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--

[CzarNicky]

yep

[Hoodlum91]

We seem about the same age. I just had a discussion with some friends about this same issue, that we're waiting longer because we're the first generation to really see the effects of wide spread divorce.

And my parents are still happily married after 33 years as well.

[AdamSelene235]

The question is: Is it a rational thing?

Spot on.

[Vladiator]

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?

[Coldwater Creek]

I would suggest that you change the type of people that you associate with.

I have been married to the same man for 47 years, and all of our children have been married for over 15 years and one for 23 years.

[AdamSelene235]

Sadly, in most cases like that, it's the women engaging in the vicious behavior.

They have they greatest incentives to do so as men and women are not equals before the law. I'm sure the opposite would be true if the roles were reversed.

[Modernman]

What are you proud of? You have not yet given life to anybody nor future to our country. What pride is there in living for oneself? And, how hard is that to consider it an achievement?

Yeah. How dare someone be proud of the fact that they are a home-owning, tax-paying member of society?

[Caipirabob]

Considering the solidity (excluding discussion of overheated real-estate markets) your home is still one of your best investments. More people simply see it that way, and the properity under President Bush has permitted more people to invest in such.

[Clemenza]

I've learned not to trust many Freepers with Latin screen names.

[Pearls Before Swine]

This statistic shows that our economy has progressed and it is now easier for a person to be independent on the average wage.

... or welfare benefit, as the case may be.

[Coldwater Creek]

Well, I certainly feel that the traditional family is rational, and the only way to have a sane society.

[ExitPurgamentum]

Has it occurred to you that there is great room between pride and shame?

The poster said he was proud. I asked where pride came from.

Now, what is the relevance of what you said?

[AdamSelene235]

Yeah. How dare someone be proud of the fact that they are a home-owning, tax-paying member of society?

Well, you can't really own your home since you are only permitted the control of property so long as you fund the toxic governement kiddy indoctrination system. And most of those taxes go to social engineering not legitmate government functions such as the defense of life, liberty and property.

Both fairly shameful, actually.

[tortoise]

The question is: Is it a rational thing?

The only question one really needs to ask about most things.

[rhetorica]

Me too, and here is why I'm proud of it. It is incredibly hard in this world to not succumb to the pressure to marry simply for the sake of being married. I've seen a lot of my friends marry for this reason only and they are miserable. I could have married if I simply wanted to be married. I'm proud that I've had the strength to be true to what I know in my heart to be right. That means when and if I find the one true love, then I know it will be the right thing to marry. Everything thus far in my life tells me that it is not God's will for me to be married. So, yeah, I'm proud to be doing what is right rather than what is easy.

Besides, I think the real thrust of this argument is that there are more single households. I'd bet that has as much or more to do with seniors living longer once a spouse has passed on. That's probably where the real growth of single person households is.

[ExitPurgamentum]

Wow, conservatism has truly gone downhill.

Apparently --- judging by your remark:

I guess living for oneself is now forbidden.

Firstly, you do not differentiate between merit of doing something and one's right to do that.

And, secondly, egotism --- in contrast to individualism, self-interest and pursuit of happiness --- has never been an American virtue.

That you, a self-provclaimed conservative, do not even differentiate the two is indeed a manifestation of decline in conservative values.

[beavus]

Well, I certainly feel that the traditional family is rational, and the only way to have a sane society.

Tell that to a guy whose cheating wife legally walked off with his property, his kids, and his future earnings. Not the usual case, obviously, but more than just anecdotal.

[flashbunny]

Wow, way to be presumptuous!

"you haven't given life to anybody nor future to our country"

Like you know what he's done.

Let's see, rush limbaugh has no kids of his own, but I will wager he's done more for the future of the country than you have.

[ExitPurgamentum]

I have THREE degrees and a successful career.

That is certainly something to be proud of. Tell me, why is that, having three degrees, you do not even notice that this is irrelevant to (i) your previous post and (ii) my reply?

I have a nice pad in a great neighborhood and generally enjoy life. I have, I enjoy. So, you are telling us that YOU are at the center of your life. That is uninformative, as it has been pretty clear from your previous post. The question I asked what regarding the source of pride of living such a life.

Again, why is that, having three degrees, you do not notice that living for oneself requires not effort besides securing sustenance and pleasures. You are born unmarried and without children. To remain in that state requires no effort, sacrifice, or strength of character. Whence the pride?

[beavus]

And, secondly, egotism --- in contrast to individualism, self-interest and pursuit of happiness --- has never been an American virtue.

What a difference a "t" makes.