From “Dalrock.”
Child support crowds out marriage, and even in cases where weddings still technically occur the option for the wife to unilaterally convert the family from a marriage based family to a child support based family always exists. This is part of the threatpoint designed to empower wives and dis-empower husbands. Men simply don’t have the option to choose the marriage based model over the child support model.
Incidentally, I have downloaded Robert George’s Conscience and its Enemies. He takes the conservative point of view on family issues, and I admit that I am not yet persuaded. However, it may be worth writing a longer review. Robby and I happened to overlap a bit at Swarthmore. He now teaches at Princeton. These days, he would get my vote for number one on the list of Professors Who Are Unlikely to Receive a Standing Ovation–at either place. Let’s just say that Swarthmoreans are all about the oppressor-oppressed axis, not so much about civilization-barbarism. I’m guessing Princetonians are similar.
Basically, I am just another liberal Painglossian when to comes to trends in family law. That is, I have never thought that child support laws were anything but good. I never thought that loosening divorce laws was a mistake. I am on the pro-choice side on the abortion issue. etc.
While one blog post is not going to change my mind, “Dalrock” leads one to consider the question that economists ask about well-intended policy: but then what? what happens in the long run?
Suppose you make it easier for a woman to divorce a man and to obtain child support. Then what?
Then men will prefer not to get married. Staying unmarried makes it harder for the woman to break up the relationship and still receive child support.
I am not sure that these are top-of-mind issues among young people. Of course, my contacts with young people are pretty much limited to the affluent children of Vickies. What these young people say is top-of-mind is that they really, really, don’t want to go through divorce. Compared to my generation, they seem to regard marriage as belonging to a later stage in life. My line is that for our generation, getting married was like starting a new business–a moment of promise and hope. Today, it’s like going IPO–a moment of affirmation and triumph.
Arnold,
Is anything here even seriously in dispute?
Premises:
1. Given a good X, then decreasing the price (increasing the supply) of a substitute good Y decreases the demand for X.
2. Child Support / Welfare / AFDC is a substitute for marriage.
Conclusion:
Increasing or introducing Child Support/Welfare/AFDC decreases the demand for Marriage.
Position 2:
1. If the value of a good X drops (change in materials), there is likely to be a decrease in demand for X.
2. Allowing women to unilaterally exit marriage, and demand child support decreases the value of marriage (for men).
Conclusion 2:
Men will buy less marriage.
I don’t see anything here as seriously disputable.
The interesting questions appear to be entirely in the “ok, so child support decreases marriage, which leads to less marriage. Is the tradeoff worth it?”
One way to make make marriage more desirable is to make it more difficult to have a kid outside of marriage and avoid child support.
Perhaps if there were a simple, and very well-publicized, legal rule: if it’s your sperm, you’re responsible for the kid until it reaches 18. It doesn’t matter if “she said she was on the pill” or “the condom broke” or “she got me drunk” or even, “she emptied the condom and impregnated herself with a turkey baster.” This rule would make males, in the words of Ann Althouse, “guard your sperm.”
DNA tests to determine paternity are now fairly cheap. I wonder if, as part of national medical records, we will have a pretty large DNA database before too long.
The problem is that is putting it all on the men kind of like the current law. You will end up going from “no marriage” to “no kids period as every man gets a vasectomy at 14”.
The other item overlooked here is the threat of abortion. I knew one guy, very pro-life and family oriented, who knocked up a girl (condom broke) and her valid threat was “You can marry me, get divorced after a month, and pay me child support and I will let you see your kid sometime OR you I will abort it. You are sadly mistaken if you think I’m going to have the kid, give it to you,and then pay YOU child support on top of it.”. Been an upstanding sort of guy, he pays child support.
Family law is amazing biased against cases where the man wants the kid and the woman does not.
Yes, it puts it all on men. But it also gives the men notice that it’s all on them. And, fortunately, they have the power to avoid any unwanted pregnancy. There are condoms, and the time-tested (but awful annoying) “keep it in your pants.”
It also means that the male has to be a lot more discerning about the woman who he will have unprotected intercourse with. But, in general, that is a feature rather than a bug.
(Sometimes condoms break but that’s awful rare. If there were such a rule, I could even see a condom manufacturer trying to get a competitive advantage and guaranteeing “will not break with proper use”–and thus being legally liable if it did. In that case, your friend would be indemnified.)
I would partially agree if you were in your thirties. Men are NOT taught this at the age where they become sexual active and while neither are women, the courts will forgive them (women) of their mistakes whereas happily screw the man over for this.
perhaps what someone can invent an easily reversible vasectomy.
I found this:
http://www.gizmag.com/risug-male-contraception/18824/
A few years ago, I had both a teenage son and daughter. At one point it occurred to me that I’d be much more concerned to hear that my son had gotten a girl pregnant than to hear my daughter was pregnant — such an event would be more likely to have a significant, long-term negative impact on his life than on hers. She would have the option to abort, or give up for adoption, or raise the child (and receive child support from the father). But my son would have very few options. If the girl decided to raise the child, he would be faced with 22 years of child support while, probably, having a very difficult time staying involved in his child’s life (unless he was prepared to pull up stakes and follow the mother around the country wherever she might move). A family court judge would supervise his professional life (you no longer want to work in the high-paying field that your degree qualifies you for? Sorry–child support is based on your potential earnings. A lower-paying, more rewarding job is not an option). For the same reasons, when they are ready to marry, I expect I’ll worry more that my son find a spouse of good character who is truly committed than I’ll worry about my daughter.
Family law has managed to turn the standard evolutionary logic on its head — at least for the upper quintiles, pregnancy is arguably riskier and more expensive for males than females. How will human sexual behavior respond to these inverted incentives? It’s an interesting experiment we seem to be running.
You may have worried more but lots of young males don’t.
I figured it out – almost too late. I was quite upset, at the time, that no-one had ever given me “life advice” about this (perhaps in school or, more appropriate, college). I’d heard of child support, but it’s always portrayed in the media as a small thing, almost an annoyance, certainly not something anyone could object to paying. In fact, it’s modern-day slavery, incredibly intrusive, life-limiting, and expensive based on income potential even to a point far beyond any reasonable cost of raising a child.
I took a few years to absorb the implications, and had a vasectomy. They don’t reverse well, but there are other approaches to having children if you change your mind later.
I do think that the full implications of this need to be discussed with young men, at about the time when they’re deciding whether to go to college. There’s no point in going to college if you’re going to get hit with child support; arguably, you’re better off NOT having gone, in that case.
In Canada, there’s a formula for how much child support the non-custodial parent has to pay, based on income. For high-income parents, it’s much more than the child’s needs actually cost. Moreover, there’s no requirement for the custodial parent to justify how the money gets spent.
There was a case a decade or so ago where the father wanted to agree to buy a nice house for the child to grow up in, but he wanted it back when the child was an adult. The court said no, and his wife gets to keep the house.
IMO, it’s not just having to support the child (which you would anyway, even if you were married). It’s having to OVER-support the child and enrich the other spouse, whom you’re probably angry at.
I’m torn on the issue. On the one hand, liberalization of divorce laws and (perfectly logical) didn’t spring out of nowhere. In addition to the shift from “joint production” to the “joint consumption” model of marriages, this also occurred at a time when the returns to unskilled or semi-skilled labor began plummeting as America’s manufacturing base was shipped off to Southeast Asia and/or automated, so the result was a lot of men who looked like decent economic assets to their partners in 1970 were a net liability come 1980. With that in mind, liberalizing divorce at that time made a lot of sense.
On the other hand, when I ask myself the question “who had their [stuff] together more; the Baby Boomers or their parents? The Victorians or the Hippies?” the answer seems obvious. There was a reason crime rates and illegitimacy skyrocketed during the 1960-1990’s. There’s probably a reason fertility rates have fallen so much, as well. There’s a reason inequality (as Arnold noted) has soared, as well.
Furthermore, patriarchy is the default setting for societies both primitive and advanced all throughout history. Someone on the left might suggest that this was a relic of less enlightened, more barbaric when threats of violence governed more of human affairs. Or simply a relic of when physical strength was more of a necessity for survival. Or whatever. But someone like Phillip Longman would say that’s wrong, and patriarchy is a tool for encouraging male parental investment in the next generation, so as to produce higher quality offspring with a better chance to succeed in a competitive social environment (both economically and reproductively). If Longman is correct, we should expect most attempts at fiddling with it to end in tears. In fact, if you google “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” you may find some interest reading.
There is, I think, something of a parallel between the welfare state and child support laws that I think ought to be troubling to libertarians, also. If you’re unhappy being coerced into financially supporting total strangers like I am, you can imagine that when an ex spouse sticks it to you in a divorce you didn’t want, it’s even more unpalatable.
I’m going to agree with most of the commentators here and Phil and Slocum hit it on the head. Even in states where technically child support is merit based it screws over the non-custodial parent who makes more money, i.e. men most of the time. This includes cases where you have 50/50 split/joint physical custody (usually the best a father can hope for short of the mother NOT wanting custody) and still have to pay child support which makes ZERO sense to me (though at a reduced rate). Basically the half the year the kid lives with you you get to reimburse the ex-wife’s dating activities.
The fix here is simple IMHO given it’s for the “good of the child”. Simply award joint physical custody with no child support in all cases except where one parent does not want it. In those cases child support should be based on 50/50 of agreed actuals of the custodian parent’s increased cost. This takes away the strong economic incentive for women to not compromise in the marriage or to keep the kids solely to increase their income and spite their ex.
Sadly as a married father nowadays you have to do a real calculation about which is a cheaper (fiscally and emotionally) exit strategy given either way you aren’t going to get to raise your kids. Tough it out twenty-two years and split half of everything you saved during that time OR outrageous child support at up to 50% your income. There are other options but you will end up with zero custody and probably not be able to look yourself in the mirror such as prison, emigration, etc. Sadly women, for the most part and especially at the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder never have to make this choice, they win regardless.
PS: And just for some fun numbers from the last time I explored this a year ago the current options were: sixteen more years of child support at 20% my take home income (for one child btw) with visitation rights or sixteen more years of child support with 15% my take home income with split custody. Yep family law is really about what’s best for the kids given that 5% savings < my increase in cost for half the year (larger house, food, etc) nor is that 5% savings worth the emotional cost in l spite I will have for the fact I my ex-wife would effectively get 15% alimony for half the year for until my daughter is twenty-two because you know my ex-wife needs it once my daughter is out the house and in college. Folk forget that the money DOES NOT go to the kid once they reach the age of majority, the custodial parent continues to collect for four more years after the kid is an adult, moved out the house, and a custodial relationship no longer exists. My wife would be required to give if the situation was reversed 5% and 3%; yep some real equality there.
Also what I really love is the law will require you (as the higher income child supporting parent) to continue to work and maintain your income (for the good of the child ofc) but will NOT require the inferior parent to increase their income to support the child at the custodian parents level (for the good of the child ofc).
Basically my view, and that of many others, is child support is modern day indentured servitude and it amazes me it’s both legal and you could support it Mr. Kling given your other views.
Arnold says,
“Suppose you make it easier for a woman to divorce a man and to obtain child support. Then what?
Then men will prefer not to get married. Staying unmarried makes it harder for the woman to break up the relationship and still receive child support.”
Or you could reverse the causation as did Lloyd Cohen. The woman sacrifices more at the beginning of the marriage. The husband spends his time improving his human capital while the wife stays at home raising kids, improving her non-market skills. Twenty years later, when the husband is reaching the prime of his working career and the wife is now “relaxing” after spending years focused in rearing young children who are now beginning college, the husband leaves his wife for his thirty-year-old secretary. The wife is not left looking for a job in her early forties and with little skills valued in the labor market. As a consequence, more women opt to not take the marriage route, of those who do tend to remain gainfully employed throughout because they cannot trust that the husband will be around twenty years after they marry.
” husband leaves his wife for his thirty-year-old secretary. ”
It is more common for the wive to seek a divorce.
Under marriage laws today one party can breach the contract, without citing any cause, and not suffer any penalty in the divorce settlement. What other contracts can be broken with the person breaking the contract not suffering any penalty?
And the interesting followup a few days later:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8857708/Chinas-divorce-rule-dubbed-Law-that-makes-men-laugh-and-women-cry.html
What should this do? Of course the law should decrease divorce.
Arnold, you say “Staying unmarried makes it harder for the woman to break up the relationship and still receive child support”.
In fact, nothing makes it hard for the woman to receive “child support”. Indeed, it is hard for her even to refuse to accept it.
Getting married has no effect at all on “child support”.