Freakonomics on Marriage Part I

Freakonomics on Marriage Part I

Recently, the Freakonomics podcast release the first part of a two part episode about the economics of marriage. One of the fascinating features of the show is how much of the common wisdom about marriage is false.  For instance, the divorce rate is actually at an all time low since it peaked in the 1960s/1970s.  

Here is a description of the show: 

This episode is about all the ways that marriage has changed over the last 50 years. We begin by challenging some of the myths of modern marriage. For instance:does marriage make you happier? Is divorce as common as we think? The discussion then moves on to how the institution of marriage is perceived these days, and to what degree it has outlived its original purpose.

We begin by hearing the voices of people all around the country, talking about why they got married or want to. As you might imagine, their reasoning runs from pure romance (love!) to hardcore pragmatic (a visa, a pregnancy, to conform).

Stephen Dubner spends a lot of time talking with Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution. Along with his partner/co-economistBetsey Stevenson, Wolfers has done significant research on marriage, divorce, and family. He explains one dramatic change to marriage over the past half-century — from a factory-style model of “production complementarities,” where the mister went off to work and the missus ran the household, to something very different:

WOLFERS: We’ve moved to what economists would call consumption complementarities. We have more time, more money, and so you want to spend it with someone that you’ll enjoy. So, similar interests and passions. We call this the model of hedonic marriage. But really it’s a lot more familiar than that. This is just economists giving a jargon name to love. So you want someone who’s actually remarkably similar to you or has similar passions that you do. So it fundamentally changes who marries who.

But this new model hasn’t just changed the way marriage looks; it has also changed the numbers. In 1960, two-thirds of all Americans aged 15 and older were married. By 1990, that number had fallen to 58.7 percent. Now? It’s dropped to around 50 percent. Harvard economistClaudia Goldin, who has done extensive research on women’s career and family attainments, tells us what accounts for this drop:

GOLDIN: In the U.S., one group of individuals who eventually marry, marry late. And one group is not marrying — the lower-educated, lower-income Americans are not marrying for lots of different reasons. So I wouldn’t say that marriage is still the institution that it once was.

 

Freakonomics on Marriage Part I

Freakonomics on Marriage Part I

Recently, the Freakonomics podcast release the first part of a two part episode about the economics of marriage. One of the fascinating features of the show is how much of the common wisdom about marriage is false.  For instance, the divorce rate is actually at an all time low since it peaked in the 1960s/1970s.  

Here is a description of the show: 

This episode is about all the ways that marriage has changed over the last 50 years. We begin by challenging some of the myths of modern marriage. For instance:does marriage make you happier? Is divorce as common as we think? The discussion then moves on to how the institution of marriage is perceived these days, and to what degree it has outlived its original purpose.

We begin by hearing the voices of people all around the country, talking about why they got married or want to. As you might imagine, their reasoning runs from pure romance (love!) to hardcore pragmatic (a visa, a pregnancy, to conform).

Stephen Dubner spends a lot of time talking with Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution. Along with his partner/co-economistBetsey Stevenson, Wolfers has done significant research on marriage, divorce, and family. He explains one dramatic change to marriage over the past half-century — from a factory-style model of “production complementarities,” where the mister went off to work and the missus ran the household, to something very different:

WOLFERS: We’ve moved to what economists would call consumption complementarities. We have more time, more money, and so you want to spend it with someone that you’ll enjoy. So, similar interests and passions. We call this the model of hedonic marriage. But really it’s a lot more familiar than that. This is just economists giving a jargon name to love. So you want someone who’s actually remarkably similar to you or has similar passions that you do. So it fundamentally changes who marries who.

But this new model hasn’t just changed the way marriage looks; it has also changed the numbers. In 1960, two-thirds of all Americans aged 15 and older were married. By 1990, that number had fallen to 58.7 percent. Now? It’s dropped to around 50 percent. Harvard economistClaudia Goldin, who has done extensive research on women’s career and family attainments, tells us what accounts for this drop:

GOLDIN: In the U.S., one group of individuals who eventually marry, marry late. And one group is not marrying — the lower-educated, lower-income Americans are not marrying for lots of different reasons. So I wouldn’t say that marriage is still the institution that it once was.

 

Uber-Efficient or Uber-Obnoxious: How Much Would You Pay for a Cab?

Uber-Efficient or Uber-Obnoxious: How Much Would You Pay for a Cab?

This week, the Planet Money podcast discussed the Uber app and surge pricing.  The Uber app permits pedestrian in need of a cab during rush hour to attain one, albeit for an increased price.  

Here is a description of the podcast: 

Here’s the scenario: A man and his wife are desperate to get to the hospital because she is about to deliver a baby. It’s a hot summer day. It’s rush hour. They flag down a private car and ask, “How much?” To their surprise the driver wants to charge them four times the normal price of a cab.

So, is this a story about a cabbie taking advantage of a vulnerable couple or is it simply good economics?

Today, we are talking about a company that charges people in desperate situations more for a ride, and we’ll consider the argument that it might actually be better for everyone.

Uber-Efficient or Uber-Obnoxious: How Much Would You Pay for a Cab?

Uber-Efficient or Uber-Obnoxious: How Much Would You Pay for a Cab?

This week, the Planet Money podcast discussed the Uber app and surge pricing.  The Uber app permits pedestrian in need of a cab during rush hour to attain one, albeit for an increased price.  

Here is a description of the podcast: 

Here’s the scenario: A man and his wife are desperate to get to the hospital because she is about to deliver a baby. It’s a hot summer day. It’s rush hour. They flag down a private car and ask, “How much?” To their surprise the driver wants to charge them four times the normal price of a cab.

So, is this a story about a cabbie taking advantage of a vulnerable couple or is it simply good economics?

Today, we are talking about a company that charges people in desperate situations more for a ride, and we’ll consider the argument that it might actually be better for everyone.

Debating Paid Family Leave

Debating Paid Family Leave

Recently, The Diane Rehm show discussed state programs that require paid family leave for workers and efforts to institute such policies federally. 

Here is a description of the podcast: 

Most federal workplace laws date back to the 1930s when a majority of mothers did not work outside the home. As family and work patterns have shifted, the need for paid time off to care for family members has increased. In the absence of federal paid leave, a few states have passed laws that allow employees to take paid leave to care for a newborn, adopted child or seriously ill relative. Rhode Island, California and New Jersey allow workers to pay part of their wages into a fund that pays for the leave. Diane and a panel of guests discuss the impact of paid leave on businesses and families.

 

GUESTS

Lisa Horn – director of congressional affairs, Society for Human Resource Management.

Brigid Schulte – reporter, The Washington Post and author of the upcoming book: “Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time.”

Ellen Bravo – executive director, Family Values @ Work.

Kirsten Gillibrand – U.S. Senator, New York (D).