I'm a little bemused to find that families are the government's job. Where'd that come from?
How about just backing off and admitting that families are not the government's business; that families are the business of citizens and that the ONLY constructive thing a government could do would be to get out of the way.
Marriage & kids are strong social ties. In addition to the systemic supports for marriage and kids, the economies of scale really add up over a decade or two. Even something as simple as cars and insurance saved us thousands over the past decade or so. Changing primary owner to my partner and myself as a secondary driver (dispite having a clean record) meant lower fees on a shared asset. Heck even car rentals are $15/day for an additional driver unless there is proof the additional driver is your spouse.
At a more holistic level strong social connections add resilience. That resilience can increase the probability that when disruptions are introduced such as a job loss, a sickness, an eviction, etc the shared resources can help buffer what might send any individual with weak social supports into a dangerous downward spiral... affecting far more than just their income
Are the income numbers you present here comparing people of similar ages? I suspect that a big driver of these average income differences is that more single people are younger and earlier in their careers, while people who are coupled with/without children tend to be older.
That sounds reasonable. Focusing on one age bracket might reduce the scope of the effect. Either way, though, this Statistics Canada dataset doesn't allow us to control for age.
You would be able to make a table with these breakdowns with the public use micro data file from the Canadian Income Survey. Or the public use micro data file from the most recent census. Both datasets are going to be a bit dated and you need Stata or another stats program to work with the files. Sometimes if you phone the general line at StatCan and ask nicely they sometimes have super secret tables that are not online that give more useful breakdowns. That could be an avenue to try as well.
I’m wary of the point you make that controlling for age would reduce but not eliminate the effect since I’m not seeing you draw on supplementary research that substantiates that claim. In fact, I think what is more likely, particularly for couples that have children, is that women’s earnings decrease.
You're right that I have absolutely no proof that controlling for age wouldn't completely eliminate the "couples/kids" effect. But my sense is that the sheer size of the effect the data currently shows us would be difficult to overcome through segmentation.
Either way, you're making excellent points and, if I weren't a one-man operation with sparse resources, I might consider diving down that important rabbit hole.
Well, if you are super curious about the average incomes controlling for age, let me know! It would be relatively quick for me to download those files and run some tables.
That would be helpful. I guess we'd be looking for the mean and median ages of the "singles", "single parent", couple", and "parent-couples" cohorts. We could then compare those to the mean household income for each of those age blocks.
I can imagine that being in a stable, loving relationship means you are more able to take risks that lead to short term financial hits for long term rewards. This would explain couples in a relationship having higher income.
However, I’m finding it hard to see how having children is better for your finances. Kids are *expensive*. Anecdotally, non-parents of my age seem to have significantly more disposable income.
Perhaps you’re only talking about the income (rather than the expenses) of families with children.
I'm definitely only referring to income (both earned and through government transfers). And as a parent (and grandparent) myself, I am VERY familiar with the costs of raising kids!
I'm certainly not going to claim I understand *why* the data so clearly shows that parents have greater income. But one possible theory is that having the extra responsibility might be an important motivator to push all new income options. As they say, there's nothing that focuses your mind like having your execution set for next week.
I don’t know that. I do know it might be the strongest prediction of being on social assistance in your senior years. I would guess this would be even more true for those homemakers and wives who chose not to remarry or partner up.
In my city (Victoria, BC) housing costs have reached insane levels. A real estate agent told me the only young people buying had lots of help from parents.
Many can’t even afford rent. My friend’s 2 adult married kids are living with her because rents are too high.
Not exactly an environment that encourages children. I’ve never seen it so bad in my life and I’m 73.
I'm a little bemused to find that families are the government's job. Where'd that come from?
How about just backing off and admitting that families are not the government's business; that families are the business of citizens and that the ONLY constructive thing a government could do would be to get out of the way.
Marriage & kids are strong social ties. In addition to the systemic supports for marriage and kids, the economies of scale really add up over a decade or two. Even something as simple as cars and insurance saved us thousands over the past decade or so. Changing primary owner to my partner and myself as a secondary driver (dispite having a clean record) meant lower fees on a shared asset. Heck even car rentals are $15/day for an additional driver unless there is proof the additional driver is your spouse.
At a more holistic level strong social connections add resilience. That resilience can increase the probability that when disruptions are introduced such as a job loss, a sickness, an eviction, etc the shared resources can help buffer what might send any individual with weak social supports into a dangerous downward spiral... affecting far more than just their income
Are the income numbers you present here comparing people of similar ages? I suspect that a big driver of these average income differences is that more single people are younger and earlier in their careers, while people who are coupled with/without children tend to be older.
That sounds reasonable. Focusing on one age bracket might reduce the scope of the effect. Either way, though, this Statistics Canada dataset doesn't allow us to control for age.
You would be able to make a table with these breakdowns with the public use micro data file from the Canadian Income Survey. Or the public use micro data file from the most recent census. Both datasets are going to be a bit dated and you need Stata or another stats program to work with the files. Sometimes if you phone the general line at StatCan and ask nicely they sometimes have super secret tables that are not online that give more useful breakdowns. That could be an avenue to try as well.
I’m wary of the point you make that controlling for age would reduce but not eliminate the effect since I’m not seeing you draw on supplementary research that substantiates that claim. In fact, I think what is more likely, particularly for couples that have children, is that women’s earnings decrease.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-001-x/2009103/article/10823-eng.htm#
https://thehub.ca/2024/05/03/major-loss-of-income-for-mothers-is-driving-canadas-record-low-fertility/
I’m not sure about the earnings of men after children.
You're right that I have absolutely no proof that controlling for age wouldn't completely eliminate the "couples/kids" effect. But my sense is that the sheer size of the effect the data currently shows us would be difficult to overcome through segmentation.
Either way, you're making excellent points and, if I weren't a one-man operation with sparse resources, I might consider diving down that important rabbit hole.
Well, if you are super curious about the average incomes controlling for age, let me know! It would be relatively quick for me to download those files and run some tables.
That would be helpful. I guess we'd be looking for the mean and median ages of the "singles", "single parent", couple", and "parent-couples" cohorts. We could then compare those to the mean household income for each of those age blocks.
I can imagine that being in a stable, loving relationship means you are more able to take risks that lead to short term financial hits for long term rewards. This would explain couples in a relationship having higher income.
However, I’m finding it hard to see how having children is better for your finances. Kids are *expensive*. Anecdotally, non-parents of my age seem to have significantly more disposable income.
Perhaps you’re only talking about the income (rather than the expenses) of families with children.
I'm definitely only referring to income (both earned and through government transfers). And as a parent (and grandparent) myself, I am VERY familiar with the costs of raising kids!
I'm certainly not going to claim I understand *why* the data so clearly shows that parents have greater income. But one possible theory is that having the extra responsibility might be an important motivator to push all new income options. As they say, there's nothing that focuses your mind like having your execution set for next week.
I don’t know that. I do know it might be the strongest prediction of being on social assistance in your senior years. I would guess this would be even more true for those homemakers and wives who chose not to remarry or partner up.
In my city (Victoria, BC) housing costs have reached insane levels. A real estate agent told me the only young people buying had lots of help from parents.
Many can’t even afford rent. My friend’s 2 adult married kids are living with her because rents are too high.
Not exactly an environment that encourages children. I’ve never seen it so bad in my life and I’m 73.