When most people think about marriage in a political context, they think of it as a moral issue like abortion, assisted suicide, or the death penalty. For Republicans, marriage is ordained by God, it is the best environment for raising children, and it is the fundamental building block of civil society. For Democrats, marriage is just one lifestyle option among many, but it is an option that should be equally available to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

To the extent that marriage is thought of as an economic issue, it is usually in the context of how marriage can benefit a person. Married people have a built-in roommate so they can save money on housing. In addition to saving on rent, married couples are often offered lower mortgage rates making it easier for them to buy a house and build wealth. 

When it comes to how marriage affects the economy more broadly, a case can be made that marriage is bad. More unmarried people means more money spent on rent. Single people are less likely to cook for themselves and more likely to eat out. They are also more likely to pay someone else to clean their house and do their laundry. 

All of these paid services add to our nation’s gross domestic product. And since none of these services pay for themselves, more single people means more people with full-time jobs and fewer parents at home or working just part time. This means more jobs and a higher labor force participation rate, all things that most economists believe to be good for growth.

Lower GDP, fewer jobs, fewer people in the workforce — sounds like marriage is pretty bad for the economy. Maybe it is a good thing that our nation’s social safety net programs make it harder for low-income couples to get and stay married. 

But what if the way we measure the economy is all wrong? What if a father cooking for his children is just as valuable as when he orders Uber Eats? What if a mother caring for her children at home is just as valuable as when she pays someone else to look after them?

What if, in fact, the services provided by parents to each other and to their children are actually more valuable than the ones provided by strangers?

There is, after all, ample empirical evidence that married parents are more likely to produce economically successful children than unmarried parents. Children from married homes are less likely to get in trouble at school, more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, and more likely to be employed than children raised by unmarried parents.

The economic benefits of marriage even extend beyond the home. Researchers from Harvard University have found that poor neighborhoods with a higher percentage of fathers in the home have higher rates of economic mobility for all children in the neighborhood. More than education, more than race, more than income — marriage was the biggest factor in determining which neighborhoods had the highest percentage of children moving up the economic ladder. The results were particularly strong for boys, who the researchers suggested benefitted from seeing the other fathers in the neighborhood as role models.

There is also evidence that marriage enriches couples. A recent Federal Reserve study found that single adults between the ages of 25 and 34 have a median net worth of $7,341 and that cohabitating couples had a median net worth almost double that at $17,372. This makes sense since doubling the number of people in a household should double the net worth of the household.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

But for married couples between ages 25 and 34, the median net worth was $68,210. That’s a $50,000 marriage premium. There appears to be real economic value in two people coming together to plan a life together.

There are plenty of noneconomic reasons to get married. Married people are happier, healthier, and more active in their communities than single people. But there are real economic benefits, too, and lawmakers who want a stronger economy should do everything they can to help young couples get and stay married.