Christy Spivey (SIUE) cspivey@siue.edu
and
Ahsanuzzaman (Virginia Tech)

Newsweek, June 2006: Rethinking the “Marriage
Crunch”

Newsweek, June 2006: Rethinking the “Marriage
Crunch”


Twenty Years Ago:
 A single 30 year-old woman had a 20% chance of marrying, and that dropped to 5% by age 35 and
2.6% by age 40 (Bennett, Bloom, & Craig)
Now:


90% of baby boomers will marry at some time
(Steven Martin, UMd)
A single 40 year-old woman has greater than a
41% chance of marrying

Newsweek, June 2006: Rethinking the “Marriage
Crunch”

“Women weren’t remaining unmarried because marriage was less appealing, but because it was becoming more appealing to wait.” – Steven Martin,
UMd

Breakdown of 50’s cookie cutter life course, birth control, technology advancements allowed less household specialization

Men’s attitudes about marriage have changed?

 Are the more educated now more likely to get married?
 Are the more educated now more likely to marry someone “like themselves” (assortative mating)?

Do the more educated have better “marital quality” and thus stay married longer?

% of Adults who are College-Educated and Married
1960 1970 1980
Year
1990 2000 2010

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
 Marriage can confer economic, child-rearing advantages, as well as the opportunity to take advantage of economies of scale, production of household public goods, specialization, risk sharing, joint consumption
 Just another reason the less-educated might lose in a globalized economy.

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
 We use U.S. Census (1960-2000) and American
Community Survey (2006) data
 We consider all household heads and any spouse who are not currently enrolled in school
 We estimate probit equations for ever being married and multinomial logit equations for the various marital status categories

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage: Probit Results
 In 1960, everyone was less likely to have ever been married, compared to those with less than a high school degree
 High school grads and those with some college are now more likely to have ever been married, but this is not the case for college graduates. Similar results hold by gender.
 However, while college graduates are still less likely to have ever been married, the magnitude of the effect has shrunk over time

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Probit Estimation
Probability of Ever being Married
Independent
Variables
High School Grad*
Some College*
1960
Marginal
Effect
-0.0042
-0.0215
p-value
0.00
0.00
1970
Marginal
Effect
0.0014
-0.0278
p-value
0.00
0.00
College Grad*
Age
Age-squared
In Metro Area*
-0.0520
0.0022
-2.7E-05
-0.0103
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0507
0.0052
-5.1E-05
-0.0111
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0666
0.0134
-0.0001
-0.0201
White*
Black*
Northeast*
0.0341
0.0121
-0.0162
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0197
-0.0064
-0.0218
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0030
-0.0573
-0.0321
Midwest* -0.0082
0.00
-0.0097
0.00
-0.0151
West* -0.0123
0.00
-0.0141
0.00
-0.0218
(*) Marginal Effect is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
1980
Marginal
Effect p-value
-0.0006
0.31
-0.0304
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1990
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0059
0.00
-0.0127
0.00
-0.0543
0.0162
-0.0001
-0.0230
-0.0009
-0.0964
-0.0339
-0.0176
-0.0221
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2000
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0038
0.00
-0.0057
0.00
-0.0363
0.0176
-0.0001
-0.0246
-0.0043
-0.1258
-0.0403
-0.0214
-0.0227
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0088
0.00
0.0036
0.00
-0.0142
0.0185
-0.0001
-0.0268
-0.0127
-0.1594
-0.0457
-0.0222
-0.0258
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Probit Estimation
Probability of Ever being Married
Independent
Variables
High School Grad*
Some College*
College Grad*
Age
Age-squared
1980: Women
Marginal
Effect p-value
-0.0073
0.06
-0.0297
-0.0931
0.0095
-0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1980: Men
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0045
0.35
-0.0041
-0.0295
0.0138
-0.0001
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
In Metro Area*
White*
Black*
-0.0204
0.0035
-0.0859
0.00
0.73
0.00
-0.0187
-0.0193
-0.0610
0.00
0.10
0.00
-0.0279
-0.0113
-0.1940
Northeast*
Midwest*
-0.0307
-0.0168
0.00
0.00
-0.0308
-0.0139
0.00
0.01
-0.0310
-0.0158
West* -0.0144
0.00
-0.0332
0.00
-0.0182
(*) Marginal Effect is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
2006: Women
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0079
0.17
0.0045
-0.0268
0.0117
-0.0001
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2006: Men
Marginal
Effect p-value
0.0128
0.06
0.0171
-0.0045
0.0139
-0.0001
0.01
0.52
0.00
0.00
-0.0218
-0.0195
-0.0891
-0.0348
-0.0215
-0.0299
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage: Multinomial Logit Results
 Everyone is now more likely to be currently married, compared to those with less than a high school degree.
 Only college grads are still more likely to be single, compared to those with less than a high school degree. However, they are much less likely to be separated, divorced, or widowed.

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Multinomial L og it E s timation
C ateg ories : S ing le, Married, S eparated/Divorc ed, Widowed
P robability of B eing Married
Independent
Variables
1960
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1970
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1980
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1990
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
2000
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
2006
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
High S chool G rad* 0.0021
0.00
0.0135
0.00
0.0126
0.00
0.0212
0.00
0.0131
0.00
0.0224
0.00
S ome C ollege* -0.0175
0.00
-0.0187
0.00
-0.0230
0.00
-0.0014
0.13
-0.0043
0.00
0.0065
0.00
C ollege G rad* -0.0355
0.00
-0.0228
0.00
-0.0348
0.00
-0.0002
0.84
0.0134
0.00
0.0457
0.00
Age
Age-s quared
In Metro Area*
White*
B lack*
Northeas t*
-0.0031
0.0000
-0.0254
0.0357
-0.0730
-0.0163
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0007
0.0000
-0.0304
0.0169
-0.1193
-0.0229
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0064
-0.0001
-0.0462
-0.0110
-0.2027
-0.0311
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0026
0.0000
-0.0330
-0.0206
-0.2382
-0.0171
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0015
0.0000
-0.0320
-0.0474
-0.2803
-0.0274
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0022
0.0000
-0.0307
-0.0548
-0.2931
-0.0321
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Midwes t* -0.0067
0.00
-0.0065
0.00
-0.0146
0.00
-0.0090
0.00
-0.0150
0.00
-0.0126
0.00
Wes t* -0.0335
0.00
-0.0374
0.00
-0.0463
0.00
-0.0351
0.00
-0.0274
0.00
-0.0250
0.00
(*) Marginal E ffect is for dis crete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Multinomial L og it E s timation
C ateg ories : S ing le, Married, S eparated/Divorc ed, Widowed
P robability of R emaining S ingle
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006
Independent
Variables
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
High S chool G rad* 0.0045
0.00
-0.0016
0.00
0.0014
0.01
-0.0075
0.00
-0.0042
0.00
-0.0098
0.00
S ome C ollege* 0.0228
0.00
0.0293
0.00
0.0326
0.00
0.0087
0.00
0.0060
0.00
-0.0046
0.00
C ollege G rad* 0.0540
0.00
0.0527
0.00
0.0700
0.00
0.0442
0.00
0.0358
0.00
0.0120
0.00
Age
Age-s quared
In Metro Area*
White*
B lack*
Northeas t*
-0.0030
0.0000
0.0108
-0.0351
-0.0106
0.0168
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0063
0.0001
0.0116
-0.0195
0.0079
0.0222
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0143
0.0001
0.0201
-0.0028
0.0552
0.0303
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.0151
0.0001
0.0194
-0.0033
0.0810
0.0257
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0185
0.0001
0.0246
0.0019
0.1105
0.0395
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
-0.0196
0.0001
0.0267
0.0088
0.1440
0.0455
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Midwes t* 0.0083
0.00
0.0098
0.00
0.0143
0.00
0.0138
0.00
0.0212
0.00
0.0221
0.00
Wes t* 0.0127
0.00
0.0147
0.00
0.0217
0.00
0.0196
0.00
0.0216
0.00
0.0243
0.00
(*) Marginal E ffect is for dis crete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Multinomial L og it E s timation
C ateg ories : S ing le, Married, S eparated/Divorc ed, Widowed
P robability of B eing Divorc ed/S eparated
Independent
Variables
1960
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1970
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1980
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
1990
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
2000
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
2006
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
High S chool G rad* -0.0059
0.00
-0.0090
0.00
-0.0110
0.00
-0.0105
0.00
-0.0054
0.00
-0.0089
0.00
S ome C ollege* -0.0042
0.00
-0.0083
0.00
-0.0051
0.00
-0.0014
0.06
0.0049
0.00
0.0043
0.00
C ollege G rad* -0.0103
0.00
-0.0177
0.00
-0.0231
0.00
-0.0306
0.00
-0.0356
0.00
-0.0440
0.00
Age
Age-s quared
In Metro Area*
White*
B lack*
Northeas t*
0.0024
0.0000
0.0117
0.0012
0.0653
-0.0003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.54
0.0022
0.0000
0.0170
0.0022
0.0875
0.0002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.78
0.0050
-0.0001
0.0252
0.0160
0.1355
-0.0001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.0098
-0.0001
0.0138
0.0260
0.1459
-0.0089
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0144
-0.0001
0.0076
0.0453
0.1596
-0.0120
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0153
-0.0001
0.0046
0.0454
0.1401
-0.0129
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Midwes t* 0.0005
0.35
-0.0015
0.01
0.0011
0.10
-0.0039
0.00
-0.0055
0.00
-0.0083
0.00
Wes t* 0.0221
0.00
0.0263
0.00
0.0281
0.00
0.0189
0.00
0.0086
0.00
0.0032
0.00
(*) Marginal E ffect is for dis crete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

Education and the Likelihood of
Marriage
Multinomial L og it E s timation
C ateg ories : S ing le, Married, S eparated/Divorc ed, Widowed
P robability of B eing Widowed
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006
Independent
Variables
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
Marginal
E ffec t p-value
High S chool G rad* -0.0006
0.05
-0.0029
0.00
-0.0030
0.00
-0.0032
0.00
-0.0036
0.00
-0.0036
0.00
S ome C ollege*
C ollege G rad*
Age
Age-s quared
In Metro Area*
White*
B lack*
-0.0010
-0.0082
-0.0018
0.0184
0.02
0.00
0.27
0.00
-0.0024
-0.0122
0.0004
0.0239
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
-0.0045
-0.0121
-0.0023
0.0120
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-0.0058
-0.0134
-0.0021
0.0113
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.0067
-0.0136
0.0002
0.0103
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
-0.0062
-0.0137
0.0006
0.0091
0.00
0.00
0.0037
0.00
0.0035
0.00
0.0029
0.00
0.0027
0.00
0.0026
0.00
0.0021
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.0000
0.02
0.0028
0.00
0.0018
0.00
0.0009
0.00
-0.0002
0.19
-0.0002
0.16
-0.0006
0.00
0.19
0.00
Northeas t*
Midwes t*
-0.0002
-0.0021
0.63
0.00
0.0005
-0.0018
0.15
0.00
0.0009
-0.0008
0.00
0.00
0.0003
-0.0009
0.14
0.00
-0.0001
-0.0007
0.62
0.00
-0.0005
-0.0011
0.01
0.00
Wes t* -0.0012
0.00
-0.0036
0.00
-0.0035
0.00
-0.0033
0.00
-0.0027
0.00
-0.0025
0.00
(*) Marginal E ffect is for dis crete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

 Whether assortative mating is positive or negative is an empirical question and depends upon the source of the gains from marriage, preferences, and supply and demand
 Negative assortative mating might occur when gains to marriage arise through specialization, but positive might occur if gains occur through production of household public goods (Lam, 1998). As the role of specialization has declined, might expect positive assortative mating over time.


Increased supply of educated women: harder to find an equally educated husband, or will financial freedom expand options (and result in a shifting balance of power within the household)?
 Have preferences/incentives for men to choose an educated spouse increased?
 Quite a few studies, but not all agree that educational homogamy has increased since the 1960s
 Others (Mare, 1991) have argued that as the time between leaving school and marriage has increased, educational homogamy would decrease.

 Hou and Myles, 2007, Statistics Canada working paper



The tendency of like to marry like has unambiguously risen since 1970s in both US and
Canada
The result of declining intermarriage at both ends of the educational spectrum
In the US, the rise in homogamy was partially offset by an increased tendency over time for women to marry “down” the educational hierarchy

 We calculate absolute rates of homogamy for existing marriages for all adults
 This stock measure reflects the combined effects of assortative mating into first marriage, divorce, entry into additional marriages, and any tendency for spouses to grow alike in educational attainment after marriage

 Since 1970, the percentage of households resembling each other in terms of educational status has increased
 1960: 49.09





1970: 47.08
1980: 48
1990: 48.54
2000: 50.59
2006: 52.05
 Not an immediately obvious trend since there is more variation in educational attainment now

 This overall trend obscures more subtle trends by educational category
 The % of households in which both spouses have less than a high school degree decreases from 1960 to 2006.
 The % of households in which both spouses have a high school degree increases and then decreases again.
 The % of households in which both spouses have more than a high school degree increases over time.

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
23.1
4.21
2.33
0.64
0.24
30.52
9 to 11
Wife's E duc ation
12 13 to 15
8 5.53
1.09
7.33
4.72
1.29
0.58
21.92
6.64
13.14
4.16
3.18
32.65
1.1
2.23
2.33
2.79
9.54
>=16
0.29
0.32
0.74
0.82
3.19
5.36
T otal
38.01
19.6
23.16
9.24
9.98
99.99
49.09
396,000

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
2.4
0.56
0.87
0.32
0.14
4.29
9 to 11
0.85
1.66
Wife's E duc ation
12
1.4
2.57
13 to 15
0.51
1.06
2.01
0.72
0.2
5.44
15.86
7.53
3.89
31.25
7.92
12
7.82
29.31
>=16
0.16
0.25
3.19
5.99
20.13
29.72
T otal
5.32
6.1
29.85
26.56
32.18
100.01
52.05
620,411

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
13.43
3.25
2.13
0.51
0.25
19.57
9 to 11
6.33
7.16
5.41
1.29
0.56
20.75
Wife's E duc ation
12
4.88
6.96
18.35
5.76
4.2
40.15
13 to 15
0.85
1.04
2.83
2.95
3.82
11.49
>=16
0.31
0.36
1.03
1.15
5.19
8.04
T otal
25.8
18.77
29.75
11.66
14.02
100
47.08
437,643

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
7.88
2.06
1.68
0.46
0.23
12.31
9 to 11
4.11
5.24
4.82
1.3
0.48
15.95
Wife's E duc ation
12
3.74
5.87
21.21
7.35
4.73
42.9
13 to 15
0.69
1.07
4.06
5.04
5.46
16.32
>=16
0.27
0.32
1.38
1.92
8.63
12.52
T otal
16.69
14.56
33.15
16.07
19.53
100
48
490,262

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
4
1.03
1.17
0.41
0.13
6.74
9 to 11
2.03
3.11
3.42
Wife's E duc ation
12
2.56
4.31
18.41
13 to 15
0.66
1.25
6.56
1.19
0.29
10.04
9.06
4.05
38.39
10.76
7.43
26.66
>=16
0.17
0.27
1.85
3.64
12.26
18.19
T otal
9.42
9.97
31.41
25.06
24.16
100.02
48.54
511,422

Hus band's E duc ation
<9
9 to 11
12
13 to 15
>=16
T otal
S um of Diagonals
S ample S iz e (HH)
<9
2.81
0.73
1.01
0.37
0.14
5.06
9 to 11
Wife's E duc ation
12 13 to 15
1.18
2.04
2.49
0.92
0.25
1.78
3.17
16.59
8.14
3.76
0.58
1.26
7.6
12.5
7.89
6.88
33.44
29.83
>=16
0.17
0.27
2.5
5.2
16.65
24.79
T otal
6.52
7.47
30.19
27.13
28.69
100
50.59
550,958

Education and Length of Marriage
 If more educated have better quality match and stay married longer, implications go beyond current inequality
 If loving, two-parent households are more common among the more educated, this confers additional benefits to their children, enhancing future inequality.


Education and Length of Marriage
We use the NLSY79 – panel data set that has some marital quality measures for women starting in 1992
 Frequency of Arguments about chores and responsibilities, etc.

… Often (1), Sometimes (2), Hardly ever (3), or Never (4)?
 Frequency tell each other about day, etc.

…Almost Every Day (1), Once or Twice a Week (2), Once or Twice a Month (3), Less Than Once a Month (4)
 DEGREE OF HAPPINESS WITH MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP:
Would you say that your (relationship/marriage) is...

… Very happy (1), Fairly happy (2), Not too happy (3)

Education and Length of Marriage
State of Marriage by Education Level
Asked of Women Only
College Graduates
Not College Graduates
Happy
0.729
0.678
Fairly Happy Not Happy
0.246
0.278
0.025
0.044

Education and Length of Marriage
Other Marital Quality Indicators by Education Level
Asked of Women Only
College Graduates
Not College
Graduates
Argue about Chores Often 0.089
0.144
Argue about Children Often
Argue about Drinking Often
Argue about Money often
Argue about Religion Often
Argue about Leisure Time Often
Argue about Other Women Often
Argue about Showing Affection Often
Argue about His Relatives Often
Argue about Her Relatives Often
Laugh Together Almost Every Day
Tell Each Other About Day Almost Every Day
Calmly Discuss Something Almost Every Day
0.043
0.009
0.057
0.010
0.040
0.008
0.056
0.021
0.020
0.820
0.891
0.835
0.115
0.036
0.131
0.021
0.063
0.020
0.099
0.040
0.039
0.793
0.855
0.735

Education and Length of Marriage
Fixed Effects Estimation
Dependent Variable: Happy with State of Marriage p-value
0.05
College Graduate
White
Black
Age
Duration of Marriage
Previous Marriage
No Children
Children Less than 6
Real Family Income
Constant
Coefficient t-ratio
0.0723
1.97
(dropped)
(dropped)
-0.0119
-0.0003
0.2472
0.0566
11.41
-0.68
8.08
3.23
-0.0124
3.40E-08
1.0653
-1.27
0.88
28.03
0.00
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.38
0.00

Education and Length of Marriage
College Graduate
Happy
Fairly Happy
White
Black
Age Marriage
Age Marriage
2
No Children
Children Less than 6
Children 7 to 14
Urban
Parents until 18
Fraction Wks Worked
Spouse Fraction Wks Wkd
Coefficient
-0.3290
-2.6343
-1.4418
0.0741
-0.2793
-0.0837
0.0011
0.4493
-0.4778
-0.2782
0.0764
-0.2903
0.1784
-0.5459
Survival Analysis for Time to First Divorce
Cox Proportional Hazards Estimates
Women
Hazard
Ratio
0.72
0.07
0.24
1.08
0.76
0.92
1.00
1.57
0.62
0.76
1.08
0.75
1.20
0.58
p-value
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.14
0.36
0.51
0.05
0.04
0.17
0.58
0.02
0.26
0.05
Coefficient
-0.4243
-0.0155
-0.1293
-0.0567
0.0008
0.3378
-0.4949
-0.2453
0.1368
-0.3973
0.2132
-0.8988
Women
Hazard
Ratio
0.65
0.98
0.88
0.94
1.00
1.40
0.61
0.78
1.15
0.67
1.24
0.41
p-value
0.01
0.92
0.49
0.53
0.62
0.13
0.03
0.23
0.33
0.00
0.16
0.00
Coefficient
-0.5253
All
Hazard
Ratio
0.59
p-value
0.00
0.1786
0.1997
-0.1792
0.0026
0.5070
-0.4231
-0.2959
0.1437
-0.2566
0.0575
-0.2681
1.20
1.22
0.84
1.00
1.66
0.66
0.74
1.15
0.77
1.06
0.76
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.35
0.00


We’d like to know how these three trends affect inequality over time.
 We construct a data set using the Census, along with the Current Population Survey to fill in the missing years from 1960-2006.

1960 1970 1980
Year
1990 2000 2010

Time Series Regression
Dependent Variable: Gini Coefficient
Independent Variables
Percentage Less than Nine Years Education
Percentage Married and Some High School
Percentage Married and High School Graduate
Percentage Married and Some College
Percentage Married and College Educated
Percentage Like Self
Mean Years Education
Mean Age
Time Trend
Coefficient
Coefficient t-ratio p-value
-0.0022
-1.13
0.27
0.0043
1.63
0.11
-0.0045
0.0006
0.0130
0.0021
0.0109
0.0046
-0.0044
0.0028
-2.77
0.36
2.47
1.18
1.19
1.55
-2.22
0.01
0.01
0.72
0.02
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.03
0.99

 Problems:



Reverse causation, inequality affects who and when we marry?
Need to control for changes in the distribution of education over time
Need a separate measure for the likelihood of ever being married, and the likelihood of divorce

 The most educated are not more likely to have ever been married
 However, they may be more likely to be married, which reflects other trends such as longer marriages
 Absolute assortative mating with respect to education is also on the rise and is positively associated with inequality