That's right.
Multiple generations of FAIL.
You're not even honest enough to admit what's self-evident:
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.
That's right.
Multiple generations of FAIL.
You're not even honest enough to admit what's self-evident:
Whatever, go find someone else to troll with your nonsense.
>>nonsense
Mark 10:6-12
6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'a 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8 and the two will become one flesh.'c So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."10
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
NIV
The nonsense comes from you, not from the Bible. You’re better off sticking with Bible quotes rather than your poor misinterpretations of what the Bible says.
The relationship between Christ and his bride - the Church, comes from the Word.
It’s no secret that the spirit of anti-Christ has always coveted and sought to destroy that relationship.
Which body are you a member of?
I’ve already told you I’m not answering your silly baiting questions. If you don’t have anything to add that is actually on topic, then don’t bother posting to me.
Gen 3:5 5
NIV
“Meh. Stupid Creator. What’d He know about those sorts of relationships anyhow.”
I guess you’re expressing your own thoughts here, since you obviously can’t quote me saying anything like that, or you would have. Troll harder.
Hey, quack, waddle.... marriage-despising Boogieduck!
>> You are the one that said they weren’t raised properly
>
> That’s right.
>
> Multiple generations of FAIL.
Which includes YOUR generation.
> Hey, quack, waddle.... marriage-despising Boogieduck!
Wow, you really are harsh toward everyone, aren’t you, HLPhat?
Unpeacable, ungentle, unwilling to yield, empty of mercy... are you sure you’ve been reading the manual, because your decisions on this thread are really undermining your claim.
Two Kinds of Wisdom
James 3:13-18
Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.
Hearing and Doing the Word
James 1:19-27
You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness. Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. 23 For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.
If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
Boohoo for you, Whiner.
And yet, some of us managed to do what you CAN’T.
More of your own words because you can’t quote anything from me resembling that. Keep digging your hole deeper, troll.
Proverbs 16:5
“The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.”
Take a look in the proud mirror, Boggietard.
How's that cup of FAIL workin' for ya?
Such maturity. Obviously you’re a great role model for everyone.
Tell us about the Social structure enforced by Western Lowlands Gorillas, super genius.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3551497/posts?page=94#94
Contrary to the uniformed opinion you pulled out of your arse, they don’t allow the humping of everything that moves... either.
“Tell us about the Social structure enforced by Western Lowlands Gorillas, super genius.”
I commented on “most things in nature”, all you respond with is “Western lowland gorillas”, which certainly don’t constitute “most things in nature”. In fact, monogamy is a rare strategy in nature:
“Social monogamy is relatively rare in the animal kingdom. The actual incidence of social monogamy varies greatly across different branches of the evolutionary tree. Over 90% of avian species are socially monogamous.[10][16] This stands in contrast to mammals. Only 3% of mammalian species are socially monogamous, although up to 15% of primate species are.[10][16] Social monogamy has also been observed in reptiles, fish, and insects.
Sexual monogamy is also rare among animals. Many socially monogamous species engage in extra-pair copulations, making them sexually non-monogamous. For example, while over 90% of birds are socially monogamous, “on average, 30% or more of the baby birds in any nest [are] sired by someone other than the resident male.”[17] Patricia Adair Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10% are sexually monogamous.[18]
The incidence of genetic monogamy, determined by DNA fingerprinting, varies widely across species. For a few rare species, the incidence of genetic monogamy is 100%, with all offspring genetically related to the socially monogamous pair. But genetic monogamy is strikingly low in other species. Barash and Lipton note:
The highest known frequency of extra-pair copulations are found among the fairy-wrens, lovely tropical creatures technically known as Malurus splendens and Malurus cyaneus. More than 65% of all fairy-wren chicks are fathered by males outside the supposed breeding group.[16]p. 12
Such low levels of genetic monogamy have surprised biologists and zoologists, forcing them to rethink the role of social monogamy in evolution. They can no longer assume social monogamy determines how genes are distributed in a species. The lower the rates of genetic monogamy among socially monogamous pairs, the less of a role social monogamy plays in determining how genes are distributed among offspring.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Monogamy
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.