Marital Histories and Late-Life Economic Security: Do Social Security Benefits Rules Perpetuate Disparities?

Disparities in late-life economic security persist along the lines of gender, marital status, race, and educational attainment. We propose that these disparities are partly due to the fact that Social Security benefits are structured such that never-married, divorced, and cohabiting persons, those who were widowed prematurely, or were in a dual-earner couple face benefit penalties. Drawing on data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS), a study that has followed men and women from age 18 (in 1957) through age 72 (in 2011), we examine disparities in Social Security earnings and poverty risk on the basis of gender and marital histories. Our results reveal a large disadvantage for divorced and never-married persons (relative to their married counterparts), with women and those divorced two or more times experiencing the largest toll. We discuss the implications of our results for revamping Social Security to better meet the needs of 21st century families.

Marital Satisfaction Among Dual-Earner Marriage Couples: Commuter versus Single Residences Couples

This study aimed to compare marital satisfaction in two types of dual-earner couples, namely commuter and single residence marriage couples. Commuter marriage couples are those who live in two separate residences due to their work demands for at least part of the week, whereas single residence couples live in the same residences. A sample of 239 couples filled out the Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI). Factorial ANOVA used to compare marital satisfaction of the two groups. The result showed that commuter marriage couples have higher marital satisfaction compared to single residence dual earner couple. Men in this study reported higher marital satisfaction compared to women.

Temporal Justice

Distributive justice is ordinarily calibrated in monetary terms. But money is not the only resource that matters to people. Talk of the ‘work−life balance’ points to another: time. Control over one's time, the capacity to spend it as one wishes, is another important resource; and its distribution raises another important aspect of justice. Here I describe a new method of distinguishing how much time one has discretionary control over, net of the amount it is necessary to spend in certain ways given one's circumstances. To draw out the distributive-justice implications of these calculations, I contrast the most-to-least privileged, in terms of discretionary time: a person in a dual-earner couple with no children, versus a lone mother. The magnitude of the gap between the discretionary time enjoyed by the best and worst is a measure of temporal injustice. That gap is substantially larger in some countries (such as the US and Australia) than in others (such as Finland and Sweden). Conventional welfare-state interventions – tax and transfer systems, support for child care – contribute pretty similarly to reducing that particular gap across all the countries examined. Differing practices surrounding the dissolution of marriages with children potentially makes a much bigger difference. Differing labour-market policies might make a similarly large difference yet again.