E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The number of unmarried couples living together shot up by 13 percent between 2009 and 2010, and some of the decisions may not have been completely motivated by romance.
Maybe more folks needed someone to help pay the rent.
Rose Kreider, a researcher with the U.S. Census, crunched the numbers and found that the sharp increase in opposite-sex couples living together coincided with a big jump in unemployment among the unmarried couples.
Nearly 7.5 million couples were cohabitating in 2010, up from about 6.7 million in 2009.
The number of unmarried people living together has generally risen since the Census started tracking the data in 1996, but the gains have rarely been so great. In fact, there was a statistically insignificant 2 percent drop in cohabitating couples from 2008 to 2009. That followed a 5 percent gain from 2007 to 2008.
The recession of 2007-09 has taken its toll on unmarried couples. In 2008, 59 percent of cohabitating couples said both partners were employed, but that percentage fell to 52 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in 2010.
In addition, people who moved in together this year were more likely to include at least one jobless partner than couples who already were living together. Kreiser said just 39 percent of newly cohabitating couples were both employed, compared with 50 percent of couples that were already together.
Although the recession officially started in December 2007, Kreiser speculates that the big spike in couples moving in together began more recently because, as unemployment has dragged on, more people have exhausted savings, unemployment benefits and other ways to pay rent on their own.
"The fact that a higher proportion of the new couples are younger may also make it more difficult for them to find jobs in a tough economy where older workers with more skills are also looking for jobs," Kreider wrote in a white paper released this week.
The Census data also show an increase in same-sex cohabitating couples this year, but Kreiser says that was expected because of a change in how same-sex couples are counted.
Leave a Comment:
Wow... a sharp spike in partners looking for a meal ticket. The only thing new here is the spike.I believe at one tmie there were "marriages of convenience". A fun slant for todays singles to pay their way. Is this subtle a form of prostitution?
Probably not prostitution --- such an extreme way of thinking about the situation --- but a way of taking advantage of convenience. People have been doing this for years, but not until recently has this particular situation really been apparent.
In my last years of college, I moved in with my girlfriend b/c it didn't make sense to live minutes from each other --- paying separate rents, utility bills, upkeep, etc when we could just live together and share the cost for one apartment. The same goes for today's couples co-habitating for convenience. Costs are higher now, not just groceries. Rents/real estate taxes continue to increase along with cable, power, gas, & phone bills. It's great to know somebody that is willing & able to share those costs with you, especially if you're trying to build up your savings.
Of course, it's better to know that you can support yourself...and moving in with someone is for social or relationship-type reasons. I lived with two women before I moved in with my girlfriend. I was lucky because my roommates were good, reliable friends I knew before moving in together.
Some people argue that marriage is a subtle from of "property" ownership and prostitution. I feel sorry for those who view it this way though...
Prostitution involves paying for sexual favors . . . two people living together and splitting the bills so that they pay equally is no where near prostitution.
However, I should ask, are you married? Did you PAY for a ring? Do you PAY for the house your wife lives in? Do you PAY for food, clothes, and other things your wife enjoys? If you said yes to any of this, then you are closer to prostitution than cohabitation couples. Just because you use the title "marriage" does not mean you are not PAYING for access to your wife's naughty area.
Prostitution? Living together does not have to mean you are sleeping together. A couple who has promised to wait until marriage can sleep under the same roof without any kinky stuff going on. Just like they abstain during the day, they can abstain during the night. Therefore, if they are going to have intercourse together, they will do it regardless of if they live together or not.
Thought's from Cali, your statement might be valid if that partner did nothing but sit on the couch all day and watch TV or shop for clothes and the only thing you get out of them is sexual favors. Otherwise, it's invalid because normally the partner is doing their part, like cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, cooking your meals or having a job of their own and contributing financially.
Robert I think you miss the point, all of those things can be said about an unmarried couple as well. I think Thoughts from Cali was being sarcastic. It is not prostitution in either case....
It's not just prostitution. Men pay for maternal services as well as the keeper of the family culture. Usually the woman occupies this important role, but many today opt to pay daycare centers to perform that function.
A man and woman that lives together usually involves a man paying more while the woman enjoys an upgrade from her previous dwelling.
Interestingly enough, in todays job market women seem to be making more than men. While middle management jobs are decreasing, many men are loosing their jobs and relying on their "women" to foot the bill. Interesting how flexible both genders can be if put into the situation. And just a note to Vincent, my husband upgraded when he met me.
Hopeso, you're an @!$%#
how many marriages are to people who can support themselves comfortably before they tie the knot?
Actually Afro Samurai there's some truth to what Hopeso says. Not all situations of course but it isn't uncommon
its called roommates with benefits. It beats "convenience marriages" just to get govt subsidies.
You know, back in the day, people used to live with their families before getting married. This whole nonsense about how a person has to buy a house, furnish it, and travel/entertain him or herself, well that's just the consumerism lie. It's better for the environment and for society in general for people to live together and help each other.
How can I live with my family when I live in another state? Many of my generation are geographically mobile and have to be able to move to new cities for employment. It would be nice to find several people to share the burden of maintaining a nice home, but will they have the same cleaning ethic as me, or will they share the same sleeping schedule, etc. I can afford a small 1 bedroom place, furnished with my own stuff, both functional and aesthetic. Not a whole lot of room for another persons life.
On my street in the past couple of years, 3 couples bought homes with the intention to later marry. Only one of the couples actually married. Two broke up, with the guy getting the house the first time and the woman getting it the other time. Just goes to show a little period of cohabitation can be a good thing. I just don't know if buying is the right way to do it.
I can not speak for those couples, but this is the arrangement I had. I was renting a 2 bedroom apartment already and had extra room. My boyfriend hung out at my place more than his because it was a lot nicer (and had heat!). So he moved in.
Then about a year later, I wanted to buy a house and when I moved, he came with me. It is my name on the mortgage, my ultimate decision on which house I bought, and I would have bought regardless of if I lived alone or with someone else. Needless to say, if we every break up, that house is still mine. (The mortgage payment is only $100 more than I used to pay at the apartment by myself.)
So I dont see what the issue is with buying as long as one of you can afford the place yourself. I think it should be true for married people as well who are only a signature on a piece of paper away from being single.
Its a great idea . Whatever it takes for two people to be happy . I myself would rather be married . GOD had BLESSED me with the right person . She is so wonderful . She is very caring and that is what we all need from each other ; IS LOVE , KINDNESS , FRIENDSHIP , PARTNERSHIP , and most important ; Somebody who actually , truly LOVES you . My vote is for HAPPINESS ..........
Whatever:I agree with Atomic and
Get off my lawn..
Saving money? R I G H T :) Who are you kiddin'! And the sex is great also;) People were cohabitating way before the recession. Serious research here dude.
I have lived with my soulmate for 25 years. One reason we never married is because the Federal Government likes to penalize you for marriage. After our tax account prepares our taxes, he usual does a mock one as if we were married. Of the last 12 years only one year did he say we would have been better off if we were married. I wish the author of this article would have included how many of our elderly are getting divorced and living together.
You're right about that Ellie Mae. We lived together for 10 years before we married. Everyone said that financially "married" would be better. Boy was that a load of crap! I wouldn't change getting married, but for 2 working people with similar incomes, it's a financially bad idea! i thnk the advantages might be in those cases where 1 person works and the other doesn't
Ambrosia Brown wrote "One reason we never married is because the Federal Government likes to penalize you for marriage."
The government penalizes the efficiency because two people living together are able to share and thus have more income to tax. The law should really be based on cohabitation instead of marriage.
You and your soulmate have worked the system and paid less in taxes than the average married couple while receiving the same benefits.
True Vincent, But can you honestly blame anyone for legally avoiding more taxes?
That's ok Vincent... As a single person that makes decent money and no write-offs, I more than make up for their lack of taxes ;)
Anyone99, you do get the standard deduction, don't you ?
I wouldn't look at the child care deduction as a significant write-off. Married couples spend much more time, energy and money to produce the next generation.
Old people really should not be marrying anyway.
Yeah, and the way some of this next generation is turning out... I'm scared... Just look at some of your comments, and you'll understand why.
BTW... The standard deduction isn't all that much when you are paying almost twice the poverty level in taxes. I look at it as a fee for living in the best country in the world.
And just so you know, I'm not that old.
Who said Obama hasn't done a good job of bringing people together? This is proof that his policies do unite Americans!
Yet he's doing a even better job of uniting people with more of my pay check.
I just hate it when a Republican gets off a real good one, dang you Squidward.
Nancy, you haven't paid a dime more, so cut the crap seriously.
If the economy gets worse, which it will, more and more people will have to share homes/apts. in order to survive. How can we keep on paying higher prices for basic necessities like rent, food, utilities etc., when our earnings stay the same? Living alone might become a luxury that we can no longer afford. It is a struggle for me, as an older single woman to keep my head above water.
Plus any couple that makes $250,000 together does not want to get married, they have a better tax rate (unless the tax cuts are extended) making their separate salaries-- funny how you are "wealthy" if you make $150,000 and your other half makes $100,000 even if you are feeding 4 kids and live in NYC--
There are a lot of people making 40,000 per year trying to feed 4 kids. I would rather the tax breaks go to them even if it means the couple making 250,000 a year in NYC has to move just outside the city limits and commute. (oh poor things! *Rolls eyes*)
It's not just the gov't. Us little people who have to feed families on less than a fifth of your salary also consider you wealthy. Reminds me of my grandma, who grew up dirt poor. Now she owns a few houses across the country. She still insists that she's dirt poor!
Ambrosia Brown wrote "There are a lot of people making 40,000 per year trying to feed 4 kids"
They probably pay zero Federal taxes. 50% of Americans do not pay federal taxes after deductions.
Why FOUR kids?
Yeah, vincent, because 5% of the population has over 80% of the money!! People kill me with that argument!
Maybe its time to revive old traditions like the "Boarding House". You know the big old house with like 10 "bed rooms" and 1 or 2 shared bathrooms, owned by some old "widow" that rented the rooms out by the week/month and served three meals a day at set times in the "dinning room". She has her own little suite downstairs by the kitchen. Everybody sat around in the "parlor" or on the porch in the evening after discussing whatever, listening to radio or TV. Sure beats going home to a "broom closet" apartment by yourself for a cup of Ramin noodles after a long day at work to sit in front of the PC or video-game system. Before you get the wrong idea, I ain't THAT old. I lived in a place like that in the 1980s while in grad school. There were only 4 rooms and two bath upstairs, and of us 6. Yes there was one "couple", and the two guys that "shared" a room. Well, we didn't ask and they didn't tell.
Maybe it's time to return to multi-generational "homes" like were common in the past. American life is going to change fundamentally if we don't turn it around soon. The "American Dream" of the last 200 years will be gone forever and we have become just another failed experiment in history and our children will have become slaves to the Politburo masters of the government.
I said this same thing to my husband recently. It would be a perfect solution.
You mean send him to a boarding house and have the ranch all to yourself?
lol---yeah right! As soon as he left, 10 things would break!!!
Well, my sister says that men are only good for one thing - and changing fuses just isn't that important anyway.
well...............playing house is nice and it's good to have someone readily available to boink
good fellow - very nice.........."good to have someone readily available to boink". roflmfao
If everyone, men and women alike, learned to support themselves before they married (or shacked up) with someone else, people would not be forced, often due to their own bad decisions, to create a commune with one or more other people. I learned to support myself and did not married until 30. I am now married, childless by choice, and doing OK even in this recession. Even before I was married and occasionally living with a room mate, male or female, we both had our own jobs, bought our own food, and paid our own way. It also has a lot to do with making wise decisions and not buying things you can't afford.
Prostitution? Well...There's usually some sort of quid pro quo in these cohabitation arrangements, which is certainly understandable, but when that give and take includes a sexual component, there would seem to be a certain, um, prostitutionality about it if ya know what I mean...
Makes me think of the "Kelly Bundy" charater. Although she was perfactly aware of what she was doing, even if she was dumb as a box of rocks.
I think in the old days there weren't as many expenses as there are now. with rent, car note, car insurance, cell phone bill, electric bill, cable bill, internet service, etc, you almost have to have a same bed roomate to afford all of the current expenses.
Okay so my point of view is that our own government makes criminals out of us, they also try to make liers out of us, and now they are also pushing us into sinfulness.
Life is not meant to be easy, don't know where we got that idea? Becareful about what you " Live and Learn" in this demon oppressed World we live in for now.
America is quickly loosing God's protection as we spiral down into making all sin not only visable everywhere but also legal everywhere? Fellow Christians remember to participate in the voting, election, and legal processes of our country...and pray, pray, pray!
I have a roommate,but not the bedmate. We decided that was the only way we could have a decent place to live,by sharing rent and etc. OH YEAH WE ARE THE OPPOSITE SEX!!! Living on SS and a little retirement check.
Why do you have to be cohabitating, when sharing living expenses and can't just be friends? We are Best Friends.
Best-Best, or just Best? ;-)
I am sick of her and her daughter ... let's relocate Alaska so she can't be attached to the U.S.
Sure, it saves a lot of money, until you have one of those little accidents. Along comes a little bundle of joy, and bye bye money!
Roughley 2/3 of all young people believe that living together before marriage is a good idea to reduce divorce. That a recession should make it necessary for more people to do so is understandable.
Skyrider-880550 wrote "Roughley 2/3 of all young people believe that living together before marriage is a good idea to reduce divorce."
Are they right? More people are living together for years as compared to the 1960's. The marriage rate is lower, and the divorce rate is higher.
Females are dangerous to a males' wealth and freedoms.
I would have to be financially desperate before allowing a female to move into my shanty and she would have to sign a lawyer-prepared document and obey every single one of my rules.
If the female didn't like it? Tough. Leave and do not return. Sign if you accept the terms and obey them or the lawyer initiates a lawsuit and ousts the now trespassing female.
Of course, emotion-laden illogical irrational females will cluck akin to the biddies they are against the bad bad evil male for not kowtowing to a "precious princess" who so often believe they are above having to follow the terms of a contract they willing agreed to.
Females. Oh so quick to demand the rights and privileges and good things of life but sure seem to have trouble with those nasty little, to them, responsibility things.
Such inane irrational creatures.
Never should have given females voting rights.
Hilarious. Just don't tell the wife!
When misogynistic rants like this hit the waves, It makes me wonder how many women used you for the same purpose they use toilet paper before you decided you didn't like the taste or the aftertaste.
You never know, TZ! It wouldn't be surprizing. Most likely just sarcasm, but you never know.