It?s become commonplace in conservative rhetoric and writing to note that single life, especially for parents, is strongly associated with poverty and bad economic outcomes. This was the rationale for the Bush administration?s marriage promotion initiatives, it?s a frequent theme in David Brooks columns, and it?s a centerpiece of Charles Murray?s new book. What?s more, it?s true. Living with another adult is, clearly, more economically efficient than living alone. That?s why young professionals in an expensive city like Washington, D.C., tend to share houses with roommates. It?s why young people move back home with their parents when they lose their jobs. And it?s one of the reasons why the divorce rate falls during a recession. But in all of these specific contexts we understand that there?s more than mere economics at stake. After all, just because you can move out of your parents? house doesn?t mean that you have to. Relatively few empty nesters react to kids leaving home by immediately downsizing to a smaller abode. The bedroom is still sitting there, as is the laundry machine and the refrigerator. Even if you have a job, it would be more efficient to stay home and reap the household economies of scale that come with shared utilities, bulk purchase of groceries, etc. In practice people don?t do this, not because they?re dumb but because adults don?t want to live with their parents. It?s unpleasant, and one of the main reasons to want to get a job and have some money in your pocket is that you don?t have to put up with it anymore.
Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=393644eedf83af34e02e2ce65f8d3fc3
detroit lions kelly clarkson playoffs empty nest nbc sports bengals vs texans nfl playoffs
No comments:
Post a Comment