More homes in U.S. go solo [single-adult households outnumber two-parent households for first time]

Washington Times ^ | August 17, 2005 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Single-adult households have displaced two-parent families with children as the most common kind of U.S. household, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.

    The change demonstrates "the growing complexity" of American households, researchers said in a new report, "Examining American Household Composition: 1990 and 2000."

    "It's breathtaking how many people still think that the 'mom, pop and two kids' is the majority of households," said Peter Francese, the founder of American Demographics magazine.

    Nuclear-family households -- two married parents and a child -- were the most common as recently as 1990, when there were 25 million such households.

    But by 2000, nuclear-family households fell to second place, both because there were almost a half-million fewer of these type of homes and because the number of single-adult households surged past 27 million.

    Married households without children remained the third most common, with 20 million in 1990 and 22 million in 2000.

    Mr. Francese, who has studied U.S. demographic trends for 35 years, said single-adult households are continuing to grow and might even hit 34 million by the 2010 census.

--Snip--

[Mears]

God,you're only 29----take your time.

My father-in-law married at 45(to a 28 year old) and he fathered eight children.

I have a single 39 year old son who says he is using his grandfather as his role model.

[Doe Eyes]

If you willfully [if you are childless by choice] refuse to raise your own children you refuse to contribute to the survival of the society in which you live. Why at the old age you should be taken care of by the other people's children?

I take care of myself and my family, and do not demand support from the government.

Do you support euthanasia?

No

Did you notice that your political philosophy matches Karl Marx?

[A. Pole]

Did you notice that your political philosophy matches Karl Marx?

No, I did not. Could you elaborate?

[Clintonfatigued]

People who don't raise children often contribute by financially assisting relatives who do have children. Also, they often take a more active role in caring for their aging parents than those who are busy raising children of their own.

Also, not all parents are good parents. And the children of bad parents are more likely mess up their children as their parents messed them up. In that case, it's better that they not become parents at all.

Raising children is not the only way to contribute to society.

[A. Pole]

Raising children is not the only way to contribute to society.

Without raising children no society can survive. It is more important than economy, culture or politics.

[Doe Eyes]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Its from Karl Marx, and its what you are preaching.

[A. Pole]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Its from Karl Marx, and its what you are preaching.

Well, I am curious what is your rule.

[GoLightly]

Did you notice that your political philosophy matches Karl Marx?

You seem to want taxation without representation.

[GoLightly]

Chattel status of children is based on old English Common Law & that came about long, long before Marx & his theories.

[willieroe]

If this article came out ten years ago, every Republican would have been blaming Bill Clinton for the results.

But now what do we do?

Do you often post without reading the article? Let me correct two things - one, from Freeper replies, I don't see Washington politicians being blamed. Two, the article focused on Census data collected in the year 2000 and compared to date collected in the year 1990.

[Nowhere Man]

Especially that with the new free market borderless global economy having and raising children became obsolete. We can the import new generations of Americans from the Third World countries at the fraction of effort and expense.

Thanks for the ping. I think we have become too much of a selfish and consumer country that we are losing our soul and morals. I think if we lose those two, we as a society are not worth it anymore. I might sound like "Michael Savage Jr" (well, like him, I do ramble on from tangent to tangent for a long time) here but there are times that if we don't get back our soul and morals as well as the will to survive and fight, we will lose it all and we have no one to blame but our greed, avarice and sheer selfishness. We will get punished for all of this one day, much like when God punished the Israelites to the wilderness for 40 years when they went astray after Moses led them from Egypt. I think we need to find an answer on where both the rights of the individual and society meet and keep it at a happy medium.

I know myself, I haven't had the best of luck all the time economically, I'm 39, still live at home, I don't care what others think of it, despite having a target on me because of it, I'm loud and proud about it no matter what. I've always been looking for a better position jobwise and for some reason had a hard time to make it click. In recent years, I have been redicovering religion and God, well, 9-11 had a lot to do with it plus almost losing my left hand to infection along with the assaults on our morals in recent years have really shaped that. Well, that said, I just decided to take the co-pilot's seat on my journey through life, pray to God for guidance and advice as well as to help me bear my burdens and let Him take control for a while. I did get a better job soon after that and with His help and guidance I will be on the road to getting out of the funk I was in.

Getting back on topic, I do hope someday I will meet the right one and have a family. Again, I'll leave it up to God to guide my mate to me or me to her. I do understand that not everyone is set up or inclined to get married and have children, I know in a huge population, you will always have your variances when you do the math. It does seems though that as a society, we have become so selfish, callous and immoral that it has become less "family friendly."

I just think we are becoming much too selfish at large and more concerned with getting the most and best "toys" while sacrificing the future. I see it coming from many sources ranging from the proponents of homosexual marriage to supporters of things like CAFTA. I think we do need to return to our roots along with us as a society of asking God for his guidance in order to become a much better society again. If we continue down this path, our sorrows will increase as time goes on.

[A. Pole]

If this article came out ten years ago, every Republican would have been blaming Bill Clinton for the results. But now what do we do?

Don't you know? Still blaming Bill Clinton :)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

This is only so because these statistics do not count as familial households those where the children have grown up and moved away to form their own household and family.

Parents with children at home have always been a minority of total households because this period generally only lasts for 1/4 to 1/3 of a person's lifespan.

[ExitPurgamentum]

Unlike most married folks, they're not asking for handouts,

But they do. As I said in the previous post, someone else's children serve in the army that protects their freedoms, takes them out of a burning house, and serves as a policeman keeping him safe.

Not everything is money and certainly not everything revolves around taxes. You've stood up for the egotists, and that saddens me.

It's your choice how to live, of course, but its my choice to call your position spiritual poverty.

Enjoy the tax cuts.

[tortoise]

As I said in the previous post, someone else's children serve in the army that protects their freedoms, takes them out of a burning house, and serves as a policeman keeping him safe.

Non sequitur. And so blatant that it makes me wonder.

First, nobody is forcing "someone else's children" to do these things and I've certainly never asked anyone to. Second, "someone else's children" are being directly compensated, so that hardly constitutes a "handout".

That's some pretty contorted reasoning you are trying to use there. It was not charity when I served in the Army and saved people's lives, and no one owes me anything for my actions.

Your adult offspring have no obligation to you, and you do not own them. Get over it. If you are depending on the charity of your children to get on in life you are pretty pathetic case, and if you think your children are obligated as much then you are outright immoral.

[Cacique]

So while illegals settle down and have 5 + kids per couple and our "peacefull" Moose Limb brethren in America have 7 + kids per couple we are busy trying to insure our extinction. We appear to be a model for Kosovo in the 19th century and we all know how that turned out.

I expect that we will win the war in the battlefield but lose it via demographics and ideas.

[rmlew]

No disagreement Frank, but I have yet to meet your kids.

[palmer]

An alternative explanation: his women were not massive enough to attract him sufficiently.

A post of yours that was worth reading!

[Mamzelle]

Why is this study meaningful in any case? My first thought is that it reflected the aging of America with older folks living alone, and young single folks starting out. I don't see it as a rejection of marriage or children...also, do the "shacking up" crowd count here? Not to mention homosexual singles? I'll bet there are lots of two-person couples putting themselves down as single.

Children do grow up and leave home--the third most common household is the married couple w/o kids. Just please tell me that the most common household is NOT the married couple with grown children still living at home!!

[cyborg]

Someone had you. Would you call your parents morons?