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
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Thinking of getting away? A new direct flight debuts at Miami airport
Have the storms and flooding the first few days of hurricane season got you thinking of heading out of town? You may want to get over to MIA, pronto. American Airlines debuts a nonstop flight to Rome on Thursday. American Airlines' first nonstop flight between Miami International Airport and Rome's Fiumicino Airport is scheduled to depart MIA at 7:45 p.m. June 5. The roughly 10-hour trip will be aboard a Boeing 777-200 aircraft. The airline will run daily service. The flight was originally planned to start in July, but increased demand pushed up the date. Miami to Europe Rome becomes the fifth city in Europe with direct flights with MIA on American Airlines. The others are Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and London. The flight to Charles de Gaulle Airport operates during the winter. 'We are strengthening our service to Europe,' Juan Carlos Liscano, the airline's vice president of MIA operations, said in an email to the Miami Herald. Other carriers fly between MIA and Italy. British Airways and Lufthansa have direct flights to Rome although not every day. Condor has service four times a week. American Airlines and MIA As MIA's largest airline, American is betting on the airport's continued growth. 'American Airlines continues to double down on Miami,' Liscano said. The carrier, which says it has about 15,000 employees based at MIA, is flying its largest summer schedule ever out of Florida's second busiest airport, and for the second straight year. Between May 16 and Sept. 2, American will operate more than 37,200 flights from MIA, about 336 per day. That's an increase of 3% in flights compared to the same period in 2024. The number of flights is also expected to grow next year with American the official North American Supplier of the FIFA World Cup and with Miami is one of the host cities. Other locales seeing more flight frequency from MIA on American this summer include: ▪ Chicago O'Hare: 8 flights daily, up from 7 daily ▪ Las Vegas: 4 flights daily, up from 3 ▪ Montego Bay: 3 flights daily, up from 2 ▪ Charleston: 3 flights daily, up from 2 ▪ Los Angeles: 8 flights daily, up from 7 ▪ New York La Guardia: 10 flights daily, up from 9 American is also adding new year-round service to Salt Lake City. And if you're looking to stay closer to home, American will start service from MIA to Sarasota-Bradenton in November.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei criticized the latest Republican proposal to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) as 'far too blunt an instrument' to mitigate the risks of the rapidly evolving technology. In an op-ed published by The New York Times on Thursday, Amodei said the provision barring states from regulating AI for 10 years — which the Senate is now considering under President Trump's massive policy and spending package — would 'tie the hands of state legislators' without laying out a cohesive strategy on the national level. 'The motivations behind the moratorium are understandable,' the top executive of the artificial intelligence startup wrote. 'It aims to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, which many fear could be burdensome or could compromise America's ability to compete with China.' 'But a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument,' he continued. 'A.I. is advancing too head-spinningly fast. I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.' Amodei added, 'Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' The tech executive outlined some of the risks that his company, as well as others, have discovered during experimental stress tests of AI systems. He described a scenario in which a person tells a bot that it will soon be replaced with a newer model. The bot, which previously was granted access to the person's emails, threatens to expose details of his marital affair by forwarding his emails to his wife — if the user does not reverse plans to shut it down. 'This scenario isn't fiction,' Amodei wrote. 'Anthropic's latest A.I. model demonstrated just a few weeks ago that it was capable of this kind of behavior.' The AI mogul added that transparency is the best way to mitigate risks without overregulating and stifling progress. He said his company publishes results of studies voluntarily but called on the federal government to make these steps mandatory. 'At the federal level, instead of a moratorium, the White House and Congress should work together on a transparency standard for A.I. companies, so that emerging risks are made clear to the American people,' Amodei wrote. He also noted the standard should require AI developers to adopt policies for testing models and publicly disclose them, as well as require that they outline steps they plan to take to mitigate risk. The companies, the executive continued, would 'have to be upfront' about steps taken after test results to make sure models were safe. 'Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed,' he added. Amodei also suggested state laws should follow a similar model that is 'narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensome.' Those laws could then be superseded if a national transparency standard is adopted, Amodei said. He noted the issue is not a partisan one, praising steps Trump has taken to support domestic development of AI systems. 'This is not about partisan politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long raised concerns about A.I. and about the risks of abdicating our responsibility to steward it well,' the executive wrote. 'I support what the Trump administration has done to clamp down on the export of A.I. chips to China and to make it easier to build A.I. infrastructure here in the United States.' 'This is about responding in a wise and balanced way to extraordinary times,' he continued. 'Faced with a revolutionary technology of uncertain benefits and risks, our government should be able to ensure we make rapid progress, beat China and build A.I. that is safe and trustworthy. Transparency will serve these shared aspirations, not hinder them.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
