Economists have long argued that marriage rates are lower in poorer and less well-educated areas because men in those communities aren’t good financial bets. Without steady incomes, they can’t reliably contribute to a household, so while women might have children with them, they won’t commit to men for life. That’s been the assumption, anyway.
Fracking booms gave two researchers in the Economics Department at the University of Maryland, College Park, a perfect chance to test the hypothesis. What happens when money pours into a place, enriching the men, specifically, and giving them good jobs? More of them will get married, right?
As they discovered, to their surprise, the answer is no
This is a surprise, is it not? I wonder what is happening. Perhaps it is related to constraints being released with respect to women. Let us see.
Melissa S. Kearney and Riley Wilson published their findings in a new paper covered by the Washington Post that concludes, “there is no evidence of an increase in marriage rates. The pattern of results is consistent with positive income effects on births, but no associated increase in marriage.”
In other words, fracking money made more men dad-material, but it didn’t make them husband-material.
Why yes, it is about constraints being released from women. Women historically have wanted marriage for the sake of protection and resources; now she can get resources from a guy with some money who doesn’t really need to be around and protection from the government. It used to be that a fella had to be around for protection, but no more. In fact, for many of these women, it is better if he isn’t around. Especially if he doesn’t turn her on.
Of course with marriage, a fella got domestic activities and most of all, sex. Well, no need for her to provide that anymore.
All of the above assessment is old news in the manosphere. Still, it warrants revisiting every time new evidence pops up to support it.