In March, a survey about which values were important to people got a lot of attention. It seemed to show that people had shifted away from concerns with family and community and towards a concern with money. I raised some questions about the interpretation of the survey and said that I would look for other data, but forgot to follow up on it. I was reminded by a column by David Brooks the other day. It's called "To be happy, marriage matters more than career," and the summary on my phone says "Yet parents sends the opposite message to the young." Presumably Brooks didn't write those (and nobody copy-edited the summary), but they give a pretty good distillation of his column. Basically it's the same conclusion that he (and others) drew from the earlier survey: that people are turning away from personal relationships and focusing on careers and money.
Before addressing that question, I'll have a digression about money, marriage and happiness. Married people definitely report being happier than unmarried people, and it's a big difference. But it's not clear that marriage makes more difference than money. Here are two tables calculated from cumulative GSS data. One compares (limited to those aged 30 and up) people or are or were married to people who have never married; the other compares people with a family income of less than 100,000 to those with an income of $100,000 and up, using a GSS variable that converts the original values to constant dollars. Both of the classifications produce roughly 90%/10% splits of the sample.
Very Pretty Not too
Ever married 35% 54% 11%
Never married 19% 61% 21%
Less than 100K 31% 56% 13%
> 100K 43% 52% 5%
The gaps are of similar size. The more usual way to look at it is to contrast married people with unmarried people--that produces a bigger gap. However, if you marry, you have a chance of eventually becoming divorced or widowed; if you don't marry, you don't. So in terms of how getting married will affect your chances of being happy over your lifetime, the comparison of ever married vs. never married is better.
Back to the main topic. One of Brook's pieces of evidence is from Gallup surveys: "Fewer people believe that marriage is vitally important. In 2006, 50 percent of young adults said it was very important for a couple to marry if they intended to spend the rest of their lives together. But by 2020 only 29 percent of young adults said that." But the Gallup report concludes by noting that a large majority of unmarried people say that they hope to get married someday and says "their evolving attitudes about marriage may reflect increasing acceptance for how others lead their lives rather than a profound shift in their own lifestyle preferences."
Brooks also cites a Pew survey in which "88 percent of parents said it was 'extremely or very' important for their kids to be financially independent, while only 21 percent said it was 'extremely or very' important for their kids to marry." But the Gallup interpretation can apply here too--with marriage, most parents will support whatever choice their children make. With work, there is a sense that it's obligatory. This is partly practical, but partly moral--if someone said that work just didn't appeal to them, and that they intended to get by on a combination of government programs and private charity, many people would be indignant. But to say that people need to have a career is not the same as saying that people should put their career ahead of everything else.
The kind of question we need to choose between these interpretations is one that directly asks people to choose which is more important--personal relationships or money/careers. I found one that comes pretty close in a 2011 CBS News/60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll: "If you had to say, which one of the following things do you think is most important in determining how happy you are in life.
1. A rewarding career,
2. Being close with your family,
3. Having good health,
4. Having a lot of money, or
5. The area where you live?"
56% said family, 27% health, 6% where you live, 6% career, 3% money, and 3% didn't know. The standard demographic variables didn't make that much difference, except for age--younger people were more likely to choose career as important and older people were more likely to choose health. Those differences probably represent age rather than generational shifts. In any case, family was by far the leading choice in all age groups, with 50%-60%--the shifts involved the other choices.
This question hasn't been repeated since 2011, and in principle there could have been a big shift in values over the past few years. But I doubt it---changes in things like that tend to be gradual.
[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]
Good essay. I am getting tired of the David Brooks and Arthur Brooks song about moral collapse. You have the energy to get the data. I think there are also similar questions from the World Values Survey, which show family at the top of even Americans’ values.
ReplyDeleteThanks, the WVS is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the problem that D. Brooks lecturing us on how important family is is, well, hutzpah of the highest order: he divorced his first wife and married his research assistant. (So far, I'm on safe factual ground (wiki). Ranting about this as obnoxious prototypical rich white middle aged male bad behavior might be seen as over-the-top, but wouldn't be wrong.)
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to learn that Brooks even had a research assistant: his articles are so dense with factual errors that it's hard to believe he ever had research staff. But, of course, those errors, coincidentally, all happen to favor the theory/claim of the article they appear in...
Why single out Brooks? Pick up any newspaper or go to any "news" website (Reuters possibly excepted) and it's 50% BS. Oh and lets not leave out radio or TV. Media is a business. It's first priority is to make money, not to factually inform citizens.
DeleteIt's to cite factual errors, but the press is riddled with garbage articles that simply leave out the half of the story they don't want you to know (or worse yet, that the reporters and editors are so ignorant they don't even know themselves). No factual error! All good!! Even NYT's Nobel Laureate economist commonly simply refuses to address or acknowledge arguments against his position, or continues to spit out the same old defeated argument time after time after time. His objective is to please his readers and flog his views. He doesn't care about accurate information.
Nothing in the media can be taken at face value. Everything is written to generate the highest level of consumption, advertising dollars or self-serving propaganda. Journalists and media companies are the bottom of the professional and corporate barrel by any standard.
Why single out Brooks?
Delete(1) He's the subject of this thread
(2) Unlike most of the liars out there, he claims to have "data" to back him up and to be the voice of reasonable conservativism.
(3) He has a monster soapbox
(4) That monster soapbox refuses to print corrections, saying that he's writing opinion pieces.
I'm not surprised by this result but OTOH I'm also not convinced that we can attribute this claimed happiness in marriage to the actual relationship, or even that we should believe the claim of happiness is true. Marriage is a cultural norm that's drummed into us from the minute we're born. This song:
ReplyDeleteLyrics: https://genius.com/The-browns-i-heard-the-bluebirds-sing-lyrics
Peformed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4aaXUIZzxY
Embodies the archtypal view of marriage that, IMO, is pervasive in most human societies. It's socially uncouth to admit your marriage isn't the best thing that ever happenned to you. You certainly wouldn't admit it openly while still married, since your best friend is probably married to your parter's best friend.
OTOH, songs like this:
https://genius.com/Lynyrd-skynyrd-call-me-the-breeze-lyrics
Are for honky-tonks and drifters
Marriage is so deeply a part of society that if I'm not mistaken, only one single man has been elected POTUS and even he got married in office. And it surely plays a role in hiring and firing across the economy. Men who live with their families are seen as more dilligent, and I'm sure are more likely spared firings and layoffs. (incidentally, this could be a non-racial factor that winds up discriminating against men in social groups in which they commonly leave their children to be raised by single mothers).
Soooo....
Is the claimed happiness in marriage real, or just a nod to cultural norms? And if it is real, how often is it a result of the relationship rather than a result of the social benefits that marriage confers?
Last but not least: are people with a lower threshold for happiness more likely to get married?