« Bearing the burden: Helen Lewis on how pandemics affect women | Main | Students as consumers: E. Michele Ramsey on the language of capitalism in higher education »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Governments and big industry benefit from marriage particularly within and among the poor when men are exploited for their cheap labor and "mothers/women" are kept in place supporting the "fathers/partners" and in this way both groups remain exploited and where females are in the worst spot, the receiving end of the crap.

Alexis Nesbitt

1. The rates at which high-income women and men marry low-income partners changed from 1970 to today due to the fact that it has shot up over the decades and has become even more common due to the good benefits from it. Assortative mating contributes to income inequality, for both the current and the next generations because when a person marries someone of the same status it benefits them and their family for the long run. The children of “power couples” benefit long-term from their parents’ wealth because they have an advantage. They get to go to better schools and learn more things than other kids would who don't have the benefit of much money would.

2. Three good reasons why assortative mating is happening is it allows more freedom for people to choose who they marry,there are more women participating in the labor force and making more money, and also it allows the couple to make more money and provide better for their family. I don't agree with the more freedom to choose who they want to marry because even with little money a person still can choose freely who they marry. Money doesn't mean you get to marry who you want because some people don't look at that aspect when looking for someone to like, it's other qualities.

3.The term “social separatism of the rich” means when the rich no longer care for things that no longer benefit them and start to not support it. If people in society have less in common they follow their own interest and passion and what might happen to public institutions is people no longer support it and pay towards it to keep it going. I think this is true because if someone doesn't benefit from the thing their paying for it makes the person not want to pay for it. It matters because then for the people who benefit from it can't anymore because of the others. Broader implications other than possible changes to public institutions that can happen if social classes become more rigidly stratified is the lesser people would have even less stuff now because the rich doesn't need so they don't support certain intuitions that the poor count on.

4. A place where Garcia, Smith, or Milanovic uses metacommentary is when it says, "But this trend also has the effect of increasing income inequality. And the specific way it increases income inequality also has complicated effects on society." The purpose of it is to direct the readers attention to the text's purpose and positioning. It organizes the argument because it keeps it on track and points out the topic of the next topic. The moderators and the interviewee play different roles in constructing this argument because one says the topic short or introduces it and the other provides the information to what the other person touched on.

John SIngletary

1.High income women and men are marrying much more often in today’s society compared to the past era’s. The rates have changed because of positives in society, more women going to universities and postponing marriage for later as well as society being more accepting of who people marry. Assortative mating contributes to income inequality by way of resource distribution. When people of the same higher status marry they are able to allocate more resources to their kids. Those kids therefore have a higher chance at getting a similar if not better position than their parents having been allocated resources to go to better schools, receive better care, and the wealth and status of their parents. The children of power couples receive benefits from both parents in this situation with both pouring in wealth into them allowing them to have a better chance at their success.

2.The reasons are freedom for people to choose who they marry,more women participating in the labor force to make more money which postpones marriage, and parents being able to provide more for their families. I don’t agree with the freedom for people to choose who they marry because money isn’t the only determining factor when marrying. Although income and sustainability is a substantial aspect of marriage there are also others that people may look towards that may determine if they marry or not.

3. Social seperatist means people typically at the pinnacle of society, the rich, start to no longer support things that they don’t see benefits them anymore. It is the interest of the individual. Milanovic believes that public institutions may stop receiving support due to people having less in common. I do think this is possibly because if it no longer provides any benefit for certain people then i don’t see them wanting to support it, and instead envision them trying to change it. This matters because it means public institutes may fail, and it matters for middle class and lower class families and people. A split or divide in many other things could be possible do to a difference in social class in a more absurd case possible entire states becoming set for one social class or group.

4.” But this trend also has the effect of increasing income inequality. And the specific way it increases income inequality also has complicated effects on society.And today on the show, Branko is going to explain what they are”. This organizes the beginning of the argument letting the listener/reader know immediately before the meat of the argument what they are about to talk about. They switch roles throughout the talk. One introducing the actual subject of the little section and then the other explaining a little more about the subject.

Janine Dial

Assortative mating is when two people who are similar in education or income marry each other. Assortative mating can be beneficial because there is more freedom for people to choose who they marry and there are more women in the labor force making money. There are also negatives like increased income inequality, societal implications, and social separatism.

1. Young American males are more likely to marry women who are from the top labor income bracket now than they are to marry women from the bottom income bracket. If a rich man were to marry a poor woman or a rich woman were to marry a poor man, their incomes would be the same. If a rich man were to marry a rich woman or a rich woman were to marry a rich man, then the gap between the couple would be “exacerbated by the marriage.” Assortative mating has led to making huge investments in children, which furthers the inequality. The children of “power couples” benefit because they are able to get education in good schools.

2. The good reasons that assortative mating is happening is because there is an increase in women who aim for university education, the ability to postpone marriage for more years than the past, and the ability to find more in common with people who are similar.

3. “Social separatism of the rich” means that the more the rich become dissimilar from the rest, the less they take interest in their social programs. For example, the rich can afford to pay for their children to attend private schools and can afford private medical practices, so they don’t believe they should pay for public education and public health care. Public institutions may disappear without funding, so it is important that people in society have things in common so these institutions can keep running. If social classes become more rigidly stratified, people will only mingle with their own social classes, which should be avoided. Everyone should be able to learn how to get along with others and there’s something everyone has in common, despite what social class people are in.

4. Metacommentary is used when Vanek Smith says, “But this trend also has the effect of increasing income inequality. And the specific way it increases income inequality also has complicated effects on society.” This introduces the argument and notifies the audience of the purpose.

renee alderman

1. In the 1970s, the ratio of people who married within their income rate vs a lower income rate was the same (1:1), and that has more than doubled overall since than, with far more people (both men and women) now choosing to marry someone within a higher income bracket rather than lower (5:1). Having wealthier parents puts children at an advantage in the future, as they are able to get money for better schools and learning equipment, thus aiding them in finding a career later on in life.

2. The good reasons for why assortative mating is happening are: women are now going to college and henceforth postponing marriage, and then when they graduate, their higher education and likely overall pay in their career puts them in a mindset to aim for a man with higher income, more similar to them. And, people often marry because they have the same interests and whatnot, so if their interests require a higher income to fulfill (like traveling) they are likely going to marry someone who also fits the income bracket to afford said interest.

3. The "social separatism of the rich" means that the wealthy lose interest or care for the things that everyone else care about. Milanovic uses schools as an example. If a wealthy couple living in a gated community only sends their child to private schools, why should they care to pay for public schools? They lose interest in the things that the lesser rich people care about.

4. An example in which the speakers use such language can be seen in the sentence " It just ends up happening that these trends have all of these other implications that we need to consider, but it's not the product of some kind of evil design." They use stronger language (evil design) when referring to how their discussion can be viewed, and then explaining that it isn't really that way.

singhar ali


Annabel Maag

How would you characterize any discussion? How well do people listen to each other? ow do these online discussions compare with the face to face discussions you have in class? What advantages does each offer?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan