Given the recent wringing of hands over the subject here, reading this in the print edition of the Idaho Statesman wasn't surprising. It wasn't even surprising to read the conclusions of the reported study: Divorce leads to more households. Uh, yeah, any attentive first-grade math student could have told you that. Therefore, the study goes on to conclude, divorce is bad for the planet; all those extra households using up resources and whatnot. Not surprising either.
What was surprising was that anyone would spend money on such a study. Were people actually sitting around confused saying, "You know, I wonder . . . ." Also surprising that none of the usual suspects have jumped at the chance to say, "Aha," in a moment of congratulatory self-righteousness. It is still early, though.
It's not at all surprising that divorce creates more households which in turn use more resources, just as it's not surprising that large families (of which I'm a product) use more resources; they drive bigger cars, usually have bigger homes, use more education dollars and so on. That doesn't mean that I would expect to see the government regulating the size of families anymore than I would expect to see the government telling individuals to stay married.
Of course, we should probably study that.

I would take this as a cue to look into better communal housing options for single-parent households, ones that don't depend on, say, people being married. For instance, building co-ops for single parents would bring some of the benefits of partnered child-raising, like pooling rent or child care time or time spent on household labor.
Posted by: Sara | December 04, 2007 at 03:05 PM
Much the same as polygamy, Sara. Maybe that should be studied as an alternative to divorce.
MG, I think the usual suspects are wondering how they're getting paid next month. The Statesman had posted today that Fischer was to make an announcement on IVA finances. But now the item is missing.
Posted by: Sisyphus | December 04, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Sisyphus, I've actually argued in favor of legalizing polygamy, for similar reasons... I guess.
http://f-words.blogspot.com/2006/11/downside-polygamy-upside-polygamist.html
Posted by: Sara | December 04, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Hey thanks Sara. I stuggle with polygamy in the civil rights context. My friend thought I sounded like I was dissing you. I didn't mean to.
Posted by: Sisyphus | December 04, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Sisyphus I saw the same note at the Statesman ... been wondering myself.
yet another study that makes me think, I need to start "studying" things :)
t
Posted by: theresa | December 04, 2007 at 05:57 PM