In complete contradiction to the piece in the NY Times I posted about yesterday, the LA times reports that
getting married later can have economic costs, benefits
But there's a problem:
Americans are getting married at ever-older ages, and a new report says this trend may be partly responsible for the shrinking of the middle class.
I believe I said this.
For college-educated men and women, delaying marriage has paid off – literally. By enabling them to finish school and get their careers established, these younger adults are investing in themselves for the long haul.
The return on this investment is most significant for women: Those who finish college and get married after turning 30 earn $18,152 more per year, on average, than women who marry in their 20s or teens. Even women who are high school graduates but don’t finish college earn $4,052 more per year, on average, than women who marry when they’re younger.
Two big problems here:
1) You don't go comparing college graduates with teenage mothers and persons who did not graduate from college. It is already known that College education
alone is responsible for an increase in income.
Alone.
Whether a woman marries early or not, if she does not go to college or some post secondary education (trade school) she's going to earn less, period. Marriage has no bearing on that since one can be married AND educated or in the process of education. The only "risk" from marriage is childbearing as children are a financial liability
regardless of education.
And why-oh-why didn't the LA Times fail to point out that many of these "delayed" married women with the 'extra income" also have a lot of school debt as well?
Posts
