Monday, October 26, 2009

D.C. Marriage Rate Is Low Because People Leave the City When They Marry

The marriage rate in the District of Columbia is half that of the average of states - a bit over a quarter, vs. a bit over half, of all people. Newsweek blogger Katie Connolly got the explanation mostly right, but her analysis was overshadowed by her comment that D.C. is segregated by apartheid.

Connolly cited three factors that reduce the marriage rate in Washington, D.C. Most of the city residents are African American, and a high proportion of them are poor, the two groups with the lowest marriage rates in America. Second, whites who live in the city are disproportionately highly educated young, Democratic, and women - three groups who do marry, but marry late. Third, the homosexual population of D.C., at about 8%, is double the proportion you would find in a state.

The main reason the D.C. marriage rate is low, which Connolly cites but does not lean on as the main reason, is that it is a city, and a poor one at that. When black D.C. residents marry, have children, and start to move up in class, they leave the city for the suburbs, especially Prince Georges County, MD, which probably has the largest black middle class of any county in America. When white yuppies from all over come to Washington to work on public policy they find a fine city to live and work in - until you have children. Then they move to the suburbs.

Or, if you are really fortunate, and Mrs. G. and I were, you move to Danville, KY to raise your kids.

6 comments:

trand said...

homosexual population of D.C., at about 8%, is double the proportion you would find in a state.

Where did you get 4%?

Gruntled said...

Laumann and the Chicago study revised Kinsey's 10% number down to about 3% as the population figure for "exclusively homosexual." Kinsey overestimated because he did not know that gays and lesbians move to cities, so his urban sample was over-representing the national figure. DC is a city with a strong gay population (Mrs. G and I used to live in Dupont Circle). Any state is likely to be closer to the 3% figure than D.C.'s much higher urban number.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Most of the city residents are African American, and a high proportion of them are poor, the two groups with the lowest marriage rates in America.[/quote]

With "Black" and "poor" being accepted as the reasons that DC's marriage rate is low - it is clear to me that this article (nor this blog entry) has any interests in going one layer deeper to find out what about BLACK PEOPLE might be causing us to have lower marriage rates.

Anonymous said...

Constructive feedback,

An interesting choice for a name given that your feedback is anything but that.

Dr. Weston's sincere concern about the whys behind the low marriage rate amongst Blacks is evidenced in his previous posts (Oct 6, 2009; Oct 1, 2009; plus many older ones that I can't find right now due to the lack of an easy search feaure). I'm betting that he didn't feel the need to go into it this time since it wasn't the main point of this particular post.

Why not be truly constructive and leave a comment with your ideas on the causes behind this sad trend? Get a dialogue going in the comment section!

ed worker said...

Constructive Feedback,

Chip, meet shoulder.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]An interesting choice for a name given that your feedback is anything but that.[/quote]

Is there anything SPECIFICALLY about my analysis that you find to be false?

The fact of the matter is that you all appear to accept as a given that:

BLACK = LOW MARRIAGE RATES

This is ignorant and lazy thinking.

I argue that a people must link their CULTURE with THE DESIRED OUTCOMES that they seek ("Directed Outcomes").

Thus there is no association between "Black" and "Low Marriage Rates".

Instead what we see is the failure to apply Human Resource Management practices in which the notion that lifetime, committed relationships between man and woman has a social stabling effect and thus is executed as a standard within the population subset in question.

You appear to be more interested in protecting Dr Weston's honor than in addressing the strategic flaws that our people are making with respect to this issue.

Who's should is really chipped?