Challenges Facing Cohabiting Couples Differ from those of Married Couples in this Crisis
A briefing paper prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families by Amanda Miller, University of Indianapolis, and Sharon Sassler, Cornell University.
Much has been written about the challenges couples face as they adjust to “shelter in place” policies triggered by the coronavirus. A headline in The Atlantic terms the pandemic “a disaster for feminism.” Once dual-earner couples can no longer outsource their childcare, the author fears, many wives will fall back into the roles of 1950s and never find their way back into the workforce. More upbeat articles offer useful advice for couples who suddenly find themselves working from home on opposite sides of the dining room table. But most of the authors ignore the fact that many young couples facing this challenge today are not married. Among couples ages 18-24, for example nine percent are living with an unmarried partner, compared to seven percent who are married. The ratio of married to cohabiting couples grows with age, but still, there are more than 18 million cohabiting couples in America, and half of them are under age 35.
Cohabitors are different. The challenges facing cohabiting couples are often quite different from those of their married counterparts. For one thing, cohabitors tend to be less educated and to earn lower incomes. Among cohabiting couples in 2017, for example, nearly 53 percent earned $30,000 per year or less. And many cohabitors are parents; an estimated 5.8 million American children were living in cohabiting households in 2018. Almost twice as many cohabiting parents as married ones (46 percent vs. 26 percent) are low-income, earning 150 percent or less of the supplemental poverty measure.
Cohabitors, then, have all of the hallmarks of those most likely to be impacted economically. It is these young, lower-income workers who are the most likely to have lost their jobs in the most recent spate of layoffs. Those who are not among the more than 30 million people who recently lost their jobs are especially likely to be working in the low-wage positions that government officials have deemed essential – but not, evidently, essential enough to provide a living wage or the benefits of health care and paid leaves. The stress of having no safety net or facing the prospect of catching the virus at work is a different order of severity than the need to figure out who will keep the children quiet if both partners need to teleconference at the same time.
Those differences lead to different available choices. In a surprisingly large number of cases, cohabitors may have to “shelter in place” with a partner they did not want to be living with even before disaster struck. Less-educated and low-income couples tend to move in together much more rapidly than their more-educated counterparts, often to save money on housing. This increases the chance that the relationship will not work out, but it also creates cost barriers to separating. Long before the stresses associated with this pandemic, about one-in-five cohabiting couples that we interviewed said their relationship had deteriorated since moving in together, with many preferring to live apart but not able to afford to. How will those cohabitors who, in the words of one man we interviewed, “hate the sound of [his partner’s] voice” or worse, those in high conflict unions, manage to weather the next few months with no real way to escape even as reports of domestic violence have surged, with calls to some hotlines increased up to 35 percent for March as compared to April?
The rush to marriage? At the other extreme, some cohabitors may intensify their relationships more quickly than they would have otherwise. The need for stability, health insurance, emotional support and income pooling may encourage cohabitors to marry even if they have not reached a point where one or both actually feels ready to do so. Marriages (as well as cohabitations) that are hurried along by such outside forces tend to have higher rates of conflict and are more likely to end in divorce.
Adversity can sometimes make a relationship stronger, and it turns out that cohabiting couples have one potential advantage here. The demands of sheltering in place with both or one working from home will require many couples to renegotiate their traditional tasks and roles in the household. This may be easier for cohabitors to accomplish because they already share housework more equally than do their married counterparts and because they are less “locked in” to conventional notions of gender. Other research we have conducted with our colleague Dan Carlson reveals that equality in housework is now an important source of solidarity and satisfaction for couples, while lack of such sharing is an increasingly powerful source of conflict.
Protect cohabiting couples. Still, we cannot expect even the most egalitarian couples to weather this crisis alone. To protect the most vulnerable couples in America, additional interventions are needed. Low-income and working-class cohabiting individuals need financial help now, not in the 20 weeks Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggests it may take. Since cohabitors are more likely to lack a bank account than their married counterparts, they are especially likely to experience a delay in receiving stimulus checks. Cohabitors also need access to quality, affordable health care so that they do not find themselves yoked to an unsuitable partner just to access the medical care they need in the midst of a pandemic. President Trump’s decision not to reopen the Affordable Healthcare Act marketplace for a special enrollment period will be especially disadvantageous to cohabitors. Finally, for those who find themselves in the most dangerous positions, additional immediate funding for domestic violence organizations so that safe additional shelters can be set up is required.
Crises can encourage people to unite and pull together. But individuals and couples need backup. Stephanie Coontz, Director of Research at the Council on Contemporary Families, points out that “for the sake of their fellow Americans, we are asking millions of couples to forego the interactions with friends and family members that are a critical source of well-being. The least we can do is make sure we don’t stint on the social and economic supports that government can provide.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Amanda J. Miller, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, and Director of Faculty Development, University of Indianapolis. 317-788-3547 (w) 812-480-9708 (c) milleraj@uindy.edu.
Sharon Sassler, Professor, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University, 607-254-6551 (w), 607-351-4870 (c ), sharon.sassler@cornell.edu.
LINKS:
Press Release: New From CCF! Cohabiting in the Time of Covid19: The good, the bad, and the need for
support
Categories
- Committed Relationships
- Couples Conflict and Separation
- Division of Labor in Families
- Divorce
- Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
- Economic Inequality
- Family Caregiving
- Gender and Sexuality
- History and Trends on Gender
- History and Trends on Marriage and Family Life
- Marriage and Cohabitation
- Marriage and Committed Relationships
- Parenthood
- Public Policy
- Trauma and Disaster
- Work and Family
Featured Posts
Blog Archive
- October 2025 (3)
- August 2025 (1)
- April 2025 (1)
- March 2025 (9)
- February 2025 (1)
- September 2024 (1)
- May 2024 (4)
- January 2024 (1)
- November 2023 (9)
- May 2023 (3)
- April 2023 (3)
- December 2022 (1)
- October 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (1)
- September 2021 (1)
- April 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- January 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- October 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (2)
- August 2020 (5)
- July 2020 (5)
- June 2020 (2)
- May 2020 (4)
- March 2020 (3)
- February 2020 (2)
- January 2020 (2)
- October 2019 (2)
- September 2019 (9)
- May 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (1)
- May 2018 (2)
- April 2018 (1)
- February 2018 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- June 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- November 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (2)
- June 2016 (5)
- May 2016 (2)
- April 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (6)
- February 2016 (7)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (5)
- October 2015 (3)
- September 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (2)
- June 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (10)
- March 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (3)
- December 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (5)
- May 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (4)
- January 2014 (6)
- December 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (12)
- May 2013 (4)
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (10)
- August 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)