Something here that doesn't seem to make sense to me: The idea that the middle class determines relationship norms that are then followed by the working class/poorer people. I didn't see the argument for why this would be the case and I'm not sure I buy it just on its face. But ok, since he's quoting from something else perhaps he just didn't quote the argument. Assuming the claim is basically correct, that relationship norms are determined by the middle class (for example, perhaps due to middle class influence on how relationships are depicted in TV & film), then what's the explanation for poorer people following the cultural shift toward less commitment or later commitment (the stuff about "as long as they are not married, it is acceptable for either partner to walk away at any time"), but
not copying the shift toward
having children later?
As I see it, what's happened in the middle class is that relationships don't reach the stage of full commitment until much later (walking away is considered to be normal and healthy prior to marriage, people expect to have several relationships before "settling down", etc), but having children before you've reached a committed relationship is still very much thought of as reckless and bad.
So overall I just don't really buy this part; it does not seem well supported by the rest of the piece.
Quoting the paras just as a reference for which part I'm referring to:
"The educated class decides cohabiting partnerships are just as valid and important as marriage. And they also believe it’s okay to walk away at a moment’s notice from a cohabiting relationship.
"Poor and working-class people follow suit. To the detriment of themselves and their children."