How a Recession Might Tank American Romance
Life was bleak, bleak, bleak: Soup-kitchen lines ran for blocks. Teenagers walked across the nation on foot, looking for work. Parents fashioned cardboard soles for their children's little shoes. This was the Great Depression, and Americans were suffering. But many of them did have one thing to look forward to: dating. Young people still went to movies and dances; they shared ice-cream sundaes or Coca-Colas. (They called the latter a 'Coke date.') Not everyone could manage such luxuries, Beth Bailey, a University of Kansas historian and the author of From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America, told me. But for those who could, she said, the rendezvous were a 'respite from all the grimness.'
Even in this country's darkest economic times, romance has offered a little light. In the 1930s, more jobs opened up for single women; with money of their own, more could move away from family, providing newfound freedom to date, Joanna Scutts, a historian and writer, told me. Nearly a century later, a 2009 New York Times article cited online-dating companies, matchmakers, and dating-event organizers reporting a spike in interest after the 2008 financial crash. One dating-site executive claimed a similar surge had happened in 2001, during a previous economic recession. 'When you're not sure what's coming at you,' Pepper Schwartz, a University of Washington sociologist then working for PerfectMatch.com, told the Times, 'love seems all the more important.'
Now, once again, people aren't sure what's coming at them. Many consumers have been rattled by the Trump administration's erratic trade policies. And although the chances of an actual recession have declined since the president eased off some of his more aggressive tariff positions, J. P. Morgan Research still estimates the possibility at 40 percent. Meanwhile, the United States is facing another kind of recession: a romance recession. Marriage rates are going down; the number of single adults is going up. Based on trends from past eras, one might expect economic unease to give the dating market a jolt. But the way people view romance has shifted dramatically since 2008. Americans today may not be as likely as they once were to seek solace in love. This time, if an economic recession is coming, it might make the romance recession even worse.
Dating has always been expensive. Going out to a restaurant or bar or movie theater costs money; getting there might require a car; taking someone home is trickier if you can't afford to not have roommates (or if your roommates are your parents). Some people still prioritize romance in rocky times—but a lot of Americans these days are letting financial anxiety deter them. In 2022, Dating.com surveyed single people about how inflation and economic uncertainty were influencing their love lives; nearly half of respondents said they'd refrained from scheduling a date in order to save money. In a 2024 poll from LendingTree, an online lending marketplace, 65 percent of participants said inflation had affected their dating life; 81 percent said they believed that dating might be easier if they had more money.
In some sense, sure, dating is easier if you have more money. But wouldn't someone with less money be more intent on finding a partner to struggle alongside?
[Read: How to prepare for a recession]
Today, maybe not: People might want to weather the storm before searching for love. As the sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued, marriage was once seen as a step toward adulthood; spouses strived to build a future—and a flush bank account—together. Now, more often, marriage is seen as the culmination of the maturing process: a 'trophy' earned once you've figured out everything else—including your finances.
In one recent study, researchers asked participants making different incomes how much they desired a relationship and how ready they felt for one; six months later, they checked in to see whether those subjects had started dating someone. Johanna Peetz, a psychologist at Carleton University in Ottawa who worked on the project, told me that she and her co-author thought a higher income might make single life easier and more fun—and partnership seem less necessary. In reality, the participants making the least were the ones who viewed coupledom as only a distant priority, and who were less likely to enter a relationship. They seemed to 'really want a stable base,' Peetz said, 'before they start looking for a partner.'
Something else has changed too. More people, stressed about their finances, may now see romance not as a fun distraction or a balm, but as a stressor in itself.
Economic insecurity, researchers have found, tends to make people more risk-averse. That might not affect your dating game if going out with someone doesn't feel so scary, or if you're nervous but expect that the butterflies might lead to something beautiful. Today, though, people may be more wary of letting other people in. In recent years, researchers have clocked a growing discomfort with emotional intimacy and a drop in social trust. In 1972, the first year the General Social Survey was conducted, 46 percent of participants in that poll agreed that 'most people can be trusted'; earlier this month, Pew Research Center reported that, in a poll it conducted in 2023–24, only 34 percent of people said the same.
Straight people might be especially hesitant to put themselves out there. Suspicion between men and women seems to be on the rise. The Survey Center on American Life found that from 2017 to 2023, the number of women who said they feared being sexually assaulted had increased steeply. And a lot of women, for various reasons, really are having bad romantic experiences; in a YouGov poll from February, 44 percent of men said they'd been on a 'terrible' date—while 57 percent of women said the same. Many of them might want to depend on a partner. They also might doubt that dating will yield one, at least not easily.
For young adults in particular, an economic recession could be a disaster for romance. Gen Z is, overall, a financially anxious cohort. Leading up to the 2024 election, young adults across races and party affiliations rated inflation as their top concern. In the aftermath of that election, I talked with Meghan Grace, a co-author of Generation Z: A Century in the Making, and she summarized what she sees as this group's consistent, underlying concern: 'I just want to feel safe.' That attitude applies to finances but also to romantic risk. In a 2023 survey from the dating app Hinge, more than half of Gen Z users said they'd let the fear of rejection hold them back from pursuing someone; 44 percent had 'little to no dating experience.'
[Read: Teens are forgoing a classic rite of passage]
Even if an actual recession doesn't hit, economic angst isn't likely to disappear soon. And the romance recession isn't likely to reverse itself either. The mood may remain, for a while, distinctly unsexy. 'Overall, I guess my message really is, Oh, you better buckle up,' Peetz told me. 'It's definitely not gonna be a dating boom.'
Being single is expensive. But no one can will a suitable partner into existence—and making romance work really can be harder with less wealth. In studies, people perform worse on cognitive-processing tasks when their funds are low: Some of their headspace seems to be occupied by worrying. 'You need cognitive resources to take the perspective of your partner, to communicate with your partner,' Peetz said, 'and to do all kinds of things that help relationship quality.'
Holding off on the slog of modern dating could mean conserving emotional and financial reserves. It could mean leaning instead on long-known loved ones and strengthening those bonds. Partnership may once have felt like a relatively safe bet in an otherwise precarious world. Now, for many people, it's just one more thing that they can't depend on.
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower
The federal government, financial markets and most Americans are all in a state of denial about interest rates. Whenever someone goes on business TV, gets a mortgage or makes a long-term debt projection, I usually hear some variation of the phrase, 'when rates go back down.' I am sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but rates are not going back down, especially to the levels of the 2010s. And almost any attempt to try to force them down — what we economists call financial repression — will only bring pain.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Elon Musk stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on May 30, only months after promising to transform government by cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget and eliminating so-called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Just a week later, Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump ― the man Musk spent nearly $300 million to elect — went up in flames, as Americans watched the drama unfold in real time on X and Truth Social. Trump publicly denounced Musk as 'disloyal' for criticizing the president's signature legislative effort, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination' and openly called for Trump's impeachment. The spectacle of the richest man in the world and the president of the United States exchanging insults online may be remembered as DOGE's final chapter in the public imagination. But it should not obscure the damage Musk wrought when he commanded one of the most powerful positions in the Trump administration. More from Freep Opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run To start, Musk's promised savings never came. The DOGE website currently claims to have saved the public $175 billion through a range of actions like eliminating 'fraud and improper payment' and cancelling grants. But even that sum — which is believed to be falsely inflated through a combination of guesswork and suspect arithmetic — is less than 3% of the federal budget, and less than 9% of the $2 trillion in cuts Musk promised upon assuming his role. In other words, DOGE failed on Musk's own terms. What did materialize is an unprecedented attack on public institutions, beginning with the people who carry out the work of public service. According to the latest data, around 260,000 federal employees have either been forced out, been slated for cuts, or chosen to leave their posts since DOGE began its work. These aren't faceless 'bureaucrats.' They are the people who test our water for contaminants, inspect our food for harmful bacteria, and ensure air travel is safe, among other public services. The department with the highest number of planned terminations is Veterans Affairs, with up to 80,900 personnel serving our nation's veterans slated for future cuts, according to the New York Times. Many of these jobs are health care workers who care for veterans directly. More from Freep Opinion: I'm a gay man in Detroit. Celebrating Pride feels more important than ever In cutting both people and programs that provide essential services, DOGE attempted a bargain that Michiganders are painfully familiar with: treat government like a business, and attempt to cut public services to balance the books no matter the risks to public health, the economy or democracy. During our state's era of emergency management, decision-making power in several cities and school districts like Flint and Detroit shifted from democratically elected local officials to appointees of the governor. In Flint, a series of emergency managers focused on cost-cutting to address the city's financial crisis, including the ill-fated decision to switch the city's water source. The result was the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in American history. Flint should have been a warning to the country that 'efficiency' without regard for public welfare is a dangerous proposition. Yet DOGE was a far more extreme expression of this logic. Like Flint, the DOGE experiment is a grave warning about what happens when democracy is treated as a private enterprise rather than a public trust, when billionaires think they know best what people need in their own communities. And while it may take decades to account for the potential harms DOGE's actions might produce, we are already seeing some. Here in Michigan, DOGE reportedly canceled $394 million in federal public health grants, money that ultimately supports local health initiatives statewide. These cuts are not abstract. They will be felt in people's bodies and the broader society. Local health providers will have to cut back on critical services such as vaccine administration and interventions for substance use disorder. According to a 2019 study, every dollar invested in public health departments yields as much as $67 to $88 of benefits to society. DOGE also cut $15 million in AmeriCorps funding for our state, impacting programs that offered tutoring, support for seniors, and assistance for homeless residents. At a time when Michigan ranks 34th in the nation in overall child wellbeing, students in more than 60 school districts may see tutoring support disappear. This begs the question: Who ultimately benefited from Musk's relentless cutting? The clear answer is Elon Musk, who is $170 billion richer since endorsing Trump in the summer of 2024, even accounting for the drop in Tesla's stock attributed to the public backlash over DOGE's actions. (How this most recent fiasco will affect Musk's bottom line remains to be seen.) Meanwhile, DOGE spent months attempting to 'delete' entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which stops predatory banks from scamming veterans, seniors, and consumers in general. And it destroyed the IRS' ability to audit wealthy tax cheats, forcing workers and families to shoulder more of the nation's tax responsibility. DOGE has also made us less free. The initiative's most significant legacy may be what the writer Julia Anguin described as 'a sprawling domestic surveillance system for the Trump administration ― the likes of which we have never seen in the United States.' In agency after agency, Musk and his lieutenants accessed the most sensitive data about Americans and handled it with reckless disregard. Information like Social Security numbers and bank accounts that once stood in the relative safety of government silos are now being merged to create more sweeping surveillance tools than ever before. They could be used to further crack down on immigrants' speech, or to simply make it easier to target political enemies. This is what we're left with. A public more exposed to harm — from preventable diseases, from corporate predation and scams, from toxins in our air and water—and a small group of wealthy elites more empowered to dominate our government and our democracy. Perhaps this is why a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Musk's job performance, arguably accelerating his departure from government. The American public deserves a government that is fit for purpose and delivers on its promises. But Elon Musk never intended to create that. DOGE was built on the fiction of Musk's mastery of all things, one of the many myths attributed to the ultra-wealthy. What it concealed was a public sector novice who failed to understand the basic mechanics of the institutions he railed against. On the day Musk announced his departure, a lawsuit against him and DOGE was cleared to proceed, accusing him of wielding unlawful power over federal agencies, contracts and data without democratic oversight. It was a fitting coda. Musk left behind no durable reform, only institutions hollowed out, public trust frayed, and a template for how easily government can be turned against the people it exists to serve. Even this spectacular fallout with Trump should not distract from the wreckage he leaves behind. Bilal Baydoun is Director of Democratic Institutions at the Roosevelt Institute, a national policy think tank devoted to building on the legacy of FDR. A version of this column was previously published on the Roosevelt Institute's Substack. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access witha Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Elon Musk-Trump spat is a distraction from DOGE failures | Opinion


New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Stalled ‘beautiful' bill drains nation's rainy-day fund — and things could soon turn ugly for US households
Congress' dithering over President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' has the potential to make life difficult in the coming months – by possibly spiking interest rates, On The Money has learned. Most Americans don't appreciate all the ways our elected officials have saddled them with trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt. The national debt stands at around $36 trillion, and needs to go higher to pay for all the stuff the House didn't cut in passing the buck to the Senate. Until Congress crafts a budget and amends that annoying law known as the debt ceiling, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been tapping something known as the Treasury General Account. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design Until Congress crafts a budget and amends that annoying law known as the debt ceiling, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been tapping something known as the Treasury General Account. The account, known on Wall Street bond trading desks as the 'TGA,' is needed to pay short-term bills and acts like a rainy-day fund. It's like your checking account, except hundreds of billions of dollars larger. However, it's massively underfunded and in need of cash (aka more borrowing) so the government can keep the lights on – which could mean a nasty spike in interest rates sometime this summer when the selling begins since higher yields will be needed to attract more buyers, according to the smart Wall Street folks at the Bear Traps Report. Bessent has been toying with ways to get banks to hold more treasuries as part of the capital cushion. Foreign buyers are needed but Trump's trade war makes it difficult to get saving nations like China and Japan to once again come to our rescue. 'The longer it takes for Congress to pass the bill and raise the ceiling, the more Bessent depletes the government's checking account, and therefore the more money he has to raise once the ceiling is lifted,' Bear Traps analyst Robbert Van Batenburg tells me. Bessent, right, has been toying with ways to get banks to hold more treasuries as part of the capital cushion. AP 'Yellen in the 2023 debt ceiling crisis drove this checking account down to less than $50 billion, forcing her to raise a whopping $800 billion in the summer of 2023.' To be sure, the dangerous TGA drawdown comes from overspending, but also from how spending works via the debt ceiling law. The ceiling is supposed to apply the brakes on borrowing so future generations don't have to pay for government largesse we consume today. Given our addiction to big government and debt to finance it, the ceiling is a misnomer — it's constantly flouted and amended higher, though the politics of raising it often gets messy. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters When the debt ceiling is finally raised in the coming weeks, the government might have to issue another $400 billion in additional debt just to get back to where it was at this time last year, Van Batenburg said. Yes, that's an extra $400 billion on top of the nearly $800 billion deficit this quarter that Bessent will cover once the budget deal is passed, the debt ceiling is lifted and the government goes back to mortgaging your kids' future. The full yearly deficit is likely to hit $2 trillion or more. You might be asking why we need TGA in the first place. The answer is that if we don't fully fund the TGA, it would send a terrible message to the markets that we can't pay for stuff. It could be interpreted as a default of sorts, which would send interest rates even higher. Sounds like a no-win situation for the American taxpayer.