Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2014, 11:49 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 6,135,119 times
Reputation: 4719

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Surprise! Marriage is now a luxury good.


As a battle rages over the rights of gay and lesbian couples to get married, experts say the share of heterosexual Americans who are married has fallen dramatically compared to decades past. What's more, the demographics of who is walking down the aisle also have shifted substantially.


In recent years, people with a college degree have become more likely to get—and stay—married than their less educated counterparts, and those who stay married also tend to be much wealthier than unmarried adults.


"Some people have talked about marriage as a luxury good," said Susan Brown, a sociology professor at Bowling Green State University and co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research.



The class divide: Marriage as a
This view examines marriage as an outcome. The relationships examined are simple correlations. I think those that are more educated wait longer to marry and marriages tend to be more successful if the entering parties are older. Similarly, it makes sense that people who stay married tend to be wealthier as it is a natural outcome of marriage and steady households in general, especially when the majority of households today are dual income households. This is why I'm not a fan of sociology research it takes too much of a macro view of society in general and assumes micro explanations are nothing but noise (measurement error).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2014, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Fairbanks, AK
1,753 posts, read 2,884,657 times
Reputation: 1886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81 View Post
I believe a Godly husband is an essential component to form a healthy family unit. At the age of 16 and 12, boys need to learn to become men. I speak from experience being raised by a mother of four. Of course not just any guy is going to be able to fulfill this role the way it was designed.

The woman is not designed to both head and provider as well as caregiver. So as they need to take on the role of the head, they outsource critical component of caregiving to a stranger.
So at what point do you suggest I run out and get me a replacement husband? A week after my husband's death? A year? Which "critical component of caregiving" do you imagine I am outsourcing? My son is turning out to be a fine young man and my daughter is an amazing person. They both are learning that when you have a job to do, you just do it. They are both learning what a strong, independent woman looks like. They are both learning that one does not have to have a spouse in order to be happy. My husband and I had a partnership. It never was he as the head of the household and I being the care provider. I'm sorry that you don't feel your mother did a good job. I would be embarrassed to state such when she probably worked her tail off to support 4 kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,267,027 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
I can't begin to imagine what pop cultures sources you got this list from. In fact, all of the above has been effectively discounted by many credible sources. Some of the best analysis comes from Bella DePaulo, PhD, of Harvard and the University of California, who has made a sociology career of studying single people in the U.S.

Dr. DePaulo sums up refutations of your points here in an article called The Top 10 Myths About Single People. You might want to read it.
Bella DePaulo: The Top 10 Myths About Single People

One of DePaulo's most important points is about the familial and social connections single people make that married people often lack. "In two national surveys, researchers kept tabs on who was doing the helping, supporting, and staying in touch with other people. Here's what they found. Married people exchange much less help with their parents and parents-in-law combined than single people do with just their parents. It is the single people who are there for mom and dad. Singles are also the ones who are more likely to visit, call and stay in touch with their siblings. They are more likely than married people to maintain ties with friends and neighbors. So while married couples are focused primarily on each other, single people are the ones who are holding together families and communities." The author also cites extensive research that refute the notions widely quoted in the Wall Street Journal, among other places, saying married people are happier and healthier than singles.

Another book of research that supports DePaulo's findings about single people, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone, was written by Eric Klinenberg, PhD, of New York University. In studying more than 300 in-depth interviews, Dr. Klinenberg demonstrates that most single dwellers from their 20s to their 80s are deeply engaged in social and civic life. Evidence shows these people "enjoy better mental health and have more environmentally sustainable lifestyles."
The marrieds aren't focused on each other; they're focused on their children. In my own family it's the singleton who spends the most time with Mom & Dad, and the rest of us are very grateful, because we have our hands full with kids and everything that goes along with them. To paint us as socially & civically disengaged, though, is irresponsible. We're just running in different circles. Our priorities revolve around the youngest members of our families by necessity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 04:41 PM
 
Location: NNJ
15,024 posts, read 9,992,311 times
Reputation: 17149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
No, I am arguing that homosexual couplings are abnormal, as in 'outside normal'. In theory and in practice, heterosexual couples (we're not talking about sperm and egg donors here) can "have children together". Homosexual couples neither in theory or practice can "have children together". Oh yeah, there is the adoption route, and the egg (or sperm) donor route, but those are not normal. I'm not saying they are bad, just not normal.

Perhaps some day scientists will figure out how to insert the genes from the non-producing partner into the sperm or egg of the non-partner donor so that both of the homosexual partners can "have a child together". Until then, don't kid yourself that homosexual couplings will ever be considered normal under rational, and biological, thinking.
You are too hot headed to jump on the homosexuality debate that you didn't understand that parents is not necessarily the ones that provided the DNA. Whether or not homosexuality is normal or abnormal isn't the issue that I am discussing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 05:05 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 2,205,956 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent View Post
The marrieds aren't focused on each other; they're focused on their children. In my own family it's the singleton who spends the most time with Mom & Dad, and the rest of us are very grateful, because we have our hands full with kids and everything that goes along with them. To paint us as socially & civically disengaged, though, is irresponsible. We're just running in different circles. Our priorities revolve around the youngest members of our families by necessity.
Whether singles are happier or married people are is a highly subjective thing. That isn't the main point.

The point is that people run away from optional things that are heavily consequential. They want to have less and less to do with time wasters. In tough times like this, people are much more risk adverse. The more complex you make it, the less appealing it becomes. Little by little, it'll be like how companies abandoned everything. People are abandoning things they no longer put up with.

If you say these things are important, well fair enough. If you view it from a different angle, they are just blah. It's a whole lot of stuff, emotional, habits, values, finance, in-laws, judgements, where is the end?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,659 posts, read 24,789,425 times
Reputation: 18887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81 View Post
I'm sorry but this is a concocted bunch of pseudoscience with no true scientific base whatsoever. Just a bunch of people that want to embrace this behavior that are pushing an agenda distorting the evidence.


NO WHERE in nature will you see a MALE having sex with another MALE.. only Mankind..

And I think this is pretty good evidence that what the Bible says about our sin nature is true.


We didn't over time over series of failing to find the right gender finally hit a woman and get it right.. To embrace Evolution theology requires GREAT faith. Which is what the entire argument rests on ultimately.
Actually you will.

Mankind is part of nature, of course, but that isn't the only species you'll find it in. Lots of lizards, for example, are pretty indiscriminate mating with both males and females.

But again, the concept of "sin nature" is really completely concocted bunch of fairy tales. It may not even qualify as pseudoscience, but it's one of the biggest pushers of agendas out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:42 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,267,027 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
Whether singles are happier or married people are is a highly subjective thing. That isn't the main point.

The point is that people run away from optional things that are heavily consequential. They want to have less and less to do with time wasters. In tough times like this, people are much more risk adverse. The more complex you make it, the less appealing it becomes. Little by little, it'll be like how companies abandoned everything. People are abandoning things they no longer put up with.

If you say these things are important, well fair enough. If you view it from a different angle, they are just blah. It's a whole lot of stuff, emotional, habits, values, finance, in-laws, judgements, where is the end?
Interesting perspective, but I fail to understand what any of it had to do with what I wrote, which was a response to a previous poster's point about which group is more socially engaged with older family members. It had nothing at all to do with whether singles or married are happier. I wouldn't know, nor do I really care. My bed is made, so to speak, and I'm not about to abandon it. Your generation is free to do as it wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 09:11 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 2,205,956 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent View Post
Interesting perspective, but I fail to understand what any of it had to do with what I wrote, which was a response to a previous poster's point about which group is more socially engaged with older family members. It had nothing at all to do with whether singles or married are happier. I wouldn't know, nor do I really care. My bed is made, so to speak, and I'm not about to abandon it. Your generation is free to do as it wishes.
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with your previous posts.

Regarding that topic, I believe married people with children should be focused on raising their kids well. It's not an easy task. It takes incredible time and sacrifice. It is one of the most important ways of preparing for the society's future. It is understandable that they have less time doing other things.

I'm not sure singles are just more engaged with the society. Lots of singles date, play, have fun, or just stay home feeling lonely. They don't necessarily join organizations more than married couples with children. Keep in mind that married couples also engage in schools and communities through their kids. Singles are often focused on their own activities, which may or may not be much social engagement. If singles are found to engage more, well they have more time. This is ultimately difficult to determine. And what counts as social engagement? What kind of engagement and for what purpose?

And happiness has an opportunity cost. Two people both saying they are happy, but are they happy equally? We don't know as their standards are different. They could be happier in a different situation but you never know.

All in all, I don't think one can draw a conclusion that either single or married couples are happier. If this generation embrace singleton life and feel good, then they are changing ways of happiness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,869 posts, read 16,245,577 times
Reputation: 29224
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent View Post
The marrieds aren't focused on each other; they're focused on their children. In my own family it's the singleton who spends the most time with Mom & Dad, and the rest of us are very grateful, because we have our hands full with kids and everything that goes along with them. To paint us as socially & civically disengaged, though, is irresponsible. We're just running in different circles. Our priorities revolve around the youngest members of our families by necessity.
So, it's like musical chairs? Once everyone else gets married, the last single standing is "it" when it comes to care of Grandma and Grandpa? What if ALL the siblings marry? Then it's the one with the OLDEST kids? Did y'all bother to discuss this BEFORE you hooked up with spouses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2014, 07:38 AM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,267,027 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
So, it's like musical chairs? Once everyone else gets married, the last single standing is "it" when it comes to care of Grandma and Grandpa? What if ALL the siblings marry? Then it's the one with the OLDEST kids? Did y'all bother to discuss this BEFORE you hooked up with spouses?
No, we didn't discuss it. Life has just worked out this way.

The singleton is the only one who lives anywhere near our parents. Years ago, they decided independently to move away from the rest of us. It was their choice, not ours. Education, careers, and relationships then took my siblings and I to other parts of the country. The singleton eventually settled near our parents, and he spends more time with them than any of the rest of us, which makes sense given his proximity. I see my parents a couple of times a year. I see my siblings who live elsewhere very infrequently in person.

On the other side, my husband is an only. My in-laws have a very full social life, and despite living only twenty minutes away, actively exclude us. It would take a book to explain the issues, but they don't originate with us. Regardless, we are here if they want or need us. In the meantime, our lives revolve around work and children. Our civic engagement typically involves education and other youth issues, and our social lives center on neighborhood friends, youth athletics, and scouts. We are not disengaged and definitely do our part to hold our community together.

In any case, this really isn't on topic. The OP gives me the impression he doesn't really want any of it, and to tell you the truth, sometimes neither do I, but I've lived long enough to know that the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

Last edited by randomparent; 07-15-2014 at 08:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top