Parents contribute a lot to their offspring’s future wellbeing. A recent book called the Two-Parent Privilege discussed something that the Left does not want to admit: Having two parents in the home imparts a lot of financial and emotional advantages for kids. The book was controversial among some academics who are loath to admit that married parents make a difference. What I find most surprising about the book is that the information it contains is even noteworthy enough to find its way into an academic book. It should be common sense. Another area worth investigating is children of divorced parents versus children of single mothers who never lived with their children’s father as a family. My guess is that children of divorced parents are better off than children of parents who never married or cohabitated.
The following excerpts are from Megan McArdle writing at the Washington Post:
If we want to build a healthy society in which everyone has the best possible chance to flourish, we need to be able to say that bad things are bad.
But let’s talk about family structure. The evidence is overwhelming that the decline of marriage over the past few decades has been very bad for children and, by extension, society. For various reasons, however, this truth is too often left unsaid.
A companion commentary in the Washington Post says that single mothers know marriage is better for their kids but many find marriage unobtainable. I doubt if the writer would agree that having children prior to marriage makes it harder to find a marriage partner if her child’s father is not a candidate.
Research shows that a wealthier family imparts benefits and advantages to children. Two parents contributing income to the household is but one reason two parent families improve children’s outcomes. It is common sense that money would boost kids’ chances, but it goes deeper than mere monetary resources for tutors, extracurricular activities and safer neighborhoods. The following is from a 2015 Upshot article in The New York Times:
Well-off families are ruled by calendars, with children enrolled in ballet, soccer and after-school programs, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. There are usually two parents, who spend a lot of time reading to children and worrying about their anxiety levels and hectic schedules.
In poor families, however, children tend to spend their time at home or with extended family, the survey found. They are more likely to grow up in neighborhoods that their parents say aren’t great for raising children, and their parents worry about them getting shot, beaten up or in trouble with the law.
“Early childhood experiences can be very consequential for children’s long-term social, emotional and cognitive development,” said Sean F. Reardon, professor of poverty and inequality in education at Stanford University. “And because those influence educational success and later earnings, early childhood experiences cast a lifelong shadow.”
The cycle continues: Poorer parents have less time and fewer resources to invest in their children, which can leave children less prepared for school and work, which leads to lower earnings.
What about good genes? Do they make a difference? Yes, in a variety of ways. It’s easy to see how a hereditary genetic condition could reduce happiness, say if depression runs in the family. It’s also easy to see how bad genes could cause lifetime medical bills to rise. The advantage of good genetics goes beyond disease, however. Being tall has its advantages, for example:
When it comes to height, every inch counts–in fact, in the workplace, each inch above average may be worth $789 more per year, according to a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 89, No. 3).
The findings suggest that someone who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than someone who is 5 feet 5 inches–even when controlling for gender, age and weight.
New research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that having conventionally attractive parents makes a huge difference in income. A coauthor told Market Watch:
“The crucial thing to stress is that this kind of genetic link is there, and the size of it is a couple thousand dollars a year,” said Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin and co-author of the paper, titled “The Economic Impact of Heritable Physical Traits: Hot Parents, Rich Kid?”
Good-looking parents are more likely to raise good-looking kids. Research also suggests that being good looking pays off for workers. Indeed, one study showed that good-looking people earn about 15% more than their plainer colleagues.
Parents have a lot to contribute to the well-being of their children. Much of it is based on family structure and child rearing behaviors but some is genetic. There’s an old saying that goes something like this: The key to success is choosing your parents well. On the other hand, researcher Judith Rich Harris argued in a 1998 book that parents matter much less than is typically assumed. Harris claimed that children’s peer groups matter more.