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.
Um, ever hear of risk/benefit analysis? That's what the 'risky' refers to in my statement, while there's possible benefit, it is far from guaranteed and, as others have observed (ref: why pay for the cow…
), a lot has been stripped away by society.
Heck, just watch this video and pay attention to the part where he gets to the topic of authority.
“I guess you wouldn’t, unless your children were of that cohort. Which mine are.”
I would so love to be pleasantly surprised. Good luck to all of us.
The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore.
So, who is brainwashing them? Who is demoralizing them?
Furthermore, why are you so lacking in compassion for them?
Wasn’t Jesus’s mission to Earth to bind up the broken[-hearted] and heal them? To proclaim freedom from captives?
And isn’t it the goal of the Christian to be like Christ?
Isaiah 61:1 — The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
Psalm 147:3 — He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.
It seems to me like you’re failing at “Rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep.” (Romans 12:15) — You’ve already admitted that they’re the victims of a great wrong, so why do you further wrong them? Nothing you’ve said about millenials has been encouraging or uplifting.
Thanks for a great summary of the society I remember in early 1960s Detroit.
$20K. Per year.
Wow
I know a lot of people who like the idea of getting married. But, you're not marrying an idea, you're marrying a person, and will be with them for the rest of your life. It has to be the right choice.
“You seem to confuse the term “adultery” (marital infidelity) with premarital sex. The former is indeed a sin. The latter isn’t.”
What? Lol, dude, have you read the Bible or are claiming to be a Christian? This is basic knowledge and saying what you said is an egregious error. Sexual immorality is what it is normally called.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
(Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves (Hebrews 13:4).
Great resource for exploring the Bible and questions of such nature: https://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html
“Indeed, which means you were incorrect when you tried to say Christ ordered us to get married.”
Wrong, absolutely wrong. In Matthew 19 Christ not only condemns homosexuality but also confirms marriage. This is because when asked by the pharisees He confirms what was written in the Old Testament. The last verse, 12, Christ states about marriage that only those that can abstain from sex should not be married, and so all others with sexual attraction should be married: “The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.” - Matt. 19: 4-6
“Mark 3:29... The Bible leaves “blaphemy against the Holy Spirit” undefined.”
Also note true, although this is not understood by most people. All you needed to do was read Mark 3:30 to find out what it means.
Matthew 12:31 states that the only unforgivable sin is that of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Mark 3:29 also states the same thing, but there is clarification in Mark 3:30: “He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’” So the sin of the Pharisees was that of accusing Jesus of being Satan. They were literally exchanging Truth for a lie (Romans 1:25).
“Christ states about marriage that only those that can abstain from sex should not be married”
You’ve just contradicted your own argument. Christ did not command everyone to get married, as you have just admitted.
“So the sin of the Pharisees was that of accusing Jesus of being Satan.”
Ah, I think you’re right there, but this is completely different than the man-made definition that was being spouted.
“Perverting forgiveness into permission - and teaching others to do so.
Good luck with that.”
Where did I do that? I think you’re confusing your posters now.
No... I never said “everyone” has to be married. I only said that Jesus did say we are to be married.
To point out what the other guy said: ‘Abstinence or Marriage, that is the choice.’ Sexual immorality is not an option God gives us which is what several have proposed on this forum.
(If he said it is everyone’s civic duty, then that is wrong.)
“Christ didn’t tell anyone to enter into the modern American legal contract known as marriage. He didn’t tell anyone to get a license from the state. Stand up with a woman you love on front of a holy man. Mumble promises, be faithful. Love her. Have kids. But skip the American legalism known as marriage.”
Whereas I used to agree with that sentiment in my early 20s, I don’t so much now in my late 20s. Its true, I don’t like the meddling US government, bloated federal power, or the way women can destroy your life.... but as Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” If we want our marriage to be valid, don’t we still need to follow the laws we are under?
Food for thought: Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:11-25, Mark 12:13-17
>>So, who is brainwashing them? Who is demoralizing them?
The same folks responsible for your reading comprehension skills?
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?
>>Um, ever hear of risk/benefit analysis?
“OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR”
America’s founders weren’t risk analyzing poosies.
“No... I never said “everyone” has to be married. I only said that Jesus did say we are to be married.”
Except he didn’t. His statement was conditional, and to say “we are to be married” is unconditional.
“Sexual immorality is not an option God gives us which is what several have proposed on this forum.”
I haven’t said that, so leave me out of it.
I’m not really interested in this question you keep spamming the thread with. You originally were spamming some other poster with it and now decided to start spamming me with it for some reason, but I’m not taking your bait.
>>Almost all creatures balance the benefits of seeking the best mate and reproducing as often as possible
Actually what they balance is relative fitness of reproductive strategies.
The reproductive strategy of higher primates is governed by social structure - with a social investment of reproductive resources in offspring.
Quite amusing to observe the females in a troupe of Western Lowlands Gorillas alert the silver back when an adolescent male is attempting to dip his wick without permission.
In the context of the social order prescribed for humanity, it’s not surprising you’re unable/unwilling to articulate the difference between permission and forgiveness.
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.