Marriage, a thing of the past?

[Az]

Hell, our country is more religious, by far, and I still don't think that most married couples think of god...

[Zkribbler]

Re: Marriage, a thing of the past?

Originally posted by Sn00py
Any of you want to remain single throughout your life?

Well...I started out single and, as yet, have not been motivated to change. All the good women I meet nowdays are either alreay married or lesbians...or young enuf to be my daughters.

Anyone else notice the irony in that, the group that is really fighting for marriage today, are the homosexuals? Maybe, if we really want to make marriage popular, we should outlaw it for everyone.

[Patroklos]

Any of you want to remain single throughout your life?

I think that every time I break up with someone or get shot down hard. Give me a month and I am back in the game.

I do agree the dynamic is changing. I just turned 25 and I really don't mind being single. I have not had a serious relationship (lasted longer than a month or so) since I was 20 and I don't feel bad about that at all.

I do however feel that if I did find a person I connect with on the right level I will get married. I am not averse to the idea, my life is simple not bent on achieving that "goal."

[JohnT]

Re: Marriage, a thing of the past?

Originally posted by Sn00py
As I get older (I am 26), I begin to see more clearly how society is shaping, from what it once was and to what direction it appears to be heading.

Is it not true that marriage, in any culture, is a completely religious event?

Is it also not true, that 1st world countries are slowly making realisations of the truthfulness of evolution? And eventually (hopefully) the 2nd and 3rd world countries will pass through the same realisations as the 1st worlder's did.

Is it not true that many marriages that take place in westernised countries are almost purely materialistic, superficial and "trendy", all inserted into the minds by society and the media itself?

Lastly, what is happening to the younger generation?
- Single life is easier, more fun, less money problems, not tied down
And where do so many marriages these days head? Divorce, increasing every year is it not?


Surely, at some point, maybe 50 or less years from now, marriage will be only for the pure religious?


As for myself, I have completely made a 180 degree turn on how I see society's traditions. I was brought up, not just by my parents, but by people around me, school, friends, T.V., etc, that marriage is an "eventual process we all go through". Now I no longer desire a life-time partner, I have absolutely no interest in marriage at all, I now find the whole thing pathetic.

But I have one snag, I do still want to have children, and I am sure many single's will, so what will become the solution?

Any of you want to remain single throughout your life?

To answer your first question: No.

Since the rest is supposition based upon faulty premises (understanding how evolution works undermines marriage), assumptions universally made throughout the generations (these kids have it too easy!), wrong data (if divorce increased every year that people says it increased, the rate would probably be 343% by now), I can safely dismiss it.

Year........ Divorces per 1,000 population

1950 .......... 2.6
1955 .......... 2.3
1957 .......... 2.2
1960 .......... 2.2
1965 .......... 2.5
1970 .......... 3.5
1971 .......... 3.7
1972 .......... 4.0
1973 .......... 4.3
1974 .......... 4.6
1975 .......... 4.8
1976 .......... 5.0
1977 .......... 5.0
1978 .......... 5.1
1979 .......... 5.3
1980 .......... 5.2
1981 .......... 5.3
1982 .......... 5.1
1983 .......... 5.0
1984 .......... 5.0
1985 .......... 5.0
1986 .......... 4.9
1987 .......... 4.8
1988 .......... 4.8
1989 .......... 4.7
1990 .......... 4.7
1991 .......... 4.7
1992 .......... 4.8
1993 .......... 4.6
1994 .......... 4.6
1995 .......... 4.4
1996 .......... 4.3
1997 .......... 4.3
1998 .......... 4.2
1999 .......... 4.1
2000 .......... 4.2
2001 .......... 4.0

http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html

State by state breakdown: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce90_04.pdf

Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think (NYTimes article, reprinted)

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sn00py


It's amazing how you can type with your ***hole.

Except for the "don't be stupid" part, he's right.

[JohnT]

In regards to children:

There are direct, measurable financial costs that you need to be aware of so that you can raise your kid to the level of society that you wish him/her to attain. It's not certain, of course, but to increase the chances of success you have to increase the spending. Feed them cans of ravioli, let them get only school books and hand-me-downs from cousins, and they'll be on their way.

If you want your kid to be poor trash, spend about $3,000-7,000/year on them, all throughout your length of commitment (18 years, most often).

To be middle class, you're going to spend about $5,000-$20,000/year on your kid, to teach him/her the sort of things one needs to know to maintain a middle-class position and possibly break into the upper classes. Feed them well, have them take some extra-curricular activities, push them on their homework, essentially making sure they can go to State, on scholarship.

To raise a kid with upper class expectations and hungers, spend about $15,000-40,000/year on that child. Schedule their day, don't let a "learning moment" pass you by, send them to the best school within a 400 mile radius, so they can be assured of having at least a couple of Ivy League schools to choose from.

To raise an elite kid, the sky is the limit. Groton costs $37,000/year, and that's just for tuition. Food, transportation, etc will push her education costs to $50k easily. The first few years will be relatively cheap, but I would say that to raise a kid with a reasonable expectation of becoming a Senator, a CFO, or to take over the family billion-dollar business, you'd have to spend a minimum of $50,000/year.

[Asher]

I'm not sure I fully buy into the idea that the more money you spend on your kid the more successful they'll be. The more time you spend with your kid, the better they'll be.

[CrONoS]

@JohnT

You must know: Boy Named Sue by Johnny Cash. Your post make me remembering this song:

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/cash-johnny/a-boy-named-sue-2219.html

" My daddy left home when I was three
And he didn't leave much to Ma and me
Just this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze.
Now, I don't blame him cause he run and hid
But the meanest thing that he ever did
Was before he left, he went and named me 'Sue.' "
...
"And he said(the daddy): "Son, this world is rough
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough
And I know I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
So I give ya that name and I said good-bye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's that name that helped to make you strong."


You`re right about Money who help to acquire upper social class.
But...
Difficulty and obstacle help a man to be a MAN!

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Marriage, a thing of the past?

Originally posted by JohnT
Year........ Divorces per 1,000 population

1950 .......... 2.6
1955 .......... 2.3
1957 .......... 2.2
1960 .......... 2.2
1965 .......... 2.5
1970 .......... 3.5
1971 .......... 3.7
1972 .......... 4.0
1973 .......... 4.3
1974 .......... 4.6
1975 .......... 4.8
1976 .......... 5.0
1977 .......... 5.0
1978 .......... 5.1
1979 .......... 5.3
1980 .......... 5.2
1981 .......... 5.3
1982 .......... 5.1
1983 .......... 5.0
1984 .......... 5.0
1985 .......... 5.0
1986 .......... 4.9
1987 .......... 4.8
1988 .......... 4.8
1989 .......... 4.7
1990 .......... 4.7
1991 .......... 4.7
1992 .......... 4.8
1993 .......... 4.6
1994 .......... 4.6
1995 .......... 4.4
1996 .......... 4.3
1997 .......... 4.3
1998 .......... 4.2
1999 .......... 4.1
2000 .......... 4.2
2001 .......... 4.0

You have to ask yourself what proportion of the population was married over that same time period. Per capita statistics are not as important as are per marriage statistics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not sure I fully buy into the idea that the more money you spend on your kid the more successful they'll be

Yeah, and a simple analysis of "success" versus the amount spent on a child won't work either (since parental wealth helps even if it's not spent on the child). To do a proper analysis you would have to control for socioeconomic status.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Marriage, a thing of the past?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You have to ask yourself what proportion of the population was married over that same time period. Per capita statistics are not as important as are per marriage statistics.

You also have to remember the delay, in that a divorce in 2005 was likely not of a marriage in the same year.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, and a simple analysis of "success" versus the amount spent on a child won't work either (since parental wealth helps even if it's not spent on the child). To do a proper analysis you would have to control for socioeconomic status.

Which is impossible because those with a certain socioeconomic status can't afford to spend as much on their child.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not sure I fully buy into the idea that the more money you spend on your kid the more successful they'll be. The more time you spend with your kid, the better they'll be.

The more money you spend, the more opportunities you open up. It's not a 100% correlation as there are far more variables to a successful adult than that one, of course, but a child who has money spent on them, especially money budgeted for education/experience (prep school/regular trips overseas), will have a better chance of success than a child whose parents can't, or won't, buy better than rice and beans and leaves all education spending to the State.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yeah, and a simple analysis of "success" versus the amount spent on a child won't work either (since parental wealth helps even if it's not spent on the child). To do a proper analysis you would have to control for socioeconomic status.

But "socioeconomic status" is an indicator of both the ability to pay and the likelihood of the parent to understand the investment value of a directed education.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which is impossible because those with a certain socioeconomic status can't afford to spend as much on their child.

You could control somewhat. You wouldn't get a model applicable across entire range of both variables (socioeconomic status and amount spent on child), but such a model is unnecessary. The question is how much a reasonable change in amount spent on child will affect future success, all else held equal.

Very difficult question. Any methodology I can think of contains serious systematic errors/conflagations of variables.