, and how to cultivate social life is priceless.
81
I agree, but why do I still see so many very accomplished men with beautiful women who have poor grammar, etc, who are clearly not their intellectual equals? All those criteria for suitable mates seem to fly out the window when great looks are in the mix. It's still the ticket for women to marry up.
116
equality may be a fabrication of the imagination - 'we are all individuals' (Monty Python, etc.)
my partner may be equal in ambition/goals but I have far more education/income/wealth
I am probably considered to have a higher IQ - but she has a higher EQ - where I would fall for con men or waste my time dealing with people who end up being a problem - she picks them a mile away
so I wouldn't say 'equal' - I'd say we are perfectly - complementary.
Like the Chinese Yin-Yang symbol - http://drmeelainling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/yinyang.jpg - two halves make a whole.
my partner may be equal in ambition/goals but I have far more education/income/wealth
I am probably considered to have a higher IQ - but she has a higher EQ - where I would fall for con men or waste my time dealing with people who end up being a problem - she picks them a mile away
so I wouldn't say 'equal' - I'd say we are perfectly - complementary.
Like the Chinese Yin-Yang symbol - http://drmeelainling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/yinyang.jpg - two halves make a whole.
72
We may have seen assortative mating in the past, but I think it's newest roots are in women's decades long pursuit of equality, not just the "feminist movement" of the 70's, and is now "irreversible.
Once children of both sexes in a generation are raised to believe men and woman are equals, that profoundly affects their choice of spouse. As someone raised to view women as equals, there is no way I would marry a woman that was not smart, competent, worldly, and financially independent.
It may be that those characteristics accompany better economic status, but the driver is really a desire to have a successful marriage, and this is more likely when spouses have equal capabilities and status.
...and, perhaps, careers. Sharing your day's accomplishments with your spouse is pretty important. If it takes 2 hours to explain it, then, sad to say, a large and important piece of your life will be missing.
Once children of both sexes in a generation are raised to believe men and woman are equals, that profoundly affects their choice of spouse. As someone raised to view women as equals, there is no way I would marry a woman that was not smart, competent, worldly, and financially independent.
It may be that those characteristics accompany better economic status, but the driver is really a desire to have a successful marriage, and this is more likely when spouses have equal capabilities and status.
...and, perhaps, careers. Sharing your day's accomplishments with your spouse is pretty important. If it takes 2 hours to explain it, then, sad to say, a large and important piece of your life will be missing.
135
"Assortative mating", as the article calls it, is deeply rooted and widespread: homo-religious marriages, intra-ethnic and unions between socially equal.
If I am not mistaken, the Darwins and Huxleys in the 19th century promoted marriages between their family members, to breed individuals of higher intellect.
If I am not mistaken, the Darwins and Huxleys in the 19th century promoted marriages between their family members, to breed individuals of higher intellect.
29
Those lucky enough to achieve assortative mating through hard work, luck, family or geography need to consider the greater good. Sending this as a couple with advanced degrees from Silicon Valley where homelessness and hunger coexist next to Telsas and Whole Foods. Not right. Be good to see mating brainpower working to make things better.