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.
Being single on purpose is a type of economics that is explored very little.
To use one word to describe singleton life, it is outsourcing.
What does it mean to have a partner, married or just in a relationship? You share duties like household errands. You give each other a back rub or a massage. You make love and satisfy each other. You take care of each other when one is sick, old, etc.
Being single means these functions are outsourced. Want sex? There is plenty of casual dating and sex out there. It is much less consequential since it can be casual or even anonymous. Errands can be done by shopping online and having stuff delivered. Home improvements and housework can be done by hiring someone. Go to a massage therapist and they are professionally trained.
Couples could also use outsourcing to reduce their hassle and stress. But they often don't. Instead they rely on each other. Being single means you either have to do it all by yourself, which can be hard, or just outsource some of it.
Right. So married people commonly make their own clothes, grow their own wheat to grind to make bread, slaughter the cows they keep for milk when they want to eat a hamburger. Uh-huh.
The family is instituted for a reason, ultimately a healthy environment to raise children. It is supposed to be a Husband with a Wife raising children. It's clear that this is the way things have been designed. When we disrupt this natural order, we are now not only destroying that family but one more peg of society to build on.
The family unit is pretty much destroyed in this country, and we are seeing the fruit of that. Government not family raises the children. Single sex increases numbers of children born out of wedlock. More single mothers trying to take care of children.. more wealth distribution to help offset the sociological problem.
The family unit is pretty much destroyed in this country, and we are seeing the fruit of that. Government not family raises the children. Single sex increases numbers of children born out of wedlock. More single mothers trying to take care of children.. more wealth distribution to help offset the sociological problem.
This^^^ And even liberal leaning researchers are saying similar things:
a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.
Now, if someone wants to be single with no kids, then I say "Fine, do what you want". But when you bring kids into the picture, I think they deserve to be born to two married parents, and the research supports the 2 parent arrangement as best in terms of how the kids turn out as adults.
This^^^ And even liberal leaning researchers are saying similar things:
a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.
Now, if someone wants to be single with no kids, then I say "Fine, do what you want". But when you bring kids into the picture, I think they deserve to be born to two married parents, and the research supports the 2 parent arrangement as best in terms of how the kids turn out as adults.
I guess this brings up the question of how do we make marriage more appealing to people? With the financial safety net that exist today, I'm not sure if getting/staying married for the kid works too often. Also, 50+ years ago there may have been a social/religious stigma toward being unwed parents, but that doesn't exist at all today. Heck, to many the whole concept of marriage now seems too traditional or a bit old-fashioned.
The family is instituted for a reason, ultimately a healthy environment to raise children. It is supposed to be a Husband with a Wife raising children. It's clear that this is the way things have been designed. When we disrupt this natural order, we are now not only destroying that family but one more peg of society to build on.
The family unit is pretty much destroyed in this country, and we are seeing the fruit of that. Government not family raises the children. Single sex increases numbers of children born out of wedlock. More single mothers trying to take care of children.. more wealth distribution to help offset the sociological problem.
I disagree on several points. It doesn't have to be a husband and a wife. What about gay parents? They can also have children.
It's an exaggeration to say that the family unit is destroyed. If you look at the vast majority of the population, not some Hollywood shows, you see the traditional American family all over. As a social liberal, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration.
Is wealth distribution a problem for people?
Last edited by Costaexpress; 07-12-2014 at 07:37 PM..
I guess this brings up the question of how do we make marriage more appealing to people? With the financial safety net that exist today, I'm not sure if getting/staying married for the kid works too often. Also, 50+ years ago there may have been a social/religious stigma toward being unwed parents, but that doesn't exist at all today. Heck, to many the whole concept of marriage now seems too traditional or a bit old-fashioned.
Not sure what would make marriage more appealing.
Keep in mind that Americans are also becoming less religious.
There are also people who experiment with groups, unconventional relationships, etc.
Meanwhile one of the leading causes of families breaking down (divorce) is money.
Current conditions, whether economic, religious, cultural, social etc., don't necessarily make it easy for a married couple to build a good environment for children. For starters, even with a stable family... no one is home (both are working). Teachers are also not treated as the respected elders of a community either even though they arguably spend more time with our children than parents.
I still believe it takes a community to raise a child..... we don't have strong communities any longer.
This^^^ And even liberal leaning researchers are saying similar things:
a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.
Now, if someone wants to be single with no kids, then I say "Fine, do what you want". But when you bring kids into the picture, I think they deserve to be born to two married parents, and the research supports the 2 parent arrangement as best in terms of how the kids turn out as adults.
What about gay couples who still can't marry? Can they not have kids?
Meanwhile one of the leading causes of families breaking down (divorce) is money.
Current conditions, whether economic, religious, cultural, social etc., don't necessarily make it easy for a married couple to build a good environment for children. For starters, even with a stable family... no one is home (both are working). Teachers are also not treated as the respected elders of a community either even though they arguably spend more time with our children than parents.
I still believe it takes a community to raise a child..... we don't have strong communities any longer.
I don't think teachers should necessarily be treated as respected "elders". They don't necessarily measure up to it age wise and intelligence wise.
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.
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.
