Economics marriage benefit question?

[Julienne B]

Studies show that married men on average earn more income than unmarried men of the same age and education level. Why must we be cautious in concluding that marriage is the cause and higher income the effect?

[BLAAAAH!]

i dont know i only answered this question because it has been 10 minutes and noone else has answered it and i want 10 points

[Warren]

As with any observable effect, one has to be cautious as to whether a correlated fact is casual or causal.

In this example, it might be that employers view married male employees as more stable, and hence more desirable, than unmarried ones. Or, there could be a subconscious or conscious perception that a married man has more expenses than a bachelor and so somehow deserves higher remuneration.

I don't know if these explanations are accurate, but they do respond to your query as to why we must be cautious.

[SoCalBoy]

Correlation is not causation. The study shows that as a fact, married men earn more than unmarried men. There are an infinite number of variables that could explain the income disparity between the two groups. One can not say with 100% confidence or a correlation factor of 1.0 that marriage is the single and sole factor in causing married men to have higher incomes than unmarried men.

For example, in a Darwinian sense, perhaps men who earn higher incomes are more intelligent, which, in turn, make them appear more attractive to women. In that case, women will flock to the higher income men or be willing to marry these men as opposed to those men with lower incomes. It makes sense that women should be attracted to men who will be able to procure the most resources for their offspring. Higher income implies higher replication and survivability values.

So the higher income may have existed BEFORE they men got married. Only after may they have gotten married because women found them more attractive because of their higher income.

Remember that the study's conclusion is a snapshot in time. It does not explain why the conclusion happened. It only makes the observation that it EXISTS.

The study's conclusion could have been caused by the opposite of my explanation above. Assume a group of men all earn the same income. Then women come in and select the few they judge to have better genes or ability to procure resources, but only after the women nag the men to death to earn more money. Then the study makes the same conclusion. That married men earn more income than unmarried men, but for a completely different explanation than the one I gave previously above.

A does not necessarily cause B.

B, could in fact, cause A.

Or, in fact. some other third party factor, C, could have caused B.

This question is classic for logic, debate, psychology, sociology, and statistics.

Correlation does NOT mean Causation.

Let us assume that A and B exist. Then can we correctly assume any one of the statements below to be true?

A -> B
B -> A
C -> B

A could cause B. But B could cause A. Or it could be a totally different factor, C, that is causing the result, B.