Power couples: Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith on marriage and income inequality

Another way the rich keep getting richer? Marriage. This NPR podcast from February 24, 2020 explains the phenomenon of “assortative mating,” which occurs when people of similar education levels and socioeconomic status marry each other. Hosts Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith interview economist Branko Milanovic, who argues that this trend furthers income inequality in the U.S.

Listen to the podcast first, and then respond to the questions. The questions include time stamps to help you navigate to particular parts of the podcast. You can also refer to the transcript that appears below the podcast on the website.

Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith, "For Rich or Richer," The Indicator, 24 February 2020

 

1. Milanovic describes his research on assortative mating, in which he analyzes the rates at which high-income women and men marry low-income partners (2:38). Summarize his major research finding in one sentence: How have these rates changed from 1970 to today? Milanovic argues that assortative mating contributes to income inequality, for both the current and the next generations (3:45). How so? How do the children of “power couples” benefit long-term from their parents’ wealth (4:33)?
   
2. Milanovic argues that there are good reasons why assortative mating is happening (1:09; 5:26). What are three of these reasons? Use one to compose a two-sentence naysayer response to Milanovic’s central claim about the connection between assortative mating and income inequality. Use a “making concessions” template from Chapter 6 to acknowledge Milanovic’s argument while also stating your position.
3. Garcia, Smith, and Milanovic discuss the larger “So what?” and “Who cares?” implications of assortative mating (5:43). One concept they discuss is the “social separatism of the rich” (6:56). What does this term mean? According to Milanovic, what might happen to public institutions (i.e. education, health care) if people in society have less in common? What do you think? Why does this matter, and for whom? What broader implications other than possible changes to public institutions can you imagine happening if social classes become more rigidly stratified?
4. The back-and-forth conversation among Garcia, Smith, and Milanovic sounds like a rigorous class discussion. As Chapter 12 explains, oral discussions often feature more explicit metacommentary to help listeners follow arguments. Go back to the podcast and find a place where Garcia, Smith, or Milanovic uses metacommentary. Quote their metacommentary move, and describe the purpose of the metacommentary: how does it clarify or organize the argument? Finally, reflect back on the whole podcast. Do the moderators and the interviewee seem to be playing different roles in constructing this argument? How would you characterize their roles?

Comments

[Dakota]

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]

nice

[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?

[Alexis Cranmer]

1. This has changed from the 1970s because it had increased more popular over time and became more common from the benefits it has given.
2. Three reasons why assortative mating is happening is because it allows more freedom for people to choose who they marry, there are more woman participating int the labor force and making more money, and it allows the couple to make more money and provide better for their family.
3. The term "Social separation of the rich" means the rich start to loose interest or no longer show support that they don't see benefits from. I agree because if people are paying for something that has no benefits they are going to want to stop paying and society will also.

[Kaylin Marcum]

How can getting married make you richer? I think that it makes you desperate by getting married for money.

[Jenny]

1.Since 1970 research has shown that men from high class are more likely to marry a woman from their same class as long as they earn a high income. These couples get married to assure that their kids can go to private schools and have a better education.
2.The good reasons about assortative mating is that there are more women who are postponing marriage in order for them to continue going to college and receiving a better education, another reason is that people are now choosing others to be their partner because they have many similarities. Since people who earn a high income are marrying each other then this helps them provide more for their families and they don’t struggle.
3.The "social separatism of the rich '' means that since wealthy people have all that they need then they will start to lose interest in all the things that don’t affect them like health insurance or they might care about public schools because they can send their kids to private school.

I believe that maybe this couple actually love each other but, they also think about their future and marrying someone from their same social class can benefit these families a lot. Everyone chooses who they want to be with and sometimes it is for the best.

[Jayla Hasan]

Assortative mating has become trendsetting. It describes the union between two people from similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds for the purpose of expanding economic wealth. Milanovic's research conducted in 1970 indicated a growth increase of three times today of men between the ages of 20 to 35 who married top income earners. Some of the benefits of assortative mating are financial freedom, that their children attend elite institutions and receive top-notch health care. Some of the disadvantages associated with assortative mating are the lack of public school funding, indigent care contributions, and the overall socialization with other classes.

[Arjun Huerta]

The term assortative mating makes me think about a common term used in my country in which is a Dutch word. This word is “soort zoekt soort”, it translates literally into like attracts like. We used it as both in a good and a less good way. For example, someone with a good career might want the same or someone with only high school will find someone with just high school as well.
I think that besides marrying someone with similar education and income as each other, it helps prevent other types of problems. For instance, when someone marry another with less income/education with them, it might rise money issues within their marriage. When only one of the couples spend the majority of money, let’s say there is children involved. When one couple have to pay majority of the vacation trip. With time these can lead to serious problem for the couple.
I am not saying it is not possible because I think everyone must have known a couple who was the complete opposite but still managed to help each other grow and that they do not even notice the difference anymore. However, it is not that easy, it requires both person interest to achieve this and are willing to. Back in the day this was more common when the father goes to work and the mother is a stay-at-home mom, so the father brings all the income. Nowadays, both parent work in order to provide even better for the family well-being.
At the end of the day everyone chooses what is best for them, fit their own interest, and they are free to do so. To conclude, in my country we have another term in my native language Papiamentu, which is “kada wea ku su tapadera” which means every pot have their lid. No matter what, the person will find its soulmate.

[Sophia Cahill]

1.Milanovic describes his research on assortative mating, in which he analyzes the rates at which high-income women and men marry low-income partners (2:38). Summarize his major research finding in one sentence: How have these rates changed from 1970 to today? Milanovic argues that assortative mating contributes to income inequality, for both the current and the next generations (3:45). How so? How do the children of “power couples” benefit long-term from their parents’ wealth (4:33)?
He found in his research that over the years men and women of a high income rate chose to marry someone that was of that same income rate as themselves. This majorly contributes to the income inequality rate because the power couples with the higher incomes become richer once married and the low income couples can’t increase their income. These children from the power couples have an advantage in life because they receive a good education and not many worries in life economically.
2.Milanovic argues that there are good reasons why assortative mating is happening (1:09; 5:26). What are three of these reasons? Use one to compose a two-sentence naysayer response to Milanovic’s central claim about the connection between assortative mating and income inequality. Use a “making concessions” template from Chapter 6 to acknowledge Milanovic’s argument while also stating your position.
Some of the positives of assortative mating is that women normally wait longer for marriage to receive a high education for themselves, people take time to find people they truly bond with before making the decision to marry, and there are more similarities between these types of couples. While these positives are helping some, these mating techniques contribute greatly to the income inequality rate because of the similar income rate couples.
3.Garcia, Smith, and Milanovic discuss the larger “So what?” and “Who cares?” implications of assortative mating (5:43). One concept they discuss is the “social separatism of the rich” (6:56). What does this term mean? According to Milanovic, what might happen to public institutions (i.e. education, health care) if people in society have less in common? What do you think? Why does this matter, and for whom? What broader implications other than possible changes to public institutions can you imagine happening if social classes become more rigidly stratified?
This kind of assortative mating can cause issues including social separatism of the rich because the more higher income power couples, the more these couples will show no interest in couples that are or lower incomes. This in turn will cause the rich to not care about the lower income communities entirely which could change how the rich and the government funds public education, health care, the community, and more. This will affect everyone that isn’t of a high income family and that is majority of people. This could turn into a caste system almost will social ranks increase the separatism between classes.
4.The back-and-forth conversation among Garcia, Smith, and Milanovic sounds like a rigorous class discussion. As Chapter 12 explains, oral discussions often feature more explicit metacommentary to help listeners follow arguments. Go back to the podcast and find a place where Garcia, Smith, or Milanovic uses metacommentary. Quote their metacommentary move, and describe the purpose of the metacommentary: how does it clarify or organize the argument? Finally, reflect back on the whole podcast. Do the moderators and the interviewee seem to be playing different roles in constructing this argument? How would you characterize their roles?
When Milanovic states that these trends are not planned out and done in a malicious way but it just happens. These higher educated people just want to marry someone with the same interests as them and this trend happens to go along with it. I think both the moderators and interviewee are seeing the same point of view and expressing the same argument about how the assortative mating affects the income inequality rate and how it is an issue in our society today.

[Aaliyah]

1.
Milanovic's research basically took two genders near the same age to see who is far more likely to be married quicker based on someone's income class. In today's era males are marrying women with higher incomes. Back in the 1970's males were marrying women with lower incomes. The reason why it's considered inequality. Because it's between a rich woman and a rich man. Also, between a poor woman and man. Which is known to be exacerbated by marriage. Parents can spend more time with their children. The parents put them in excellent schools, they learn new things, and when they reach a current age, they receive a pay-off advantage.

2.
Assortative mating is happening for three reasons: people have the freedom to choose who they want to marry. Second, women participate in the labor force by making more money. Third, a woman is furthering their education.

3.
Social Separatism of the rich is to fund social programs or infrastructure for the upper class where the rich become more dissimilar. People will start to no longer pay for public education. Then eventually, they will start following their own passions. However, I think it will affect the people of the lower class financially. If the social classes become rigidly, people would start to only associate with their own category.

4.
Metacommentary was used when Vanek Smith said, " And the specific way it increases income inequality also has complicated effects on society." I think it can be metacommentary because they're describing a topic before actually giving out essential information.

[Leah Peah]

1. American males in the 1970's married women of any income level, as well as women. Modern-day men are 5 times more likely to marry someone with a higher income. Assortative mating causes people not to explore outside their familiarity which causes a divide in society. Children raised by two parents with a higher income are offered many opportunities that would lead them in the direction of also having a high income.

2. Assortative mating is happening according to MILANOVIĆ because more women are seeking higher education, also because the age at which people marry is older than previous generations, and lastly because people want to surround their selves around people who share the same interests and lifestyles as them. I believe that the later people to decide to marry could cause for fewer families to be created. Meaning the later you decide to marry the later you have children, which would break down the household.

3. The term "social separatism of the rich" means the rich members of society would create their own institutions while neglecting the public institutions because there not beneficial to them. I think this could cause public institutions to have major failures within them, I believe the lower-income people would be treated poorly in these public institutions without higher-income people being involved. It matters because it supports the idea that an individual is defined by their income, which causes higher-income people to feel superior. In return affects all levels of income considering it essentially removes all empathy that higher-income people have which causes lower-income people to be resentful. This could have a major effect on how these two groups of people interact, for example in the city environment you could expose these people to each other lifestyles which in my opinion which could result in crimes being committed.

4. Metacommentary Quote-

"MILANOVIĆ: Yeah. I think it might have some societal implications. If you really were to have a fully 100% assortative mating, that would mean, really, that, essentially, class - implicit class borders would be very strongly drawn on a social level because if you really want to mate only with people who have your interests, who are actually - have really your income level, who can travel, maybe, to Europe on vacation, you're not going then to mingle with people who don't have some similar interests.

GARCIA: Yeah. It also could have some economic implications as well because if you have an increasing sameness of the people at the top and then they're distinct in many ways from, let's say, the middle class or people who make lower incomes"

The purpose of this use of metacommentary in this context was to further explain social and economical differences that could occur if 100% assortative mating was implemented in society. Towards the end of the podcast, Garcia seems to give the perspective of a higher income individual.

[Marissah]

What is Assortative Marriage?
Marriage with in two people. Who share the same back ground as far as education and financial stability. Milanovic mentions, The percentage of woman who tend to put off college after marriage increases.
What specific trend has been in the last few decades?
Milanovic says about 1-1 ration for men who marry very low income woman for the 1970.  In todays time the numbers have  increased. Its also a ratio of 1-1 with i8ncreasing over the years to 5-1 for woman.
Both sides of the pairing are making a lot of money. Then get married. Why does this matter?
If male or female is rich or poor and marries their mate of the opposite income bracket their wages will equal the same versus rich marrying rich and poor marrying poor.

[Phil Klein]

I found it interesting how times change. I wonder how many of the people were from families that moved up from lower income to higher incomes while growing up. Also How many of those people were trust fund babies that don't know what it is like living poor. More education usually means more income also. My conception of poor and your's may not be the same.

[Zouhayra Soumaila]

Assortative mating is marriage between individuals with similar education and similar financial situation.
Assortative mating contributes to income inequality because, if,you have a couple,and in this couple a rich man marries a poor women or a rich woman marries a poor man both couple will have the same income.Otherwise, if a poor man marries a poor woman and rich man marries a rich women, there will be a big financial difference between these two couples.
The disinterestedness of the rich for everything that is middle or lower class creates what is called today social separatism of the rich.The rich who live their passions only with expensive stuff and not within everyone's reach, see themselves disinterested in public infrastructures,because they do not see the point of investing.

[James H.]

I think it's important to first point out that 'income inequality' is not some inherently bad situation caused by inherently bad behaviors. It simply means there are two different numbers, or dollar amounts. The reasons, and the level of inequality, can be virtually infinite. This mating practice is pointed out to be a potential furthering cause for it to perpetuate or grow. There is of course nothing wrong with people associating with others of similar interests or income levels. The concern is that this practice can maintain some class borders already in existence. It works both ways. If two so-called poor people marry, it will add to the separation on the other side of the line. Most everyone acts in their own interests and wants the best for themselves and their children. Obviously higher income families are better equipped to secure better education for their children, which in turn increases the child's potential earning ability in adulthood. The speakers are careful not to put any group at fault, but merely to point out that this can contribute the ongoing class separation now and in the future. It can also have further reaching effects, in that couples who are not dependent on public or government-provided services may have no impetus for supporting or contributing to them.

[peanut butter]

I think its very interesting that things are changing in life , yes it's different now because people today will only marry how much money they have , they just want someone who they can spend a lot of money to what they are use to . It makes a big difference in today world only because the family who was brought up rich will only feel like they are suppose to marry the same type of person , who they can really live or just want to be comfortable with they are use to . There is nothing wrong with that at all because it also works with the families or people that are poor also .

peanut butter

[Cynthia L White]

I agree with peanut butter, Nowadays everyone is with someone just for their money. It is not about love anymore and that's the sad part. I believe if there are two people married and they are working their income show be together. It should not matter if they were born rich or poor at least they are working together. They are doing what is important for their family.

[Jordyn Hawkins]

2. Assorted mating is happening a lot more now because women are beginning to seek higher education. Many are wanting to surround themselves with peers with similar interests and lifestyles. The age at which people are starting to marry is a lot older than other, previous generations. I think marrying later causes a reduction in human production because many are waiting until they are out of school to get married. This causes women to have or even think about having a baby a lot later in life, causing the family of the household to not be established.

3. The term "social separatism of the rich" means that the rich of the society will create their own institutions but neglect the public institutions at the same time because they aren't as beneficial to them. I think this would cause a lot of problems with the low-income citizens because they wouldn't be treated the same and looked at more poorly. Compared to the higher-income citizens, they would be looked at more as royalty and that they belong here. This is important because it's stating that people are supported and labeled by their income. This causes the lower-income people to feel poor and down, while the high-income people are thought of as royalty. When these two incomes are in interact, I believe that it could cause conflict and hateful crimes against one another.

[Breanna Hess]

Question #1: Many couples, men and women, who have higher incomes are marrying today and comparing to years back when women couldn't make as much. People marrying with higher class and income benefit their kids by better health care, status of the parents, and better schooling. When both parents bring in income kids can get from both parents and not just one. Children also have better success knowing where they came from is success and have been given more opportunities.

Question #2: Three reasons assortative mating is good is that more women are holding off on getting married. Women want to go to college and further their education. People are marrying different people that they usually wouldn't because of them having the same similarities. When people marry other people with higher income they often have less of a struggle.

[Norah Poppell]

Question 1. This changed in the 1970s because marrying higher incomes gained more popularity. His study explained that if women had higher incomes than the man and they got married they would have the same income so it would be equal. Children benefit from their parents having a high income because of the stuff they could get to fit their social status.
Question 2. The 3 reasons why assortartive mating is happening is because it gives people more freedom to marry whoever, women participating in labor force, and women making more money.These mating techniques has been a positive impact on society.

[Ashley Love]

1. Many of the couples that are married have similar education or higher income. This also means a lot of the couples are together because they share interests and likes in the same things. Those couples that we look at now from either Male or Female do indeed have that higher percentage of income and education and being together for having the same opinions than in 1970 when this percentage is a lot more lower. The children of parents with higher wealth do benefit long term since they have the opportunity and the resources to get whatever they need in life or just what they want in general.
2. Three reasons why assertive mating is happening and is good are because it gives people/everyone more freedom to date, talk to, and marry whoever they want, women are participating in the labor force, and lastly women are making more money. I think it's good that people are free to date whoever but I feel like it should be someone you share the same ideas and likes/dislikes with because it creates a stronger bond. Money isn't always the best thing to marry someone for since it can either create bad or/and good in a relationship.