Never married and never happier? How attitudes about marriage are changing among singles in America.
More Americans are getting married later in life—if at all.
That's according to a 2023 report by the Pew Research Center, which analyzed Census Bureau data to reveal that a record-high share of Americans over 40 have never been married. One in 4 40-year-olds had never tied the knot as of 2021, up from 1 in 5 in 2010.
Forty-year-olds holding a bachelor's degree or higher were more likely to be married than those without a four-year college degree, the report found, and men were more likely to have never said "I do" than women.
This high marks a decades-long slide in marriage rates, coinciding with evolving social norms and drastic economic shifts. Since the early 1990s, as cohabitation started to become more socially acceptable, ideas about the necessity, importance, and timing of marriage—at least among some segments of the population—have dramatically changed.
In part, experts point to economic factors for the delay and decline in marriage rates. Women's economic gains in the workforce have made them less financially reliant on a wage-earning spouse. The rising costs of raising a child, coupled with declining birth rates, have also driven down marriage rates.
Harder to measure, however, is the impact of shifting attitudes on purpose and fulfillment on marriage. While 7 in 10 Americans say marriage is important for a fulfilling life, just over half say that while it's important, it's not essential for both men and women, according to Pew Research. Broader recognition that marriage does not "complete" a person has made it a "nice to have"—for some—rather than the ultimate goal.
Bella DePaulo, a social scientist and "leading researcher of singlehood" told The Atlantic in 2022 that her "most authentic life" is while being single: "And single for me in the most single sense possible—I live alone, I don't date, I happily don't date, and that's the life that works best for me," she added.
While some Americans say that society is better off if more people are married, and about 4 in 10 believe marriage brings greater financial security, that's not enough to convince some people to walk down the aisle. Salvador Espinoza, a 44-year-old from New York City, told Stacker that despite the fact he thinks marriage might "make sense legally" for insurance and taxes purposes, a relationship doesn't need to have a "seal of approval by some other authority."
Texas Marriage and Divorce Records looked at Census data and Pew Research to assess how single Americans have reexamined their relationship with marriage.
In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic may have expedited the delay in marriage and engagements. The lowest recorded number of marriages since 1963 occurred in 2020, according to a 2023 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Overall, single adults aren't looking to rush into marriage, putting it off until when (and if) the time is right. A 2022 Pew survey found that approximately 1 in 5 single adults are interested in either casual dating or being in a committed relationship, compared to about 3 in 5 adults who weren't looking for any sort of dating relationship.
Gender differences also play out in relationship goals. Roughly 2 in 5 single women say they are strictly looking for a committed relationship compared to just a quarter of men, according to Pew's survey of single Americans. The survey also found that 56% of men and 44% of single women are flexible in their desire to pursue casual dating or a committed relationship.
As views on what it means to have a satisfying life have shifted, looser expectations about when a person "should" get married and diminishing stigma about being single have also pushed back marrying age. In 2023, Americans ranked having a gratifying job or career and close friends higher than marriage and parenthood, according to Pew.
Finally, finances may drive couples together, or apart. Four in 10 adults who live with a partner say that moving in with their significant other "made sense financially." However, 53% of Americans believe there isn't much of a difference on whether married or unmarried couples have it easier becoming financially secure.
In the 1990s, more couples began cohabiting, with the practice preceding over half of marriages formed from 1990-1994. From there, it became an increasingly acceptable and even institutionalized step prior to marriage.
Today, half of Americans say couples who live together before getting married are more likely to have successful relationships. Cohabitation is now the norm, with 59% of adults between ages 18 and 44 having lived with an unmarried partner at some point in their relationship, according to National Survey of Family Growth data analyzed by Pew. That's compared to 50% of respondents who have ever been married.
As "gray divorces" among adults over 50 rise, cohabitation rates are also changing. The share of divorced adults aged 50 and over is three times higher than it was in 1990, rising from roughly 5% to about 15% in 2022, according to a 2024 report from the National Center for Family & Marriage Research. In 2022, the number of cohabiting adults aged 50 and older was almost quadruple what it was in 2000.
Increasingly, however, cohabitation is not a step on the path to marriage, but a destination in itself. When asked whether they believe being married is needed in order to have a fulfilling life, 3 in 10 adults said it's not important.
Despite the normalization of cohabitation with no intention of getting married, views on unmarried couples with children are more divided. In 2020, 29% of Americans believed that it was "very important" for couples with children to be married, down from 38% who held this view in 2013 and 49% in 2006. Yet views are clearly changing: A majority of people believe that unmarried couples can raise them "just as well as married couples," according to Pew data from 2019.
Crucially, as rates of cohabitation have increased, declining birth rates have pushed down the number of households with children, according to 2023 Census Bureau data.
For Espinoza, having children is on his mind more than before. If he were to enter a long-term relationship with someone who did want to get married, he would be amenable to it, but doesn't "see it as a necessity."
"I think we were growing up in the ages where that was viewed as part of the timeline," Espinoza said. "But I don't think that's quite necessary."
Story editing by Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Elisa Huang. Copy editing by Tim Bruns.
This story originally appeared on Texas Marriage and Divorce Records and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Has A New Plan To Get Women To Have More Babies. What Could Go Wrong?
In an effort to get Americans to have more children, the Trump administration has proposed ideas such as a $5,000 'baby bonus' or a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account for children born between 2025 and 2029. It's as if we're suddenly in a game of Monopoly: Have a baby, pass go and collect cash! Their concern is that declining birth rates may lead to a smaller workforce amid an aging population, potentially straining economic stability and the social safety net. But having children can be a swift way into debt. According to the Brookings Institution, a financial think tank, the average middle-income family with two children — median income $80,610 ―spends $310,605 on each child by the time they reach 17. Additionally, having children in the U.S. comes with risks that go well beyond economics. Maternal morbidity is significantly higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries, and since abortion bans came into effect in some states, deaths have risen — inTexas, maternal death shot up 56%, according to the Gender Policy Equity Institute. For white women, the rate doubled from 20 per 100,000 to 39.1; for Black women, who are historically at greater risk, rates jumped from 31.6 to 43.6 per 100,000 live births. And those are just the implications for mothers; there are risks to babies as well. I made it through birth without too many complications, but my second son nearly didn't. He was born with VACTERL syndrome, a birth defect which affects multiple body systems. In the U.S., birth defects affect 1 in 33 babies and are the leading cause of infant death, making up 1 in 5 of all infant deaths. Racial disparities persist here, too,Black infants are over twice as likely to die relative to those born to parents of other races according to KFF. My son has a 'rare' disease — fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. have it. Collectively, however, rare diseases aren't as 'rare' as they may seem. An estimated 25 to 30 million Americans have one, and birth defects like gastroschisis — a condition in which an infant is born with its intestines protruding outside the body — carry higher risk factors for younger women. Having a child with serious medical issues is like having a bomb explode in the heart of your family. After my son's birth, I was stuck at a hospital in Greenwich, Connecticut — my doctor refused to release me — as my newborn was sent via ambulance to a hospital in New York City for surgery. Emotionally, this was devastating. My family was lucky; my son survived. My spouse had insurance coverage through his job. Our boy got the immediate and ongoing medical attention he needed. But out-of-pocket copays for the three surgeries that marked my son's first 100 days of life came to $10,000 per month. Instead of staring into our baby's eyes, we were staring into a dark abyss that foretold possible bankruptcy. As exhausted as I was nursing, pumping, tending to a very sick child and his older brother, I also lay awake at night, terrified at the possibility of losing our health insurance. We made it through that first year by the skin of our teeth. Others aren't so fortunate. With high premiums and higher deductibles, health insurance becomes prohibitive to many if not most Americans. Today, 41% of adults in the US have health care debt, according to KFF. Those without health care coverage, and possibly even those with it, are only one accident or unfortunate circumstance away from bankruptcy. The inequities in health care grow the gap between wealthy and poor. According to the Center for American Progress,congressional Republicans' plans to slash Medicaid funding and allow Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire, ACA health insurance marketplace premiums may increase by thousands of dollars each year. If the GOP dismantles the ACA, those with preexisting conditions — like my son ― could be denied coverage. The Trump administration suggests that individuals who need help are lazy; that they must earn their keep. But women and families are trying — and it's clearly not possible. Young families can't afford children. Yet conservatives insist women have them anyway. The Biden administration was criticized as elitist for forgiving student loan debt, butstudent loan debt actually delays fertility for women, especially at the higher levels. Granted, it's easy for me to suggest not having children — I have two, both nearly grown. But women deserve to know the risks that can alter their lives. As a mother, I felt helpless watching my child endure so much suffering. More recently, I regret bringing my children into a world in which abundant resources are shared as if they were scant. It's terrifying to know my sons may not have access to the support they need when they need it. In countrieslike Japan, parents get a child Italy, working women with two or more children receive additional pension Hungary, women below the age of 40 who marry for the first time are eligible to receive an interest-free general-purpose loan worth $36,000 — which is forgiven in full for those with three offspring. The program was so successful that 2,400 families applied for the loan within the first two weeks. But offering financial incentives to having children has had lukewarm success over the long term. For example,Hungary's birth rate in 2019 was 1.55 babies per woman. In 2024, it was 1.38 and declining. The underlying assumption these countries and the Trump administration make is that individuals — both women and men — inherently want children. For whatever reasons, we may not. We may have goals exclusive to family and babies. Just because a government or country 'needs' them, it doesn't mean individuals do; and just because women can biologically have them, it doesn't mean they aspire to. If the Trump administration truly wants women to have children, it should support them in real and practical ways. Offer child care facilities, adequate financial aid and programs to help families and children. Provide affordable health care that's accessible to everyone. Reinstate Medicare funding. Protect the Affordable Care Act. Recognize abortion as a part of maternal health care. Knowing it is safe to have a child, and that the child will be safe in the world it is coming into, would be much more effective and persuasive than any one-time bonus. Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
Adult children who live with their parents are worse at this skill, study finds
It's not uncommon for adult children to move back in with their parents after leaving home. Nearly half, or 46%, of parents say they have an adult child aged 18 to 35 who has "boomeranged" home, according to a survey released in April by financial services provider Thrivent. What stands out about this group of adults, however, is they tend to struggle more to manage their money. According to the survey, 46% of adult children currently living at home received high marks from their parents for their budgeting skills, compared with 63% of those who never moved back home. While it's unclear exactly why boomerang children are worse at budgeting, the discrepancy could point to a broader issue: Parents of adult children living at home might be more hesitant to have open and honest conversations about money, says Alex Gonzalez, a certified financial planner at Thrivent. "If these adult children launch into their own adult lives without having some of those conversations, then yes, they're going to record lower marks on their own financial skills," Gonzalez says. Furthermore, the problem can be two-fold, Gonzalez says. Parents who avoid discussing finances with younger children may fail to plant the "foundational seeds" necessary for financial independence. And continuing to avoid important financial conversations when a child returns home as an adult can further hinder a boomerang child's ability to navigate future financial decisions, Gonzalez says. When two of Gonzalez's own children moved back home during the Covid-19 pandemic, he says two strategies helped ensure they still developed key financial skills: focusing on the positive aspects of eventually moving out and asking them to contribute to household expenses. Gonzalez says he had open and constructive conversations with his kids about money, and made sure to emphasize all the upsides of a solid financial plan, such as affording their own place, gaining independence and building a life of their own. He went through household bills line by line and asked his children to contribute to the cost of groceries and utilities. Gonzalez also had his kids research the cost of rent in the area and required them to set aside a roughly equivalent amount in a savings account every month to help prepare for living independently. For Gonzalez, the goal wasn't just to collect money — it was to guide his kids through a period of transition with structure, accountability and support. "Every family has their own culture and approach to talking about money," Gonzalez says. "[Our kids] knew that we would expect them to contribute to the expenses of the household. What we did though is help them in that challenging part of their lives."
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
Senate version of Trump's budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage
Congress will soon begin a reconciliation process for the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act — President Donald Trump's sweeping tax reform and spending bill, which Republicans hope to bring to the President's desk by July 4. The bill promises continuity for taxpayers by permanently extending the cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as a raft of new cuts, including breaks for tipped and overtime income. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill also include a throwback: an above-the-line deduction on charitable contributions. The House version allows taxpayers who don't itemize to deduct $150 ($300 for joint filers) in charitable contributions from their taxable income through 2028 — a tax rule you may remember from a similar provision of the CARES Act, which expired in 2021. The Senate version is even more generous, with permanent deductions of up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly. "This could provide some tax savings for folks," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "That could be something unexpected if you're not currently deducting charitable giving." Most people don't deduct charitable contributions — and it's not because they're not generous or don't want a tax break. Other than under the Covid-19 relief bill, taxpayers generally have had to itemize deductions in order to get a break for charitable giving. For most people, that doesn't make sense. Some 9 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $15,000 for singles and $30,000 for joint filers. You'd typically only itemize if the sum of your deductions would save you more money than just taking the standard deduction. In short, the legislation currently bouncing around Congress would, at least temporarily, allow anyone who donates to charity to get a tax break — not just the mega-philanthropists among us. Because these deductions reduce your taxable income, they're the most beneficial for people in the highest tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction from income is effectively worth $100 to someone in the 10% tax bracket. The same deduction is worth $350 to someone in the 35% bracket. Should some version of the provision become law, you'll still have to follow the IRS' rules on charitable giving. Donations must be made to qualifying charitable organizations — donations to political campaigns, crowdfunding efforts and, in the case of the proposed tax break, donor-advised funds won't be eligible. Before you make a donation you plan on deducting, check the IRS' search tool to make sure the organization is tax-exempt. And be sure to get a receipt for your donation; the IRS generally requires written acknowledgement of any donation in excess of $250.
