Posted on 05/09/2017 11:20:14 AM PDT by BJ1
Last year I presented a paper called "Will Millennials Ever Get Married?" at SciPy 2015. You can see video of the talk and download the paper here.
I used data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to estimate the age at first marriage for women in the U.S., broken down by decade of birth. I found evidence that women born in the 1980s and 90s were getting married later than previous cohorts, and I generated projections that suggest they are on track to stay unmarried at substantially higher rates.
Yesterday the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) released a new batch of data from surveys conducted in 2013-2015. I downloaded it and updated my analysis. Also, for the first time, I apply the analysis to the data from male respondents.
Women Based on a sample of 58488 women in the U.S., here are survival curves that estimate the fraction who have never been married for each birth group (women born in the 1940s, 50s, etc) at each age.
For example, the top line represents women born in the 1990s. At age 15, none of them were married; at age 24, 81% of them are still unmarried. (The survey data runs up to 2015, so the oldest respondents in this group were interviewed at age 25, but the last year contains only partial data, so the survival curve is cut off at age 24).
For women born in the 1980s, the curve goes up to age 34, at which point about 39% of them had never been married.
Two patterns are visible in this figure. Women in each successive cohort are getting married later, and a larger fraction are never getting married at all.
By making some simple projections, we can estimate the magnitude of these effects separately. I explain the methodology in the paper. The following figure shows the survival curves from the previous figure as well as projections shown in gray
These results suggest that women born in the 1980s and 1990s are not just getting married later; they are on pace to stay unmarried at rates substantially higher than previous cohorts. In particular, women born in the 1980s seem to have leveled off; very few of them have been married between ages 30 and 34. For women born in the 1990s, it is too early to tell whether they have started to level off.
The following figure summarizes these results by taking vertical slices through the survival curves at ages 23, 33 and 43.
In this figure the x-axis is birth cohort and the y-axis is the fraction who have never married.
1) The top line shows that the fraction of women never married by age 23 has increased from 25% for women born in the 40s to 81% for women born in the 90s.
2) The fraction of women unmarried at age 33 has increased from 9% for women born in the 40s to 38% for women born in the 80s, and is projected to be 47% for women born in the 90s.
3) The fraction of women unmarried at age 43 has increased from 8% for women born in the 40s to 17% for women born in the 70s, and is projected to be 36% for women born in the 1990s.
These projections are based on simple assumptions, so we should not treat them as precise predictions, but they are not as naive as a simple straight-line extrapolations of past trends.
Men The results for men are similar but less extreme. Here are the estimated survival curves based on a sample of 24652 men in the U.S. The gray areas show 90% confidence intervals for the estimates due to sampling error.
1) At age 23, the fraction of men who have never married has increased from 66% for men born in the 50s to 88% for men born in the 90s.
2) At age 33, the fraction of unmarried men has increased from 27% to 44%, and is projected to go to 50%.
3) At age 43, the fraction of unmarried men is almost unchanged for men born in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but is projected to increase to 30% for men born in the 1990s.
Methodology The NSFG is intended to be representative of the adult U.S. population, but it uses stratified sampling to systematically oversample certain subpopulations, including teenagers and racial minorities. My analysis takes this design into account (by weighted resampling) to generate results that are representative of the population.
The survival curves are computed by Kaplan-Meier estimation, with confidence intervals computed by resampling. Missing values are filled by random choice from valid values, so the confidence intervals represent variability due to missing values as well as sampling.
To generate projections, we might consider two factors:
1) If people in the last two cohorts are postponing marriage, we might expect their marriage rates to increase or decrease more slowly.
2) If we extrapolate the trends, we might expect marriage rates to continue to fall or fall faster.
I used an alternative between these extremes: I assume that the hazard function from the previous generation will apply to the next. This takes into account the possibility of delayed marriage (since there are more unmarried people "at risk" in the projections), but it also assumes a degree of regression to past norms. In that sense, the projections are probably conservative; that is, they probably underestimate how different the last two cohorts will be from their predecessors.
This may come as a shock to you, but it seems Christ expected humans to behave differently from animals.
Also, social creatures have mechanisms for optimizing reproductive fitness - which precludes “humping anything they can corner”.
“Yea I tend to care about all Americans. :) Call me silly that way. But you focus on yourself. Sounds like you’re good at it :)”
I’ll take good care of the ones who are on my side. I appreciate the ad hominem, though! :)
Another obvious reason in these days of sexual revolution:
Why would you buy the cow if you get the milk for free?
I was talking to some older men a while back. They told me that back in their day, they were eager to get married, in part, so that they would get to have sex.
The sex revolution has upset the dynamic of male/female interactions, in my opinion, as has contributed to lower rates of marriage, and people getting married at higher ages.
Indeed, which means you were incorrect when you tried to say Christ ordered us to get married.
>>Seriously, marriage today is really quite a risky venture on the man’s part due to just the legal conditions
And excuses are like a certain part of anatomy. Everybody has one and they all stink.
My wife and I will be celebrating our 30th anniversary.
We both RTFM.
This whole thing why younger folks are not getting married can be summed up. America, due to terrible corrupt leadership has declined in every direction for decades.
We are now seeing the results. A lot of women and men in the future will die alone. Bet the rent.
I am 28, believe in chastity until marriage, and only consider dating other Christians now. Last agnostic I gave a chance to was in the process of discovering she was a lesbian...
However, I have to admit women my age that are Biblically sound are extremely rare. I’ve always wanted to be a good husband and father.... but given the choices I have, its better I’ve stayed single.
Even millennials can’t find one they like enough to tie the knot.
Nice man-made doctrine you got there.
>>Christ ordered us
Those are your words.
What did I say?
There is another dynamic I think is being ignored.
Most millenials are flocking to the urban centers. There “seems” to be so much opportunity for careers, multiple partners, and a vast world that never ends.
Wanting to live outside a city, even in a suburb, and raise a family is just not their life-time goals. They want to be hip, live in the city, and be a hipster. Being married in a small town or suburb is just so NOT cool.
“This may come as a shock to you, but it seems Christ expected humans to behave differently from animals.”
There you go moving the goalposts again. You tried “Christ said” first, then switched to “Natural Law”, and now you’re running back to “Christ expected”.
I guess it’s tough to pick an argument and stick to it when you keep making bad arguments.
“Also, social creatures have mechanisms for optimizing reproductive fitness - which precludes “humping anything they can corner”.”
Almost all creatures balance the benefits of seeking the best mate and reproducing as often as possible, and it is generally the female that is selective, while the male is driven biologically to reproduce with as many partners as possible. There are rare exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule.
You said Christ directed us to marry. Don’t you consider Christ’s directions to be “orders”? You don’t accept His authority as Lord?
Took my daughter to watch The Smurfs last Saturday. Reserved seating, reclining leather seats. We sat down next to a mother and her 2 boys ages ~ 4 and 6. We were the only people in the row. The mother was 30-ish, tall, thin, blue-eyed with long blond hair with what appeared to be a permanent scowl. Not appealing at all and she had expensive shoes and purse. During the movie she started body flirting with me. As my daughter was sitting between us it disgusted me. I looked to the side to watch the movie to get her to turn it off. Not interested at all.
At the end of the movie, walking out her boys ran ahead. I asked the older boy how he liked the movie. He said it was ok (yeah, it’s a chick flick). The boys were muted to the point of seeming depressed. Noted. So where’s dad? At that point I figured something bad had transpired with their dad, not by accident.
So, outside walking to our car my daughter and I walk past them. As we go by I hear the older boy say to his mother “I liked it but I wish dad was here”. To which the mother responded “he doesn’t have the money to see it. That’s why he’s in jail.”
>>Nice man-made doctrine you got there. Nope: Mark 3:29 29
NIV
What’s the difference between forgiveness of sin in the body of Christ, His bride which is the Church — and permission to sin manufactured by those operating in the spirit of anti-Christ who covet and seek to defile the bride of Christ?
>>You tried “Christ said” first, then switched to “Natural Law”,
Christ, the temporal incarnation of the Creator of the Universe.
That Christ?
Who do you think defined Natural Law?
>>Don’t you consider Christ’s directions to be “orders”?
Got free will?
He gives us instructions for how to live a healthy happy life.
Is the service maintenance schedule in an automobile’s manual “orders”? No. They’re directions which, if followed, prevent problems.
>>That’s Vatican law. Not Biblical law. 1 Cor 6:15-16 15
NIV
Ex 20:14
14
"You shall not commit adultery.NIV
Prov 6:32-33
32
But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment;whoever does so destroys himself.
33
Blows and disgrace are his lot,and his shame will never be wiped away;
NIV
Matt 19:4-6 4
NIV
You seem to confuse the term “adultery” (marital infidelity) with premarital sex.
The former is indeed a sin. The latter isn’t.
So when do they grow up and settle down? Ever?
I lived in a city as a young single man. I’ve know numerous people who have lived in these trendy urban neighborhoods. But they don’t live there forever, and don’t live there once they start families.
Maybe I don’t know enough hard core trendy people???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.