I am currently attending the American Enterprise Institute's housing conference right now. I got to hear about an intriguing report from AEI called Rings to Roofs. Rather than focusing solely on building more homes, the authors argue that increasing marriage rates could effectively expand housing availability by reducing the number of households seeking separate homes. Their estimate suggests that a return to 2000 marriage rates could free up approximately one million homes, which would solve 18 percent of the current housing shortage.
Not only that, doing so would move 2.9 million Americans out of low-income jobs because they are spending less on housing. The number of Americans who could afford to buy a home in the U.S. would increase from 46 percent to 67 percent, or an increase of 21 percentage points. Even assuming these estimates are correct, does that mean the government should play Cupid and encourage Americans to marry?
The AEI report argues that marriage rates influence housing demand because household formation determines how many homes a population needs. That makes sense because two people who marry typically live together instead of occupying two separate homes. Multiply that effect across millions of homes and it ends up freeing existing housing stock. I find this interesting because many solutions in the housing policy focus on housing supply. Looking at household composition to improve the housing stock is a clever way of going about it. But it begs the question of what society should do to increase the marriage rate because the Rings to Roofs report doesn't answer that question.
One could think that if marriage frees up housing, perhaps subsidizing marriage is a solution to the housing problem. In January, I argued against a policy proposal from the Heritage Foundation that the government should provide a $2,500 subsidy to encourage couples to get married. As I pointed out, a government check cannot guarantee love and happiness. I argued that financial stability, long-term compatibility, and relationship readiness are much larger determinants for marriage than whether the government hands out a check or provides a tax credit.
More fundamentally, if declining marriage rates are indicative of a cultural shift in attitudes towards commitment and family, the odds that financial incentives will move the needle on marriage rates are low. This is why I would like to briefly ask why marriage is less attractive of an arrangement than it has been in recent decades.
There are unquestionably economic reasons to delay marriage, whether it's student debt, high rent, or medical costs. I pointed this increase in cost of living back in 2017. But I would contend that the economic arguments are made while overshadowing the cultural undercurrents that make people not want to get married. I am one for individual autonomy, but I also do realize that heavily leaning on personal fulfillment, career advancement, and emphasizing autonomy makes it more difficult to want to marry.
Instead of viewing marriage as an arrangement in which two people live a shared life and build something together, it can look like a constraint on personal freedom. For more and more people, marriage is seen as something best achieved after acquiring financial stability, establishing a career, and fulfilling individual ambitions before settling down with someone else. Plus, the growing acceptance of cohabitation and alternative living arrangements weakens the need to marry. None of this is to say that economic obstacles are irrelevant or that everyone should get married for its own sake. But again, financial incentives cannot solve a problem that is primarily cultural or one that goes against the grain of one's personal values.
If we as a society want marriage to regain its appeal, we need to make a persuasive cultural case for the value of commitment, partnership, and building a future together. Families, friends, and communities can make the case for marriage by demonstrating its potential rewards, whether it's companionship, mutual responsibility, and building a life together. Couples in healthy lasting marriages can serve as examples of what commitment makes possible. Families, voluntary associations, religious communities, and civic organizations can offer relationship education, mentoring, and support for couples who want to marry.
None of this requires treating marriage as obligatory or looking down on those who remain singly. It simply means recognizing marriage as a worthwhile aspiration instead of an outdated institution or something to consider only after every other personal goal has been met. This approach is preferable to government intervention because it involves persuasion, example, and voluntary association, which is exactly what you need when talking about something like love and marriage.
I am inclined to believe the AEI report because the economic logic of freeing up housing stock by condensing households is sound. I also believe that marriage creates benefits for the individual couples. But that doesn't mean that the government should get involved in the romantic affairs of its citizens. Perhaps the more important question here isn't how to get people to marry, but how to make marriage something more desirable for individuals. That's a challenge that no government subsidy or tax credit can solve.
No comments:
Post a Comment