> But, Mr. Rector said, previous experiments in cash assistance, like a “negative income tax” program for the poor in the 1970s, showed ... negative impacts on marriage that lasted long after the efforts ended.

It feels like using marriage volume or divorce volume as a negative signal is a terrible idea.

People not feeling forced into marriage because it's more or less necessary to get by or progress in a post-suffrage economy for the working class is probably a good thing.

The couple who raised me each noted it had been at least partially rooted in economics, and if they had more time to figure things out, they probably wouldn't have gotten married. It worked out to a degree for them, they have some degree of happiness, some of the time; they love one another. It also has caused immense harm: They share nothing in common, they fight all the time due to fundamentally different styles of communication and relatively different belief systems.

If an increase in the divorce rate happens due to better economic conditions, this probably signals there were a lot of couplings that were not really good for the participants, but necessary to maintain a certain quality of life. It also could signal people leaving abusers. Is keeping "zombie relationships" worth it?