The NY Times highlights that the 1% have graduate degrees and posits that hard work is why they have risen so high. For a low price, it is also willing to tell you where you stand in your geographical location’s household income distribution. As I read the article, I remembered the first paper that my wife and I wrote together. Back in 2000, we published our paper on power-couples. The NY Times reports a household income of roughly $400,000 is required to be in the vaunted top 1%. If there is positive matching in the labor market, then two working $200,000 earners equals a 1% household. How much of the rise in household income inequality is due to the combined rise of women’s rising labor force participation and positive assortment (Ivy League weddings) in the marriage market? Here are some facts about “ever married” as a function of education. I’m having trouble finding the facts concerning what % of people of different ages are currently married as a function of education. The rise in the returns to skill, the migration of the skilled to the Superstar Cities and the pairing of these stars, and the decline in the propensity to be married at any point in time have all played a role in generating the household facts we now see. So, if we outlawed marriage and every married household became two single people, how much would inequality decline by?