Birth rates for unmarried women have varied fairly consistently by race and Hispanic origin. The rates for Hispanic women (106 births per 1,000 unmarried women in 2006) and black women (72 per 1,000) were highest. Birth rates for unmarried non-Hispanic white (32 per 1,000) and Asian or Pacific Islander (API) women (26 per 1,000) were much lower.From 1995 to 2002, the nonmarital birth rate for black women declined 12%. Rates for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women were essentially unchanged during these years.
In the recent period 2002-2006, birth rates for unmarried non-Hispanic white women rose by 14% and for black women by 9%, while the rates climbed 20% for Hispanic women and 24% for API women.
I'm never sure what to make of any of this. Obviously, you'd like for the rates in black and brown communities to not be double and triple what they are in white communities, respectively. Weighted for income, and better still wealth, I suspect the gap would close some--though not totally. Anyway, here's a bit of good news:
At one time, references to births to unmarried women and births to teenagers were considered one and the same only because births to unmarried women were disproportionately, although certainly not exclusively, among teenagers. In 1970, 50% of nonmarital births were to unmarried women under age 20.Not a lot of answers here, folks. Sorry. I'm sure there will be nuff hand-wringing and finger-pointing to come.In the years since the mid-1970s, this proportion has fallen steadily. In 2007, 23% of nonmarital births were to teenagers. The decline largely reflects the drop in birth rates for unmarried teenagers concurrent with the large increases in birth rates for adult unmarried women.
Sixty percent of nonmarital births in 2007 were to women in their twenties, significantly higher than the 42% level in 1970.
About one in six births to unmarried women in 2007 were to women aged 30 years and over, much higher than the proportion in 1970, 1 in 12.
And yet even looking at that, I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand, I'm glad teen pregnancy is declining. But on the other, when considering the rise in unmarried mothers, I wonder if the way we live is just changing. Forever.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It would seem the most obvious place to look first would be how many births are from stable cohabitating couples. At the end the study notes that 40% of recent unmarried births are to people living together. I think a key question is if this is really a study about unmarried mothers or about the destigmatization of long-term cohabitation.
Right on. I feel as though many stable couples are simply choosing not to get married, or not necessarily prioritizing it before having children (or buying a house). It seems from my observation (admittedly very limited) that the "traditional" progression of engagement->marriage->children just isn't as dominant now.
One would have to control for so many variables and get so much more information to determine what impact the simple fact of out-of-wedlock birth actually has.
I know several couples who had children and then got married.
Which, in a way, can be very traditional. Although I didn't see irate fathers with shotguns at the weddings.
TNC, remind me how to do block quotes again.
"But on the other, when considering the rise in unmarried mothers, I wonder if the way we live is just changing. Forever."
This article:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/births-to-unwed-moms-rising-northern-europe-beats-us
It says the unmarried births is up all over the world, especially Northern Europe. I guess the Europeans are increasingly choosing to live together in stable relationships, have children, but not to get married. I'm not sure what that adds to the conversations, save to make me wish we had a bit more resolution. "Births-out-of-wedlock" is not a very useful way of conceptionalizing the issue if it sandwiches relationships like your own in with single parent households with varying degrees of support, a long with who knows what else. Until we get significantly more detailed infromation I don't see how anyone can draw any useful conclusions.
http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp
Anyway, you're right. Given what's happening everywhere, I'm not sure what, if any, conclusions can be drawn. That won't stop people though.
Thanks, man.
So, are there better, more detailed studies out there? And if not, why not? I mean it took about 20 seconds for a whole host of us here to see the problem with the numbers... somebody in the buisness must have posed the question, or at least compared the results with single parent households, income levels, etc... right?
These numbers are so often used to score political points, though; I'm not sure many people have interest in figuring out what the truth is behind them.
What Persia, said. It's tough to get any sense of what all of this means, because of the political implications surrounding the issue.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, eh?
I think they are using the wrong statistic; isn't the age/education level of the mother more important than the marital status?
Yeah, I agree. In their defense, they do offer numbers on teen-pregnancy. It's plummeted in all communities, though it's still highest among blacks and Latinos.
Damn, beaten to the punch.
I suppose I am one of those 32-in-a-thousand unmarried White women, and so is my partner of 22 years. Well, at least until we go to Iowa this summer! 'Cuz that'll change everything, right?
Well, no, and the reason is a good example of why policy responses to statistical problems tend not to solve practical problems.
Because the 2010 census does not allow you to claim yourself as a married same-sex couple. So for the purposes of this type of study, you child(ren) will be part of the single-mothered demographic.
I wish President Hercules were mucking out the stables more quickly, but unless someone at Census does something on the policy side this will still be the case in 2020.
ACS is every year but the Census is still the benchmark for household data--though if you don't allow folks to tell you the composition of their household because you 'don't want to politicize the Census', that will change.
In 1970, 50% of nonmarital births were to unmarried women under age 20.
In the years since the mid-1970s, this proportion has fallen steadily.
I've read arguements that state this fact is the largest driver in the reduction of crime over the past decade or two. There was a report yesterday how crime has actually declinced in NYC (I think) since the economy went bad, which theoretically shows a weak link between crime and the economy.
I think Freakonomics makes the argument that the legalization of abortion also had a lot to do with both of those numbers--reduced crime and lower unmarried births under 20. But that's a whole other can of worms
Crosstabs are essential. Like, what are the birthrates for recent immigrants from predominantly catholic countries? Also, a poll would be interesting; what are the attitudes about birth control and condom use in the high unwed mother groups versus their lower counterparts?
Among the adult, truly single moms I've known (a category that excludes cohabiting straight couples and lesbian couples), about half set out to become single moms once they realized that Prince Charming had not arrived on schedule. Half of THEM adopted, and the other half had their own biological kids. All of these women were over 30. Not all gave up on finding men, but most had given up the expectation that they would find husbands before it was too late to have kids.
The other half had unplanned pregnancies but were happy about it. Most of these were over 30 as well, but a few were in their late 20s. The fact that they were a bit younger and that they found themselves getting pregnant by accident makes me think that they hadn't given up on finding the right man quite yet. But they definitely wanted their kids, even if they came a bit early.
The combination makes me think that there are more women looking to get married and have children than there are men who will cooperate with these plans. Or else that society's mechanisms for matching people up are malfunctioning severely. I'm not sure which is it. Is there a large pool of men who would like to get married and have families but who can't find suitable partners?
"The other half had unplanned pregnancies but were happy about it."
That's me. 43 year old single mom of a two-year-old. Probably not getting married. My first priority is my son and I don't want to ruin him by bringing the wrong guy into our tiny little family.
Or else that society's mechanisms for matching people up are malfunctioning severely.
Assuming you're referring to the dating game as a whole here, I would argue that its not malfunctioning. I'm no fan of dating, but I don't know that I'd say its on the fritz just because we have the number working out evenly. I have nothing to back that opinion up with. Assistance would be welcome.
The combination makes me think that there are more women looking to get married and have children than there are men who will cooperate with these plans.
This might be an issue of timing. Despite the recent discoveries that men might have biological clocks (which i think can easily be worked around by freezing sperm if you're that concerned about a couple of IQ points), men probably just want the same things with respect to family and kids but they want them later.
Assuming you're referring to the dating game as a whole here, I would argue that its not malfunctioning. I'm no fan of dating, but I don't know that I'd say its on the fritz just because we have the number working out evenly.
Well, I would think it'd depend if you were one of those who were matched up or not...
I'm saying this as someone who is not currently matched up and who has not been matched up more often than not. I'm not gonna say that the whole game is faulty just because I'm not killing it. I need to adjust, maybe work on the fundamentals, etc.
"I'm not sure which is it. Is there a large pool of men who would like to get married and have families but who can't find suitable partners?"
Interesting idea. I think you're right. Most of my husband's (very geeky) friends are all still unmarried (in their 40s) or divorced already. They are all nice guys, have jobs, and would be doting dads. Why aren't they all married with a houseful of kids? They are terribly geeky science fiction buffs, and not extremely good-looking, but surely this shouldn't matter awfully, right? After all, my husband is also a terribly geeky science fiction buff (although wickedly handsome, of course), and he's made a really great husband and dad.
You should start a dating service.
I'm only halfway joking. There are women looking for guys like this - they just don't know where to find them.
That is an issue. Where do shy people who are very busy with their jobs meet likely candidates? I mean, if there workplaces don't happen to supply any.
The classic places to meet people are school, work, friends' parties, your neighborhood, clubs, and churches (or other religious institutions). But if people are always either at the office or asleep, they are missing a lot of opportunities. And if it takes them a while to warm up when opportunities arise...
Just based on my experience in the past, men looking for women go to bars. Women looking for men sign up for classes and activities where they can meet men sober and in group settings. Neither group seems to be happy with this arrangement.
Past a certain age, you can't find a partner at your friends' parties, or churches. Friends get married and have kids. They hang out with other couple who have kids. Churches, especially in suburbia, are built around couples with kids. It's a closed system.
I think the system we have now, where dating and finding someone is pretty much done online by default, favors the male-oriented viewpoint. Let me explain:
I believe that women are, by and large, serial monogamists. We'll date, but if we find ourselves interested in Guy X, we'll play out that string. Might last six weeks. Might last six months. Might last six years. But you play out the string, and then if/when it ends, you date again.
In the dating game, professional matchmakers work the same way (and not surprisingly, most are women). They match a fellow up with a woman, or two or three. As soon as he says: "Yes, I think I like this one" she will not match him again until he plays out the string. The end game is a long-term relationship (what women are biologically programmed to favor).
Online dating works better for guys because they never have to stop dating and play out the string. So, while a woman might date a few guys, and decide she likes Guy X and wants to play out the string and see where it goes ... Guy X is thinking, "Well, I went out with Chick Y for a couple of weeks and I really like her... but GOSH there are a gazillion women on this site and I'll bet there's that chick out there who is just as nice as Chick Y but looks like Scarlett Johansson, and if I stop looking and play out the string with her, I'll miss out on the something better that is always a click away."
There's an old joke that while women want to know what's on TV, men want to know what else is on TV -- and it's wonderfully applicable to online dating. I mean, we all know that men, biologically, are programmed to spread it around as much as possible. That's the way it is. However, with the rise of online sites becoming the default dating method, we've reached the point where the set-up favors that biological urge the way that meeting someone at a party or getting set up by your sister-in-law doesn't. There's no reason to EVER stop looking and just. see. if. this. works. out.
Those are just my thoughts on the subject, which I'm still working through. Would be interested in what others think.
Can we get a break out by economic class? My theory is that this is more a working class issue shared roughly equally by all races in that class. It shows up in the aggregate race stats for Blacks and Hispanics because the working class is a larger component of the entire group. We know from past studies that better the job prospects the father has, the more likely the mom is to want to have him around. Good working class jobs are what we have lost the most of the last 10 years. Globalization works great for people who have jobs that let you read blogs while at work but it is hell on the people who make things that we buy at Pottery Barn / Costco / Target.
I sometimes think the pre-occupation of the over-educated class with race is just a way to let us have our high paid jobs and our cheap crap and not deal with the way our lifestyle is affecting our neighbors.
Lighthouse FTW. Many many surveys of attitudes and behaviors show that marriage is an unattractive bundle of rights and responsibilities to working class and poor couples whose income prospects are not stable.
All this study adds to that is, Yep, as more folks perceive themselves as having unstable income prospects, fewer are marrying. The birth rate to 'unmarried women' shows that worrying about your job, or lack thereof, does not cause infertility--and not a heck of a lot else.
One of my daughters, who is 28, recently told me that the men of her generation are notoriously unwilling to be committed, and my other who was a single mom at eighteen went for years with one guy after another who bailed on her (it broke her naive and far too innocent heart that the father of her daughter bailed when she got pregnant), telling me that she thought her whole group of friends women and men were far too often too selfish to stay committed.
I don't know myself, except that I think the idea that there is someone out there for everyone can turn into a bitter disillusionment for many.
I don't know that formal marriage is the answer for everyone, but committment sure seems an issue. Why that is--social conditions, male perfidy, money--might be an occasion for discussion among those of you at the baby having age however.
I've heard many times that the greatest predictor of two opposite sex people getting married is the stability of the man's job. Notice how few upper-middle class, super lefty people you see having kids out of wedlock?
This idea would also seem to account for the recent upticks: men are experiencing greater job less and overall male-dominated industries are most at risk in the globalizing economy.
It also seems to account at least for much of the gap between white and black couples.
Don't know how it would apply with Hispanic communities and API people, don't know my demographics there as well.
So, thought I would throw that out there.
"Not a lot of answers here, folks. Sorry. I'm sure there will be nuff hand-wringing and finger-pointing to come."
On a grand scale, the lower the income and education level/the higher the unmarried birth rate.
Black and Hispanic women happen to skew towards the high end due to the aforementioned income/education relationship.
Is there a conspiracy here I am missing from the National Center for Health?
Wow. I can't believe that I am the only person who did not know how to do this? (I have begged and pleaded for someone on here to please tell me how...one nice person did send me an email before, but I still could do it)
TNC, finally came thru. Cool. I guess, I didn't ask nicely enough the twenty or so times that I asked in the past.
that should be "could not"
And, woweee, I am so excited I finally did an actual block quote...It's the little things in life that get me hyped.
It takes two to Tango. One of the key reasons for this trend is that Men are opting out of the Marriage-->Divorce bandwagon. You are going to pay for Child Support either way, anyway. Might as well keep the bank-account, the house, the car, and future salary which would otherwise be hijacked as alimony.
I forgot to attach data to back up my statement. Here are data documenting the drastic decline in new-Marriage rates in the biggest Anlgosphere countries following the advent of no-fault divorce legislation:
1) UK New-Marriage Rates:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7314435.stm
2) US New-Marriage Rates:
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/2008update.pdf
Folks are missing the larger picture for the details. The entire world is moving toward cohabitating and away from marriage. Black and Latino (and black Latino) populations are simply the miner's canary here.
So the question is what do we do?
The cultural conservatives push for more marriage. We know this doesn't work.
A sensible approach would be to start with what we have and figure out what 21st century families (which are increasingly helmed by single mothers) need in order to stay sane and raise healthy children.