Family First claims that a drop in marriage rates is one of the main drivers of child poverty. I’m not sure they have this right.
Stuff: Lobby group Family First blames unmarried couples for child poverty
An unmarried couple with children is highly likely to be struggling in poverty, a conservative lobby group claims.
The claim comes from a new report by researcher and artist Lindsay Mitchell, who said there was “overwhelming and incontrovertible” evidence that a drop in marriage rates was one of the main drivers of an increase in child poverty.
The glossy report, funded by conservative Christian lobby group Family First, looked at household income and family structures from the 1960s to the current day.
A heck of a lot has changed in New Zealand society since the 1960s. I have major doubts over marriage rates being such a big factor.
It states that with people having fewer children than in the past and people delaying birth until they were older, families should be better off financially, but that was not the case.
A lot of families are better off financially, especially those that have fewer children and have families when they are older.
“Despite marriage being the best protector against child poverty it has become politically unfashionable – some argue insensitive – to express such a view.
“But if there is to be any political will to solve child poverty the issue has to be confronted.”
Bollocks.
A stable family with two parents in a relationship and with a steady and reasonable level of income are certainly significant factors.
Whether the parents are married or not is largely irrelevant. Marriage is a legal document and a social custom but it has become optional and unnecessary for a good family environment.
Unsurprisingly, single-parent families were described as the poorest in New Zealand.
Single parent families are naturally going to find things tougher financially generally – although no always, a married couple with one partner an alcoholic or drug addict or in prison will tend towards being poorer.
But currently, 27 per cent of registered births were to cohabiting, or de facto, parents.
Mitchell said these relationships became less stable over time, the parents were poorer than married parents and separation by the time a child was aged five was four to six times greater than married parents.
I don’t see any reason why a de facto relationship should become more unstable over time than a marriage relationship.
A legal marriage will have little effect on the strength of a relationship.
Citing an Australian study, the report suggests married men earned a substantially higher wage than a cohabiting man and worked substantially longer hours.
But that could mean that higher earners were more likely to get married.
The cost of marriage can be a deterrent to poorer people.
I know of stable two parent families that put more priority on providing for their current needs than forking out thousands of dollars on a wedding that they would quite like but are happy to postpone.
But The Family Centre social policy researcher Charles Waldergrave said that to simply say that married people’s children were better off was a misuse of statistics.
“You can’t just correlate things and then start talking about causality, you just can’t do it that way.
“The fact that married people and people in de facto relationships earn different amounts of money doesn’t make it causal in terms of child poverty.”
That’s right.
Middle-class people were more likely to get married while de facto relationships were more common in lower-income households, but factors such as the economy affected both.
The main causes of child poverty was not a lack of marriages, but things like low incomes, the casualisation of work and the benefit system, he said.
“Poverty is essentially the access to resources and in a capitalist society that depends on income.”
And something that has changed significantly since the 1960s (fifty years ago) is we have become a far more consumerist society. This affects families whether parents are married or not.
The cost of weddings – how many people want to get married – is huge for lower income earners. Without the social pressure to get married it’s easy to postpone a spending spree that is actually unnecessary. It’s an optional extra.
Mitchell said her aim with the research was not to ruffle feathers, but present information so it could be debated.
Many of those in de facto relationships were in their second and third relationships, supporting children from previous partners.
Remarriage and blended families with marriage involved are also common.
While cohabiting parents were more likely to have only one child, they were also more likely than married couples to have four or more.
Which means?
They were also much less stable than married couples, although Mitchell was unsure why.
That’s very poorly stated.
Many de facto relationships are as stable as many married relationships.
Of course some de facto relationships will be less stable than many married relationships, they can (but far from always) involve far less commitment.
If marriage was made compulsory it wouldn’t transform poor partners into reliable partners.
Poor partners are less likely to get married. It may be no more than that.
“Child poverty has become a really big issue and everyone is concerned about it…but we don’t hear anyone talking about the change in family structure.”
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie described the link between a drop in marriage and rise in child poverty as the “elephant in the room”.
“People would like to believe that there isn’t [a link] but unfortunately. the research shows de facto or cohabiting relationships are less stable.”
But in the 1960s it is very likely that shotgun weddings – or rushed marriages precipitated by pregnancy – would have had a higher proportion of unstable relationships than carefully planned marriages and families.
As far as marriage is concerned probably all that has changed as the relationships least likely to endure never involve marriage any more.
A forced marriage with a dysfunctional relationship in which society puts pressure on for the marriage to continue regardless of obvious problems – sometimes quite serious problems – is not a good solution.
Family First has raised some important issues – but if they really wanted debate rather than simply to promote their ideal of Marriage First then they would have presented their research without jumping to poorly supported solutions that simply fitted their last century world view.
New Zealand society has changed enormously over the last half century. Trying to force things back to some idealistic model of marriage is not a good way to address the obvious issues we currently have.
Encouraging and supporting better relationships and more responsible parenting- whether married or de facto – is surely a far better approach.