US children of divorce have reduced earnings, increased chances of teen births and jail, study says
U.S. children whose parents divorce when they are age 5 or younger have reduced earnings as adults and increased chances by young adulthood of teen pregnancy, incarceration and death, according to a study released this month.
After a divorce, a household's income typically is halved as a family splits into two households, and it struggles to recover that lost income over the ensuing decade. Families after divorce also tend to move to neighborhoods with lower incomes that offer reduced economic opportunities, and children are farther away from their non-custodial parent, according to the working paper by economists at the University of California, Merced; the U.S. Census Bureau; and the University of Maryland.
The three events — loss of financial resources, a decline in neighborhood quality and missing parental involvement because of distance or an increased workload required to make up for lost income — accounted for 25% to 60% of the impact divorce has on children's outcomes, the study said.
'These changes in family life reveal that, rather than an isolated legal shock, divorce represents a bundle of treatments — including income loss, neighborhood changes, and family restructuring — each of which might affect children's outcomes,' the economists wrote.
Almost a third of American children live through their parents' divorcing before reaching adulthood, according to the study. Many children of divorce have reached the heights of professional success, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President JD Vance, who lamented that divorce was too easily accessible during a 2021 speech at a Christian high school in California.
The U.S. divorce rate has been on a decline for the past decade and a half, going from over 10% in 2008 to about 7% in 2022, according to the Census Bureau.
The economists' study can't show the emotional impact of divorce, but some children of divorce said it resonated through adulthood, no matter what age they were when it happened.
Brandon Hellan, 54, said it took him until his mid-30s before he felt like he could commit to getting married and having children. He thinks his parents' divorce when he was in his early 20s played a role since it felt at the time like an immense betrayal.
'I really think my parents' divorce made me put up these walls and treat relationships like they were rentals, temporary,' said Hellan, who lives in the St. Louis area and wasn't connected to the study.
While the study shows the negative impacts of divorce, it can't show what families' lives would have been like if parents had stayed together, said Philip Cohen, a University of Maryland sociologist with no ties to the study.
'Probably nobody can tell better than the parents facing the conditions of the marriage and the opportunity for divorce,' Cohen said. 'I believe parents are aware divorce may have harmful consequences for their children, and make difficult judgments about what is in their own best interest, as well as the interest of their children.'
Previous academic studies reached different conclusions about the impact of divorce on children. Some argued that unhappy marriages harm children by exposing them to conflict between their parents and that, generally, divorce is a better option for both parents and children.
Other studies said divorce leads to reductions in financial resources, the time parents have to spend with their children and the emotional stability of their offspring. Yet other studies concluded that divorce has a minimal impact one way or another.
A big shortfall in reaching any conclusions has been a lack of data. But the authors of the new study said they overcame that limitation by linking data from federal tax records, the Social Security Administration and the Census Bureau for all children born in the U.S. between 1988 and 1993. The tax data traced marital histories and income of the parents and the census data provided information about households and outcomes from childhood to adulthood.
The study compared outcomes among siblings by the amount of time a childhood was spent with divorced parents. It found that children whose parents divorced when they were age 5 or younger had a 13% smaller income by age 27, but there was little or no impact if the child was older than 18 when their parents divorced.
A parental divorce increased the chances of teen pregnancy if it took place before the child was age 15. But that effect disappeared by age 20, as did the impact of any divorce on the chances of incarceration. There also was no noticeable effect on a child of divorce getting married by age 25, according to the study.
The impact from divorce was similar across demographic groups, the study found.
___
Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Republican on deficit spending in GOP bill: ‘It's not a perfect world'
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) lamented the deficit spending in the GOP's 'big, beautiful' spending package, but framed the issue as a necessary compromise to avoid having to negotiate with Democrats. 'I don't want to have any deficit spending. But what I'm trying to suggest to you is that we are stuck in a paradigm where we have to pass this ourselves,' Sessions told CNN's John Berman in an interview Thursday morning. The Texas Republican said he conceded on demands from a handful of Republicans representing blue-leaning states who pushed to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, adding, 'It's a balance there.' 'What we're trying to do is balance out where the American people get jobs and job creation. We really don't want to see people just leave these blue states because of taxes that they can't afford their property,' Sessions said. 'So, it is not a perfect world, John.' He also pointed out that if the sprawling legislative agenda is not passed through the reconciliation process, then Republicans would have to turn to Democrats — which, Sessions argued, would not necessarily reduce deficit spending but would mean less of Trump's agenda could make it through Congress. 'The bottom line is, is that this has to come together as a piece of legislation. You see, John, if we do not pass our one big, beautiful bill, then we negotiate with Democrats, essentially nine Democrats, that simply raises spending to get us where we get the tax cuts that we save them, where they ought to be,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'So it is, no question about it, not a perfect battle for Republicans,' he added. The interview comes amid criticism from tech billionaire Elon Musk that has slowed momentum in the Senate on the bill. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday projected that the 1,116-page House passed bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Chad responds to U.S. travel ban, suspends visas for American citizens
The government of Chad has announced the suspension of all visa issuance to American citizens, in a retaliatory move against the United States' decision to bar Chadian nationals from entering the country. The government of Chad has suspended visa issuance for American citizens in response to the U.S.' travel restrictions on Chadian nationals. President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno called the U.S.' travel ban unjust and declared the suspension a matter of national pride and reciprocity. The African Union criticized the U.S. travel ban, and Chad's response may inspire similar actions from other affected nations. Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno described U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban as unjust and discriminatory, stating that Chad was compelled to respond in kind by introducing reciprocal visa restrictions on U.S. citizens. He framed the move as one of 'reciprocity' and a matter of national pride. In a statement posted on his official Facebook page (in French), President Déby declared: ' I instructed the government to act in accordance with the principles of reciprocity and suspend the issuance of visas to citizens of the United States of America.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride.' The suspension reflects mounting frustration in the Central African nation over what it perceives as an arbitrary policy that unfairly targets Chadian citizens. While the practical impact on U.S. travelers may be limited, the symbolic weight of the decision signals a broader assertion of sovereignty and a demand for mutual respect in bilateral relations. US travel ban hits seven African nations The recent U.S. travel ban targets citizens from 12 countries, seven of them African, sparking criticism over its fairness and perceived political motivations. Among the African nations affected are Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition, a partial ban has been imposed on citizens from another group of countries—Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela—limiting entry under specific visa categories, particularly those related to temporary employment. Chad's swift and unequivocal response stands out as one of the most direct diplomatic pushbacks from the African continent. The country's suspension of visa issuance to American citizens signals rising frustration and could strain relations with Washington, especially in the area of regional counterterrorism cooperation, where Chad plays a pivotal role. While analysts note that the suspension is unlikely to significantly disrupt travel—given the relatively low number of U.S. visitors to Chad, the symbolic weight of the move is considerable. The African Union has also issued a formal statement rejecting President Donald Trump's decision to impose such sweeping restrictions on African countries.
