Why is there a preception that singles are less productive than coupled people when research shows otherwise?

Question

progressive urban areas are marketing their cities towards profesional singles because of greater tax contributions and lower tax liabilities and achieving their desired goals.

source sited: NPR radio program called "Smart City"

Answer 1

When discussing a comparison of productivity between two groups, probably we should confine the comparison along some boundary to prevent an endless argument over conflicting but valid research results.
In a firm, rule of thumb is to hire young people who own a house. They seem to be better able to be induced into working the 60-70 hour/week traps than members of couples, especially couples with kids.
However, when looking at productivity in terms a developed society at large, the trend is to induce people towards getting married and having kids since population involution is beginning to raise its head as a real problem in Japan and some of western Europe. China is also extremely vulnerable to this. In terms of national productivity, population replenishment is important, not measurable in immediate GDP, but is measurable and does eventually reflect in national productivity.
There are also valid studies, that often show up in the Wall Street Journal and CBS Marketwatch, that show a clear wealth accumulation advantage for married people over both singles and divorcees when controlling for age. This would indicate either that the couples are more adept at pressuring compensation from their employers than singles, but I think more likely, that couples are more able to leverage both economies of scale for costs of living and are able to avoid some of the expense that many of us experience while dating or initiating new but pointless relationships.
I agree with your point in your question, but productivity in the view you mention would be the view of employers looking to exploit individuals who are willing/able to give more time for the same amount of money. This would certainly be one clever and successful strategy to attract industry to the area as well as increase the tax base for a community.
Some might see this is as similar to the benefits to an industry of offshoring, where you are getting the same amount of time, but for less expense from your labor. Again, in the case of the singles community you get more time for same money. So, the industry will outsource to this region of cheaper labor, that tends to be young but definately not distracted by family obligations.
You would think that firms would pay their single workers more for their extra work, forget it. That work load now merely gives you the priviledge of keeping your position. Singles tend to be in junior level positions, and are increasingly promoted into higher level positions that once enjoyed 45 hour work weeks but now require the same commitment as the lower level. Now that senior management at many firms has this group to exploit they are raising their expectations for output from the individuals, even though they themselves put in nowhere near the hours in the previous decade.

Good question.

Answer 2

It is my opinion that people view members of permanent couples as being more stable and as having something to work for other than money for a music system or to go clubbing. Cool threads and an awesome car are thought to be improtant to singles as is the freedom to pack up and move as the spirit moves them. Singles are in some respects considered more frivolous than the more settled couple partner.