Nuclear family gets nuked by the Gen-Xers

The Australian ^ | 9/15/05 | Bernard Salt

[qam1]

THE Australian family is under attack: not from an evil outside force intent on destroying a wholesome way of life, but from a none-too-subtle shift in values between generations.

Whereas the boomers were great supporters of mum, dad and the kids, later generations of Xers and now Ys are clearly less enamoured with family life, at least in youth. If there is a place for the traditional nuclear family in modern Australia it has been relegated to the late 30s and early 40s wasteland.

In 1991, 41 per cent of all Australian households featured a traditional nuclear family. This proportion would have exceeded 50 per cent in the 1960s. In this early manifestation of the traditional family, "the kids" numbered four and upwards.

Not like today: families have slimmed to two kids at best; a single child is common.

There is now a whole generation of Ys, and increasingly of Zs, growing up as lone kids in suburban houses. There are no brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles or aunties. These kids are quite alone.

The role of the family changed dramatically in the 90s. By 2001 only 33 per cent of all Australian households contained a traditional-styled family. In one devastating decade the family yielded 8 percentage points of market share to other, flashier, trendier, sexier households such as singles and couples.

Gen Xers didn't want to be stuck with a permanent partner and kids. They wanted to flit from relationship to relationship, job to job, home to apartment and then back to home, or from Australia to London and back.

Xers wanted to "discover themselves"; doing the daggy family thing just didn't sit well with Xer's plans for their 20s. Xers are incredulous at the suggestion they should pair up, bunker down and reproduce by 25.

"This is a no-brainer, right? The choice is either the pursuit of a cosmopolitan and funky 20- something lifestyle or spending this time cleaning up after a two-year-old? And the upside of the second choice is what exactly?"

Well, my dear little Xers, the upside of having kids in your 20s is that you grow as a person; you discover a wonderful sense of fulfilment in caring for and raising a well adjusted child who depends on you for everything.

"Bernard, please stop it. I can't take it any more. My sides are hurting. Tell me the real reason why we should forgo earning an income and having a good time in our 20s to have children.

"You mean that's it? That was for real? Look, if previous generations were dumb enough to waste their youth doing the kid thing, so be it. But don't lay any guilt trip on us just because we are exercising options that others were too stupid to grasp. And if I wanted a wonderful sense of fulfilment, then I'd go shopping."

And so the family shrivels.

By 2011 the traditional nuclear family will make up barely 28 per cent of all Australian households.

Singles and couples will account for 28 per cent of households. By the end of this decade the traditional nuclear family will no longer be the dominant social arrangement within Australia.

This is a very different world to the childhood of boomers 40 years earlier. In that world the family ruled. The family was reflected positively on television rather than in dysfunctional parody.

A suburban three-bedroom lair was designed specifically for families. No-one questioned the logic or the sanctity of the 1960s family.

The family is projected to continue on its current downward trajectory to make up just 24 per cent of all households by 2031. Single person households at this time are expected to make up 31 per cent of households.

What will Australia look like in 2031 when almost one in three households contains a single person? And this is not the young, sexy 20-something single that blossomed in the 1990s. No, the burgeoning market for singles during the 2020s will comprise sad old lonely baby boomers whose partner has died.

If we accept that there was a cultural impact from the baby boom in the 1950s that shaped consumer demand for 50 years, then we must also accept the confronting fact that there will be a "baby bust" 70 years later in the 2020s. The former delivered and deified the family; the latter will deliver a fatal blow to a social institution wounded by the shifting values of Xers and Ys 30 years earlier.

No need for sporting fields in Australian suburbia in the 2020s, but there will be a need for social and religious clubs to stem isolation within the burbs. It is an odd fact that as Australians get older and closer to death they also get closer to God. The 2020s will see a rise in religious fervour.

The bottom line is that the family is in transition, downwards. It is little wonder that political institutions are rallying behind its demise. The stark and brutal assessment is that within half a century we will have shifted from a situation where traditional families accounted for one in two households to one in four.

There will never be another decade like the 1990s when families conceded 8 percentage points in market share. After all, if we did this in the 2020s, then by the end of that decade traditional families would make up barely 17 per cent of all households. And at that level, you would have to question the basis upon which we as a nation bring up our kids. I don't think the Australian nation would ever be happy to have the majority of our children brought up in a social institution that does not contain a mother and a father living in cohabitation.

If these are our values, then the attack on the family that started in earnest in the 1990s must slow down and grind to a halt in the 2020s. Such a shift will slow down the rate of household formation and, combined with the dying off of the baby boomers in this decade, will lead to a severe slowdown in the demand for residential property in the 2020s.

As a consequence, I reckon the property industry has one, perhaps two, boom periods to run before it hits the wall at some stage during the 2020s.

Bernard Salt is a partner with KPMG

bsalt@kpmg.com.au

[Windsong]

Who cares.

[Antoninus]

I've known plenty of engineers, programmers, and math gods who can barely tie their own shoes. Without their supporting family, they'd be living in squalid little apartments with only the mold in the fridge to keep them company.

[Nowhere Man]

I believe that government and society do have an obligation to do what they can to encourage the furtherance of the species and the country by encouraging families. The only means they have to do this is through monetary and tax policy. Would you support a movement to change those policies in ways that would support families? Would that change your mind about marriage?

Or, maybe it's too late for you, but future generations of men could be reached before it's too late.

I truly believe that the future of mankind lies with building on what we have learned and done in Western civilization. If we do not have children, all of what has been built over the centuries will be lost.

Paying women to have illegitimate children has worked - we now have LOTS of them. The sexes are perpetually angry at each other. Far too many people would rather have casual or paid sex than a true relationship.

It is sad, bad and dangerous. I would like to see it changed. Would you?

Yeah, I'm with ya. I think someone said, "is it Constutitional or not?" Well, I see it this way, if we die as a society, the Constitution will not matter one iota. The Constitution (The Magna Carta, etc.) in such a case will not even be worth an empty beer can. I was discussing this with a co-worker of mine and he made an excellent point where we need to be like the Islamists in a few ways, not like them to where they just kill but we need to be fanatical with our desire to survive as a civilization. I think where some libertarians miss the point is where they believe in the self too much and fail to see the needs for the well being of society with its complex social and support systems we depend on. I think we need to have some sort of middle ground between the individual and society, somehow we need to determine a healthy mix for both to survive and thrive as well as perserve our Civilization.

I know about mattiage, kids and all of that, I've posted a lot on that. Well, I decided to leave it to this where I will ask God for His help in guiding me to "Miss Right" or her to me. With His guidance, I have got a better job recently.

Looking back at my family history, I asked my 90 year old grandmother about some of her family and her mother had two brothers that came over. Her mother and uncles were Russian Jews. One became a union organizer for the coal mines in Pennsylvania/West Virginia and the other one was violinist who was adopted by a Jewish family in New York City. He became semi-famous and one time was charged with bigamy but was acquitted but he lost his wife over it. Some years passed, he got his life together, was well to do, and when he 45 or 50 (back in the 1930's), the story she told me was where he married a young girl, 16 to 20 years old (my grandmother is not sure), had some children and just lived a quiet life. I know the Jewish community then was very tightly organized and many times whole families would help each other hitch up single people, David Sarnoff, who founded RCA and NBC, got his wife through similar means. Well, the metaphor is that if someone like my great uncle above and more contemporary, Bill O'Reilly (he's in his 50's and has small children IIRC), then there is hope for me. B-) I'm looking for more info to verify parts of the story, especially the time he was a semi-famous violinist.

We need to re-learn the cohesion we had as a society and dump all this political correctness as well as turn to God more, otherwise our survival will be compromised in the long run.

BTW, I still enjoy those Victorian links you sent me. B-)

[Antoninus]

My father was quite alright, and there is nothing about his work that caused any dysfunction -- in my estimation he did a pretty good job actually. If there was a division of loyalty, he managed it pretty well such that it was kept below the noise floor from my perspective. Your presumption is incorrect.

Then clearly, any disaffection you feel toward the traditional family is a failing on your part, rather than his. A father can do a perfect job raising his children, but in the end, they have free will to reject what he's taught them.

[Antoninus]

I'm hearing bagpipes

Let him poll my group--traditional Catholics--and see what the divorce rate is. If it's over 10%, I'll be utterly shocked. Among my immediate family and friends, I didn't know anyone who was divorced until I was in my teens. And then it was invariably the people who took the Faith the least seriously--if at all.

[Rca2000]

"It's all part of the big plan".

[Gabz]

I see that your answer to my question is YES. Fine by me.

FWIW - I finsihed algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus I and II, chemistry and physics by the time I was 16. I turn 45 next week and not a single one of those subjects ever helped me earn a living.

[AdamSelene235]

It bugs me when the products of our mass schooling system say things like "I not interested in math and don't like it". This is as anti-intellectual as saying I've never been interested in learning to read. Fine, education isn't for everyone.

English may be the language of America, but math is the language of nature. An educated person can not more reject mathematics than logger can reject chainsaws.

Granted there are some high functioning autistics out there who are good at math and nothing else. I'm not holding them up as an educational ideal.

[AdamSelene235]

not a single one of those subjects ever helped me earn a living.

The purpose of cultivating Intellect is not to earn a living, although this is often a desirable byproduct of education.

[Gabz]

Until I was in my 20s the only people I knew that were divorced were Catholics.....and I was raised Catholic. Until I was in my 20s I lived in NYC and primarily only knew Catholics.......20+ years later, the divorce rate among the Catholics I now know is far above 10%.........heck, of my graduating class from an all girl Catholic High School more that 50% of us had been divorced at least once or only recently married at our 20th class reunion.

[Gabz]

The purpose of cultivating Intellect is not to earn a living, although this is often a desirable byproduct of education.

Totally different position than your comments or quotes you provide. Which is it?

[AdamSelene235]

There are people that are not very good at mathematics, and have no interest in it, so what is your point? Are you saying those without math aptitude should not have an education?

I think that many if not most subjects can be pursued auto-didactically after age 14 with the exception of the sciences.

Blake didn't learn to write poetry sitting in English 4121. History can be pursued by any literate individual. Alexander Hamilton learned more about economics working as a teen in a commodity house and as a young man reading in between battles than Greenspan will ever know or rather act upon.

The point of early instruction should be to create independent thinkers who can teach themselves.

[AdamSelene235]

Reviewed my comments, fail to see any contradiction.

[Melas]

Most sources seem to agree that divorce among American, emphasis on American, Catholics is between 20% and 25%.

[Gabz]

You quoted Heinlein ........that people unable to cope with mathemattics are subhuman.......

I did all the maths and sciences - hated them all and have had no use for them in my professional career.

My 7yo is currently bouncing between going into marine science or becoming a veteranarian. I don't discourage her in the least, at her age I wanted to be a marine bioligist/oceanographer. By the time I was 14/15 I realized neither was for me because of my shortcomings in science and math.

Interestingly enough, after I got out of radio my favorite clients were those that dealt with science or marine life

[SuziQ]

Why, thankee, hon!

[tortoise]

Then clearly, any disaffection you feel toward the traditional family is a failing on your part, rather than his.

Huh? Who said anything about me?

I don't have any disaffection for the 'traditional family' (whatever that means), I am making poignant observations that call into question some of the assertions being raised here. Some of the remedies being proposed her are as delusional as some of the ones proposed by the lefties insofar as they ignore reality. And even if I actually did have a disaffection for traditional family, it would not be a failing on my part -- that would be a non sequitur.

Not only are the schools not teaching calculus at a reasonable age, they apparently aren't teaching reasoning and first-order logic either. Feh.

[fire_eye]

It was quite early in the game, actually. Augustus Caesar actually had to pass a law against bachelorhood to encourage the lay-about Roman men to marry and have children.

That's the fact of the matter... Given the combination of education and wealth, people just stop having children - which is exactly the opposite of what's good for civilization. The wealthy and well-educated are exactly who should be having large families, while those who are too stupid or too poor to raise children, shouldn't be breeding at all.

But do we want to turn the power to regulate such things loose in the hands of a Government?

Regardless, for all our supposed intelligence we sit and watch as history repeats itself...

Any guesses as to where the big barbarian break-through will happen this time?

"Where" is the wrong question in the age of global transportation. The only question is "by whom". The entire panoply of third-world rodentiae has got its eye on us...

[fire_eye]

Not to worry, the Mexican immigrants and Muslims will more than make up for it with the two parent 6+ children household.

For my two cents, that's exactly why Bush & Co. don't try to close the borders. He and the whole Bilderberger crowd think that they can solve the depopulation problem (and believe me, they're seriously worried about it) by letting us get overrun with third-world rodents. But then, given - and it probably is a given - that it's too late for any sort of social engineering to reverse the trend toward extinction of the Europid core of this civilization, what other choice is there?

Europeans are on the way to extinction as is their culture and civilisation all over the planet.

True... but we will not go quietly. As always, the degeneration will proceed until the civilized world has its back to the wall, because like all humans the Europids will not be willing to believe the worst until it actually happens.

Then, the skinheads and neo-Nazis will get their much-heralded race war - but contrary to their expectations, they will *not* like it...

[LibertarianInExile]

"I am not signed up with any kind of government assistance - something I pride myself on."

Really? Did you pay your taxes without claiming two kids? Did you take free schooling for them? Stop by the library with them recently? Take them to the county pool? Use those neighborhood parks or athletic fields? I would bet the answer is yes to more than one of those questions.

You people slay me. You're all ready to bitch about high taxes nominally only caused by 'welfare moms' and 'pork,' but when it comes to your own entitlement programs, they're just 'what government ought to pay for,' and it's sacrilege for anyone to call you out for utilizing government for your own ends. You want condescending commentary? How about I just take it to the next level, and let you know you're obviously a pompous Pharisee who doesn't like being caught at it!?!?