Young couple reviewing finances at kitchen table discussing marriage and home buying budget
Financial transparency has become a prerequisite for modern couples navigating student debt and housing costs before marriage.

By 2025, marriage has become a luxury good many Americans can't afford. Where previous generations walked down the aisle in their early twenties, today's couples face a fundamentally different economic reality. The national marriage rate hovers near historic lows, and it's not because young people stopped believing in love. They're simply doing the math.

The numbers tell a stark story. Since 1980, the share of Americans under 65 who aren't living with a romantic partner has climbed steadily upward. Meanwhile, fertility rates plummeted to 1.6 in 2024, well below the 2.1 replacement rate. These trends aren't happening in isolation. They're the predictable result of rising living costs, stagnant wages, crushing student debt, and housing markets that treat shelter as an investment vehicle rather than a human need.

The Financial Calculus of Forever

Marriage used to be a social norm, a rite of passage as expected as graduating high school. Today, it's an economic calculation. And for many, the equation doesn't balance.

Consider the upfront costs alone. The average wedding runs $38,700, roughly equivalent to a year's salary for many young workers. That's before factoring in honeymoons, rings, or the expectation that married couples should own homes. When you're carrying student debt and paying $2,000 monthly for a one-bedroom apartment, dropping forty grand on a party feels absurd.

But the real barrier isn't wedding costs. It's everything that comes after.

Lyman Stone, a researcher at the Institute for Family Studies, cuts straight to the heart of it: "Many young men are falling behind economically." His research shows that men's relationship odds remain tightly linked to their income. In practical terms, this means women evaluate potential partners through an economic lens because they have to. Marriage functions as financial insurance, and you can't insure against poverty with someone who's already poor.

The data backs this up. Over the past 40 years, coupling declined more than twice as fast among Americans without college degrees compared to college graduates. This represents a stunning reversal of pre-1980 trends, when working-class couples married at higher rates than their educated counterparts. What changed? The economic floor fell out.

When Good Jobs Disappear, So Does Marriage

The manufacturing economy that once provided stable, well-paying jobs to men without degrees has largely vanished. Deindustrialization didn't just hollow out the Rust Belt's factories. It hollowed out the marriage market.

Today, 14% of prime-age males are out of the labor force, double the rate during the Baby Boomer generation. These aren't men who retired early or struck it rich with startups. They're casualties of an economy that increasingly rewards credentials over craftsmanship, software skills over skilled trades.

The wage stagnation is brutal. While college graduates saw their earnings double over recent decades, non-college men's incomes flatlined. Immigration also played a role, reducing wages for the least-skilled workers by 6.3% short-term and 3.1% long-term, according to Harvard economist George Borjas.

This isn't about blame. It's about acknowledging that when young men can't earn enough to support themselves, much less contribute to a household, they're considered unmarriageable. And they know it. The stigma of economic failure keeps many men single not by choice but by shame.

The Housing Crisis That Changed Everything

If wage stagnation laid the groundwork for marriage decline, the housing crisis cemented it.

Housing affordability ranks as a top limiting factor for families wanting children, according to the American Compass Home Building Survey. Forty-five percent of married women report unmet fertility goals, with housing costs frequently cited as the culprit. If people who are already married can't afford kids because of housing, how are unmarried couples supposed to see marriage as feasible?

The median home price has soared while wages stagnated, creating an affordability gap unprecedented in modern American history. In major metros, entry-level homes require dual six-figure incomes. For couples in their twenties juggling rent and student loans, homeownership feels like a fantasy. And without the stability of owning a home, marriage and children feel irresponsible.

Single-family home with For Sale sign representing housing affordability challenges for young couples
With median home prices at $404,400 and down payments averaging $55,500, homeownership remains out of reach for many young adults.

This creates a vicious cycle. Couples delay marriage until they're financially stable. Financial stability requires homeownership. Homeownership requires savings they can't accumulate while paying rent. Meanwhile, biological clocks tick, fertility declines, and the window for family planning narrows.

The Student Debt Anchor

Student loans function as an invisible third party in modern relationships, shaping decisions long before couples walk down the aisle.

Americans collectively owe trillions in student debt, with Millennials and Gen Z carrying the heaviest burdens. For many, monthly payments rival rent. This debt doesn't just delay marriage. It fundamentally alters the risk-benefit analysis.

When you marry, you don't just commit to a person. You commit to their financial situation. If your partner carries $80,000 in student loans, that becomes your shared reality. Income-driven repayment plans calculate payments based on household income, meaning your earnings could increase their monthly obligation. Some couples deliberately delay marriage to avoid this financial entanglement.

The psychological toll matters too. Debt creates stress, and financial stress ranks as a leading cause of relationship conflict. Couples dealing with loan payments often postpone major life decisions. First comes debt payoff. Then comes financial stability. Then, maybe, comes marriage. By the time they've climbed out of debt, they're often in their thirties, facing age-related fertility challenges if they want children.

Cohabitation: The Rational Alternative?

Faced with economic headwinds, many couples choose cohabitation over marriage. Why wouldn't they? Living together provides companionship, shared expenses, and flexibility without the legal and financial commitments of marriage.

The shift from marriage to cohabitation has accelerated dramatically. For couples struggling financially, it makes logical sense. Rent split between two people costs less than two separate apartments. There's no wedding to fund, no legal obligations if things don't work out.

But cohabitation lacks the legal protections marriage provides. Unmarried partners have limited rights regarding property, inheritance, medical decisions, and child custody. If the relationship ends, there's no formal division of assets. If one partner dies, the other may have no legal claim to shared property. These aren't hypotheticals. They're risks couples accept, often without fully understanding the implications.

Some couples draft cohabitation agreements to address these gaps, but most don't. They're too busy navigating immediate financial pressures to worry about legal protections for hypothetical future scenarios.

The Tax Penalty Paradox

American tax policy sends mixed signals about marriage. Some couples save money filing jointly. Others face the dreaded marriage penalty, where their combined tax burden exceeds what they'd pay as two single filers.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced marriage penalties for many couples, but high-income dual-earner pairs can still pay significantly more married than single. For couples earning similar salaries, the penalty creates a literal financial disincentive to marry. Why pay thousands extra in taxes for a legal status that provides benefits you don't need?

On the flip side, married couples can access employer health insurance benefits more easily, with 93% of employers offering coverage to spouses. There's also a marriage wage premium, with married men earning roughly 15% more than never-married men. Whether that's correlation or causation remains debated, but the economic benefits exist.

The problem is tax policy assumes a 1950s model where one spouse earns most household income. Modern couples, where both partners work and earn similar amounts, often find the tax code punishes rather than rewards their marriage.

Gender Dynamics in Economic Decline

The marriage crisis isn't gender-neutral. It hits men and women differently, creating tensions that further complicate relationship formation.

Women's economic expectations have risen alongside their educational attainment and career opportunities. That's progress, full stop. But it creates mismatch problems when women outnumber men in college graduation and increasingly out-earn their male peers. Not because women shouldn't succeed, but because traditional relationship patterns haven't caught up.

Two professionals shaking hands in office representing dual-income partnership and career stability
Dual-earner households earn median incomes of $135,000-$145,000, but face unique tax penalties and work-family conflicts.

Research shows women still tend to prefer partners who earn equal or higher incomes. There's nothing wrong with that preference, but it narrows the pool of "marriageable" men as male economic prospects decline. Meanwhile, men who feel economically inadequate often withdraw from the relationship market entirely.

Gender researcher Alice Evans documented declining coupling rates globally, linking the trend to women's rising expectations meeting men's falling economic fortunes. In Iran, annual marriages plummeted as young women gained access to Western media and career possibilities. Similar patterns appear across cultures.

This isn't about blaming either gender. It's recognizing that rapid economic change creates relationship market disruptions that affect everyone. When traditional gender roles around earnings collapse without new models replacing them, confusion and conflict follow.

Personal Stories: Love Delayed

Statistics tell one story. Individual lives tell another.

Sarah and Miguel met in college, graduated with honors, and moved to a coastal city for work. They're both 29 now, in love, living together. They'd like to marry and have children. But Sarah carries $65,000 in student loans from her master's degree. Miguel's rent for their one-bedroom apartment is $2,400 monthly. They're saving for a house down payment, but their savings account holds just $8,000.

"Getting married feels irresponsible until we're financially stable," Sarah explains. "But we can't get stable because everything costs too much. We're stuck."

They're not alone. A Reddit thread about student loans and marriage reveals hundreds of couples facing similar dilemmas. Should they marry and risk higher loan payments? Keep finances separate? Delay children until debt is cleared? Every option carries trade-offs.

Then there's the class divide. College-educated couples like Sarah and Miguel delay marriage but usually eventually marry. Working-class couples without degrees increasingly skip marriage altogether. They cohabit, have children, but never formalize their unions. This isn't because they value marriage less. It's because they can't afford the stability marriage traditionally represented.

Policy Responses: What Might Help

Recognizing marriage decline as an economic problem opens doors to policy solutions, though consensus on what works remains elusive.

Some propose tax incentives for married couples with children. The child tax credit already provides benefits, but expanding it could help offset costs. Critics argue this treats symptoms rather than causes. If people can't afford housing or education, small tax credits won't move the needle.

Housing policy offers more promise. Increasing housing supply through zoning reform would reduce costs. Nordic countries maintain relatively stable housing markets through aggressive public housing programs and tenant protections. The U.S. could learn from these models, though political will remains limited.

Student loan reform matters too. Income-driven repayment plans help, but PSLF programs (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) still penalize marriage in some cases. Reforms that calculate payments based on individual rather than household income could remove marriage disincentives.

Most fundamentally, wage growth for working-class men needs addressing. Investment in capital-intensive industries that provide high-paying jobs to workers without degrees could restore economic foundations for family formation. Infrastructure projects, manufacturing reshoring, and skilled trade apprenticeships all offer paths forward.

None of these solutions are simple. All involve trade-offs. But doing nothing guarantees continued decline.

International Perspectives: What Other Countries Show

American marriage decline isn't unique, but international comparisons reveal different approaches and outcomes.

Nordic countries maintain higher marriage and fertility rates despite similar economic development levels. Their combination of generous parental leave, affordable childcare, housing support, and strong labor protections creates environments where family formation doesn't require financial heroics. Yes, taxes are higher, but income equality is greater and social safety nets are stronger.

Japan and South Korea face even more severe marriage and fertility declines than the U.S. Toxic work cultures, gender inequality, and astronomical housing costs in major cities have pushed marriage ages above 30 and fertility rates below 1.0. Their experiences serve as warnings about what happens when economic pressures go unaddressed.

Some developing nations see marriages delayed as women gain education and economic opportunities. This represents progress, though it also creates the same mismatch problems between women's rising expectations and limited male economic prospects.

The lesson? Marriage decline stems from modernity's economic disruptions, but policy choices shape outcomes. Countries that invest in young families see better results than those that treat family formation as a private matter.

Practical Strategies for Couples

While waiting for policy solutions, couples need strategies to navigate current realities.

Financial transparency is essential. Before cohabiting or marrying, couples should fully disclose debts, credit scores, spending habits, and financial goals. Awkward conversations about money prevent worse conflicts later.

Consider cohabitation agreements. If you're living together without marrying, legal agreements can provide protections marriage would automatically confer. These documents outline property division, financial responsibilities, and what happens if you separate.

Understand tax implications. Run the numbers before marrying. If you'll face a marriage penalty, weigh it against other benefits. Sometimes strategic timing of marriage around tax years or major income changes can help.

Prioritize financial goals together. Whether it's paying off debt, saving for a house, or building an emergency fund, aligned financial goals strengthen relationships. Apps and budgeting tools can help track progress.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, ideally you'd be debt-free homeowners before marrying. But waiting for perfect financial conditions might mean waiting forever. Sometimes you have to build the life you want with the resources you have.

Consider alternatives to traditional weddings. The $38,700 average wedding cost is insane. Courthouse ceremonies followed by modest celebrations cost a fraction. The marriage matters more than the party.

The DINK Phenomenon: A Response to Economic Pressure

One emerging trend deserves attention: the rise of DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids). These married couples deliberately choose childlessness, often citing financial reasons.

DINKs typically enjoy higher disposable incomes, greater career flexibility, and fewer financial stresses than couples with children. They travel, pursue hobbies, and save for early retirement. For them, marriage without children offers optimal work-life balance.

This choice reflects rational adaptation to economic conditions where raising children costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rather than sacrifice their quality of life, DINKs opt out of parenthood. Whether this represents personal preference or economic coercion varies by couple, but the trend's growth signals that even among those who do marry, many conclude children aren't financially viable.

Looking Forward: What Comes Next

Marriage decline will likely continue until economic fundamentals change. That's not pessimism; it's pattern recognition.

Young adults today face higher education costs, worse housing affordability, and more precarious employment than their parents or grandparents. Telling them to "just get married anyway" ignores the rational economic calculations driving their decisions. They're not commitment-phobic. They're mathematically literate.

The question isn't whether people still want marriage and families. Surveys consistently show most young adults desire both. The question is whether society will create economic conditions where those desires are achievable.

This requires acknowledging that marriage isn't just a personal choice. It's embedded in economic systems that either support or undermine it. When housing costs consume 50% of income, when student debt takes decades to repay, when good jobs disappear and wages stagnate, expecting high marriage rates is like expecting crops to grow in a drought.

The path forward demands policy courage: real housing reform, student debt solutions, wage growth for working-class men, and family support programs that don't just subsidize poverty but prevent it. These aren't radical ideas. They're how other developed nations maintain family formation despite economic modernity.

Until then, individual couples will keep doing the math, running the numbers, and increasingly deciding the equation doesn't balance. You can't solve a structural economic problem with individual willpower. And calling marriage decline a crisis without addressing its economic causes is like diagnosing an illness but refusing to prescribe treatment.

The good news? Economic problems have economic solutions. The question is whether we'll muster the political will to implement them before another generation ages out of their prime family-forming years, looking back on the life they wanted but couldn't afford to build.

Latest from Each Category