Via the NYT we get a study in dramatic journalism: It’s Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered

The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2024 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.

Now, this is interesting sociologically, and does have implications for a variety of issues including public policy and advertising, although the question is: how dramatic is the dip and is the passing of an arbitrary line (50%) worthy of a front page story in the newspaper of record?

Further, there is this:

The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.

More to the point, it would be nice if the article provided a) the actual breakdown of percentages of types of household very early in the story to provide context, and b) some notion of what the long term trend is–giving two data points in the first part of the story isn’t all that helpful. Even later in the piece we only get an additional bit of information:

In 1930, they accounted for about 84 percent of households. By 1990 the proportion of married couples had declined to about 56 percent.

With that piece of information, it would indicate to me that the shift of significance happened some time ago, which is no shock. Certainly the choices available to women in particular in our society since the 1930s have changed, hence changing the necessity of marriage. It isn’t as if a woman in 1935 could economically or socially go it on her own with great ease. And yes, social mores have shifted as well in regards to a number of options. Still, this is hardly news to anyone who has been paying a modicum of attention.

We do find out by the eighth paragraph that while 49.7% of households are made up of married couples, only just over 5% of all households are made of heterosexual couples living together, with around .7% being homosexual couples.

Given all the pictures of unmarried cohabitating couples in the piece and the stories about demographic shifts and travelling toothbrushes, one would have expected more dramatic numbers than that.

A nice chart with a breakdown by percentages of all households sure would have been nice. The closet the piece comes is this:

The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).

I would note that while the statement “[i]n all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried” is accurate, it is sloppy writing/thinking because the sentence before it and after it use “households” as the main unit of measure, not couples. Based on the numbers provided only 5.38% of all households are nonmarried couples. By switching the unit of analysis, the author inflates the statistic. Indeed, in the first sentence the author uses couples and households as equivalent, which it is in that sentence, but in the next sentence speaking of just couples (and not households, which includes lots of non-couples) he confuses the issue.

Of course, there is also another bit of sloppiness in that paragraph: 5.2 million out of 111.1 million households is not “a little more than 5%”–it is, in fact, a little less than 5%: 5,200,000/111,100,000 = 4.68%.

The best I can estimate from the story, the breakdown is like this:

The last two are estimates based on the line “One in 20 households consisted of people living alone” and the fact that there is a residual of roughly 20% which I assume has to be people living in the same household, but not as a “couple.” Update: Fixed, as per the comment from Alex. My own sloppiness at play. However, this leaves me perplexed, as 5% seems a bit low. And if that 5% number is correct, then that means 35% of households are roomies/non-couples living together? That seems odd as well. Of course, since the author keeps bopping around from percentages to raw numbers to fractions and from taking about couples only and then about all households, one wonders if he had accurately represented the data.

At any rate, marriage is still the mode, even if it is just shy of being an absolute majority of households. As such, the breathlessness of the article and its “analysis” is a bit unwarranted. If anything, as social scientific analysis, this is hardly “A” level work.

8 Comments

1. Touch a nerve, did it?

   Comment by Jan — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 9:17 am

2. Yes, it is too bad that the article never provides stats for singles living alone or as room-mates.

   By the way, how is “household” defined? Is a homeless person who lives in her car part of any “household”? Donald Trump lives in a hotel. Is that his “household”? Is an orphanage a household?

   Just idle curiosity really.

   Comment by LaurenceB — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 9:36 am

3. In your estimates, you used “One in 20 households consisted of people living alone” and made it 20%. 1/20 is actually 5%.

   Comment by Alex — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 11:15 am

4. Jan,

   Not really. I just found it poor analysis. And once I get started…

   And Alex,

   You are correct. My own sloppiness at work.

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 12:07 pm

5. Decline Of America: Married Households Less Than 50%

   The decline of America? Are you trying to tell us Digger that not being married contributes to the decline of America? No, I’m not one of those right wing nut-jobs who sees marriage as the end all and be all…

   Trackback by Diggers Realm — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 12:40 pm

6. Well, I think the nerve it touched was your “professorial need for good ananlysis” nerve.

   Comment by Jan — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 1:55 pm

7. Ah, yes. I take your point

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 15, 2024 @ 3:09 pm

8. [...] Of course, for some reasons, the Times has a seeming obsession with marriage and fifty-percent thresholds. Filed under: US Politics | |Send TrackBack [...]

   Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » 51% of Women Live Sans Spouse — Tuesday, January 16, 2024 @ 8:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=10857

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.