Family Structure Blogging

"This," I write below "is a real and meaningful change from the recent past . . . that deserve [s] a more thoughtful treatment than what you get from Laura Sessions Stepp." The internet delivers in the form of Kieran Healy's writeup of a new book by Stanford sociologist and social demographer Michael Rosenfeld, The Age of Independence:

Since around 1960, increasing numbers of young people have left home but without themselves starting families soon afterwards. Instead they go off to college by themselves, and then perhaps move to work in a city, surrounded by people much their own age and, like themselves, unmarried. This is the Age of Independence. It can last ten or fifteen years. Much as the teenager emerged as a social category and life-stage in the early post-war period, the Age of Independence becomes established as a phase in people’s lives. [...]

Now, I’m not a social demographer, or an expert on family structure, and I haven’t read the book in great detail. But the book’s approach is appealing. It connects issues of individual identity and choice to very broad social-structural change through a study of changes in the life-course. And it can explain just the kind of issues that David Brooks and—rather more clearly—Matt Yglesias pick out. Worth a read.

Sounds fascinating.

Comments

The Northwestern European nuclear family tradition was to wait until the couple could afford marriage, which led to fairly high first marriage ages even by contemporary American standards. Ben Franklin pointed out in 1751 that the American abundance of cheap land and the shortage of labor leading to high wages allowed people more people to get married than in Europe. He drew from this the conclusion that immigration should be limited for the benefit of Americans.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 11, 2007 12:44 AM

Steve Sailer makes a good point. The rule was "you can't marry my daughter until you have a farm (or other evidence of economic independence and success) of your own," and this appears to have pushed median ages of first marriage for men into the mid to late twenties in northwestern Europe except in the most flush (i.e., aftermath of the Black Plague, et cetera).

Recall that Fitzwilliam Darcy in _Pride and Prejudice_ is 28 and unmarried--he has presumably been catting about for a decade or so. The median age of first marriage for American men in 1890 was 26.1--compare to 27.3 in 2003.

What is different is women: Lizzie Bennett is 20; the median age of first marriage for American women in 1890 was 22 (and figure that menarche today and its hormone flows are advanced by two years or so). Women in the old days were either (a) married early, or (b) kept under close supervision until they did marry. It's the modern, independent twenty-something woman that is the truly new sociological phenomenon...

Posted by Brad DeLong | July 11, 2007 1:01 AM

Some day, you will lose that innocent rush of amusement from seeing your name in print. On that day, you will no longer be one of us, and become one of Them. In the meantime, please continue to cultivate the feeling.

Posted by Trevor | July 11, 2007 3:43 AM

I didn't get married until I was 38. I married a 47 year old woman. I guess I'll never have kids.

Posted by merlallen | July 11, 2007 5:50 AM

Pride and Prejudice quotes; must be Brad.

Posted by NBarnes | July 11, 2007 6:26 AM

I'll get married tomorrow! It's always a day away.

Tooooooooo...morrow.

Posted by ferd | July 11, 2007 6:27 AM

He drew from this the conclusion that immigration should be limited for the benefit of Americans.

And interestingly, we do limit immigration for the benefit of Americans! Did he also conclude that we shouldn't eat yellow snow?

Posted by Steve | July 11, 2007 8:26 AM

Even those of us who are married are waiting to have kids. Many of my friends married 2-3 years out of college (as did I), but we're all pushing 30, and only 1 of 10 or so couples I know has yet to have a kid (and that one was an end-of-grad school accident; thankfully, the parents found jobs before baby was born). It's all about the money -- marrying isn't that big a deal, since so many of us had been or would be cohabiting anyway. However, we're (collective "we") just now getting to be in the position where we can afford to add a non-income-generating third to the household.

Posted by annelina | July 11, 2007 9:12 AM

Even those of us who are married are waiting to have kids.

Yeah, the kid we thought we were waiting to have is now 11 months old. But accidents aside, annelina is exactly right about the economic calculations that are going on. It's not so much that people can't afford diapers, but everyone knows schooling is mega-expensive and they want to be in a position where they make enough money to put something away.

Posted by Steve | July 11, 2007 10:33 AM

"everyone knows schooling is mega-expensive"

which suggests that the pro-natalist wing-nuts should realize that a good way to increase birth-rates would be to fund working public education.

But no, that would conflict with their religious agenda of destroying public schools.

Posted by Count Cant | July 11, 2007 12:09 PM

Affordable childcare would help too -- were such a thing available, it would be feasible for husband and me to have kids now instead of waiting at least another 2-3 years.

Posted by annelina | July 11, 2007 12:37 PM

Re: which suggests that the pro-natalist wing-nuts should realize that a good way to increase birth-rates would be to fund working public education.

The issue isn't public education, that's still free and, unless you live in a slum or some dirt-poor rural area, it's perfectly adequete. The issue is more likely college education. Also, I don't think it's just the immediate costs that concern people, but also long term economic security. Even if you're making a six digit income today, that can all end tomorrow, along with one's health benefits. No doubt that gives many people pause when they consider having children.

Posted by JonF | July 11, 2007 1:03 PM