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.
“Except he didn’t. His statement was conditional, and to say “we are to be married” is unconditional.”
Haha, it is wording at play here, as I don’t believe we disagree. Yes, it is we are ‘to be married’ followed by an IF-THEN. In one case, ‘yes do get married’ and in the other ‘great job, abstain’.
Sorry I lumped you in with the other comments. I missed the word ‘ordered us’ in the first post. I do see what you are saying and agree it is not some odd requirement we are forced into. If that was true, then I’d be at fault too ;)
>>So, who is brainwashing them? Who is demoralizing them?
>
> The same folks responsible for your reading comprehension skills?
There’s nothing wrong with my reading-comprehension skills, which were taught to me via my parents and not any school-system.
These questions are generally not because I don’t understand what you’re saying, but because you are making implications some of which, if exposed, undermine your own arguments or claims. (ie Socratic method.)
Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender’s point. — Wikipedia
>> Um, ever hear of risk/benefit analysis?
>
> “OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR”
>
> America’s founders weren’t risk analyzing poosies.
And you’re saying that, in general, American/secular woman are worth a man’s life, fortune, and sacred honor?
Because with the courts the way they are, a woman can make a false rape charge and get away with it, thus damaging his honor.
As the courts are, the woman can take a man’s fortune, even continuing onward for the rest of his life via alimony. (ref: umgud and 20k/yr in post #19)
And it’s a fairly well-known fact that suicide rates are relatively high for divorced men. — http://mensdivorce.com/suicide-rates-high-divorced-men/
Yawn. Which progressive New Mexico rock did you slither out from under?
RTFM and follow the instructions or suffer the cultural due penalties. It’s not that complicated.
“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.”
Of course it’s not surprising, you were trying to bait an entirely different poster with that question and apparently can’t be bothered to keep track of who you are posting to.
I didn’t lose track of who I was posting to.
As you’ve demonstrated - you can’t answer the question either.
Why is that?
Oh, come on, man! Girls these days are the best trucker-looking, beer-gutted, loser sluts any generation has been able to “hook up” with!
> Yawn. Which progressive New Mexico rock did you slither out from under?
LOL — That’s funny, because I might be even less ‘progressive’ than you.
> RTFM and follow the instructions or suffer the cultural due penalties. It’s not that complicated.
I never said not to read it, I never said not to follow it — but you, sir, have gone out of your way to ascribe bad faith and and insult not only me, but a whole generation as well. — Perhaps you should read James 3 & 4:11-12.
>>That’s funny, because I might be even less ‘progressive’ than you.
Yeah, and Unicorns might fart magic glitter dust.
NO SALE.
Perhaps you should read James 3 & 4:11-12.
>>Perhaps you should read James 3 & 4:11-12.
Perhaps the generation of “risk analyzing”, metrosexualized, gender fluidly trembling melleniawoosies should consider who indoctrinated them onto the path of cultural suicide that their hedonistic, non-marrying, sociobiologically unfit ilk would put this Republic on.
It wasn’t me.
> Perhaps the generation of “risk analyzing”, metrosexualized, gender fluidly trembling melleniawoosies should consider who indoctrinated them onto the path of cultural suicide that their hedonistic, non-marrying, sociobiologically unfit ilk would put this Republic on.
>
> It wasn’t me.
Let me turn the very arguments you’ve been using to denigrate that generation to your own generation:
Who put them on this path? The federal government that you’ve been involved in by your very votes for more than 30-years.
By your generation’s acquiescence to allowing that government to usurp authorities not rightfully its own; by its disregard for the strictures of the Constitution; by its abject *FAILURE* to reign unjust judges (to include the Supreme Court); by it’s acceptance of no-fault divorce (which *DIRECTLY* led to the current popular usage); by its embrace of feminism (which has made a large portion womenfolk in this country toxic; which defames & slanders motherhood and everything feminine); and by the children you’ve raised and how you’ve raised them, to include an abject and utter failure to DISCIPLE and train them, your generation is certainly responsible! — No, sir, you are NOT blameless here.
My parents were married over 50 years - as were the parents of many of my friends in the extended LEO family I grew up in.
Guess your quivering peers didn’t have those sort of role models.
The decisions you make determine your character - DEAL WITH IT.
> My parents were married over 50 years - as were the parents of many of my friends in the extended LEO family I grew up in.
>
> Guess your quivering peers didn’t have those sort of role models.
That, then, would be YOUR generation that failed to BE those sorts of role models.
You have affirmed the accusation.
> The decisions you make determine your character - DEAL WITH IT.
As do your actions your own character.
Proverbs 14:31
Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him.
Matthew 18:23-35 -— (The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant)
“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
I’ve seen nothing in you of compassion, or encouragement, or kindness towards the millennials, even though you are quick to find fault, exposing their [morally/spiritually] poor nature and proclaiming your own [self-]righteousness; why do you insult God? Why do you fail to show the very mercy you have been shown?
>>then, would be YOUR generation that failed to BE those sorts of role models.
Nope. It’s quite common for members of my social circle to have been married 30 or more years, with kids who are happily married.
Analyze that, misfit.
The subject was your GENERATION, not you social circle.
> Analyze that, misfit.
Ok; you are spiritually useless because you have no love/charity.
1 Cor 13
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
“As you’ve demonstrated - you can’t answer the question either.”
It’s not a matter of “can’t”, it’s a matter of “won’t”. I have no interest in being sidetracked to answer some question that has nothing to do with what we were discussing, just because you want to change the subject.
Boo, fricken, who.
It’s always somebody else’s fault with you rejects.
You make decisions - DEAL WITH IT.
>>It’s not a matter of “can’t”, it’s a matter of “won’t”.
Liar.
> Boo, fricken, who.
> It’s always somebody else’s fault with you rejects.
You are the one that said they weren’t raised properly (”Guess your quivering peers didn’t have those sort of role models.”), doesn’t that mean you actually agree that it *IS* somebody else’s fault?
Interesting, also, that you include me in the “rejects”.
> You make decisions - DEAL WITH IT.
Interesting, I’ve not really said anything about my own decisions on this thread, except that I am abstinent.
What part of abstinence are you against?
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.