The human economic unit is the household

Much about human beings only makes sense when we accept that the natural economic unit is the household. True, that can come in different forms - nuclear or extended for example - but such varied things as the female pelvis and babies’ head size, the very long period of childhood helplessness, pair bonding and so on only do make sense when considered as a whole. This is not to be normative, merely positive:

Close to a third of single parents have resorted to skipping meals to make ends meet because of rising food costs, according to research revealing the household types worst hit by the cost of living crisis.

Three in 10 single parent households surveyed said they had missed meals as a consequence of runaway food prices. That compared with one in seven parents in couples and an overall figure of 14% in the poll by the consumer group Which?

The norm these days (as very distinct from normative) is for a dual earner household. A dual earner household will be in a better financial position than a single earner one, other things being equal.

Please note that we are not commenting upon the level of hunger Which? claims to have uncovered - just on the difference between singles and couples.

When these sorts of numbers are flaunted it is usually with the at least implicit insistence that something must be done about this difference. At which point, well, why?

Given that we are liberals we’re just fine with people deciding to live their lives as they wish. But also given that we’re liberals we think we’d like to see rather more justification than we get about why the outcome of those choices must be equalised. After all, all choices are trade offs, aren’t they.