More people are staying single but is it bad for the economy?

It results in negative externalities but liberty is more important

- ALLISON SCHRAGER

was having a conversation recently about the future of wealth—what can I say, I am an economist—when I heard an argument that was so retro I thought it was 1982: America should revive the stigma against being single. As a single person, my first reaction was indignation. Then, after a few moments, another thought occurred to me: Maybe that's not a terrible idea.

Americans are not marrying as much as they did. In some ways that reflects a more liberated society in which people can live the lives they want, with no judgment. But the rise in singleness—as distinct from unmarried live-ins—is creating what economists call a negative externality.

Personally, if I must endure some cost to being single, I would prefer the disapproval of society over being taxed. It'll be more cost-effective. But I am getting ahead of myself. The question of whether singlehood needs to be stigmatized, and if so how, depends on why more people are unpartnered in the first place.

One popular theory is that men have become less compelling to women. The sexual revolution and shift to a more service-oriented economy resulted in a rise in stature for women: They have more education and better-paid jobs, while many men are struggling. Women find these guys unappealing, the theory goes, and see singlehood as a better alternative. But "men are unappealing," true as it may often be, is not enough of a reason to not get married.