Yet another sign of the 4T? Along with falling levels of substance abuse and rising xenophobia, we now have this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/

Divorce at lowest level since 1970. It peaked in 1981 at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people, and is now at just 3.6.

Originally Posted by 1990

Yet another sign of the 4T? Along with falling levels of substance abuse and rising xenophobia, we now have this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/

Divorce at lowest level since 1970. It peaked in 1981 at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people, and is now at just 3.6.

Yes, another confirm. The Millies are hitting prime marraige territory now, as well.

Marriage rates are also crashing.

Originally Posted by Sharon Jayson

Divorce is on the decline in the USA, but a report to be released today suggests that may be due more to an increase in people living together than to more lasting marriages.

Couples who once might have wed and then divorced now are not marrying at all, according to The State of our Unions 2005. The annual report, which analyzes Census and other data, is issued by the National Marriage Project at New Jersey's Rutgers University.

The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement.

"Cohabitation is here to stay," says David Popenoe, a Rutgers sociology professor and report co-author. "I don't think it's good news, especially for children," he says. "As society shifts from marriage to cohabitation — which is what's happening — you have an increase in family instability."

Cohabiting couples have twice the breakup rate of married couples, the report's authors say. And in the USA, 40% bring kids into these often-shaky live-in relationships.

Originally Posted by 1990

Yet another sign of the 4T? Along with falling levels of substance abuse and rising xenophobia, we now have this.

Divorce at lowest level since 1970. It peaked in 1981 at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people, and is now at just 3.6.

I was going to post on this and found that you already had, good find.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Yes, another confirm. The Millies are hitting prime marraige territory now, as well.

Indeed the X'ers have the thankless job of yanking American culture back to stability. I too expect the millies to continue this trend, at least until late in the next awakening.

Originally Posted by Linus

Marriage rates are also crashing.

Some of this has been a long time in coming. Two of my work collegues are first wave, 1946 and 1949 cohorts, boomers. The 46'er slogged through a bad marriage until the youngest child turned 18. She proptly divorced her husband and has been living with her "new" male partner for over a decade. He too is a divorcee and the two of them never plan to marry each other.
The other story is similar. The 1949 cohort has been living with his female partner for over 20 years and neither of them have ever been married.

On a related saecular issue, the numbers of stay at home moms is rising, and older feminists decry the trend.

All of this convinces me that this theory is an excellent guide to future trends. I will add that the idea that younger generations, like the X'ers, would work to undo what they see as the worst aspects of their childhood, in this case latchkey childhoods and even worse a loss of parental comfort through divorce, is totally to be expected. As understanding of the saeculium grows, older generations will learn not to be so surprised that their children turn out so differently from themselves.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

On a related saecular issue, the numbers of stay at home moms is rising, and older feminists decry the trend.

I'm sure they think it's all a "Patriarchist conspiracy" or similar nonsense if Democratic Underground is representative of the Blue Culture Warriors...

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm sure they think it's all a "Patriarchist conspiracy" of similar sonsense if Democratic Underground is representative of the Blue Culture Warriors...

This will likely be a major fault line in the Democratic primaries next year. The old silent-boomer feminists will generate noises that sound increasingly archaic to the X'er-millie netroots, who will be focusing mostly on economic issues, including the cost of the Iraq war.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Some of this has been a long time in coming. Two of my work collegues are first wave, 1946 and 1949 cohorts, boomers. The 46'er slogged through a bad marriage until the youngest child turned 18. She proptly divorced her husband and has been living with her "new" male partner for over a decade. He too is a divorcee and the two of them never plan to marry each other.
The other story is similar. The 1949 cohort has been living with his female partner for over 20 years and neither of them have ever been married.

On a related saecular issue, the numbers of stay at home moms is rising, and older feminists decry the trend.

All of this convinces me that this theory is an excellent guide to future trends. I will add that the idea that younger generations, like the X'ers, would work to undo what they see as the worst aspects of their childhood, in this case latchkey childhoods and even worse a loss of parental comfort through divorce, is totally to be expected. As understanding of the saeculium grows, older generations will learn not to be so surprised that their children turn out so differently from themselves.

Okay, but rates of marriage aren't just declining for boomers they're declining for younger generations too, and a lot of people are not getting married but still having children. In fact nearly 40% of births are now out of wedlock. And many of these kids will be raised in single family homes. This strikes me as a consolidation of trends we've been seeing over the past four decades rather than a reversal of those trends, and a return to more traditional family arrangements.

With respect to stay at home mothers, they're concentrated among families with incomes in the top 5% (who can afford not to work), and among families in the bottom 25% of income. But what's worthy of noting here is that it is a temporary thing for a majority of families with stay at home parents (the number of stay at home fathers has also increased dramatically in recent decades even if it is still just a fraction of the number of stay at home mothers). Mothers tend to return to the workforce when their kids enter school. That's what my own mother did. Is that really the second coming of the 1950s?

Originally Posted by Linus

In fact nearly 40% of births are now out of wedlock.

That's pretty much a western trend. Europe has had a high rate of illigetimate births for a long time. America's church attendence rates have also been falling for quite a while. Again, a trend seen first in Europe.

With respect to stay at home mothers, they're concentrated among families with incomes in the top 5% (who can afford not to work), and among families in the bottom 25% of income. But what's worthy of noting here is that it is a temporary thing for a majority of families with stay at home parents (the number of stay at home fathers has also increased dramatically in recent decades even if it is still just a fraction of the number of stay at home mothers). Mothers tend to return to the workforce when their kids enter school. That's what my own mother did.

My mother worked some too after I was in school. We may see more child care by grandparents and other relatives if economics precludes a lot of families from having an able bodied adult completely out of the workforce.

Is that really the second coming of the 1950s?

One really shouldn't expect the return of the past. One who does is going to be disappointed. Yes, there will be a time when America's focus will be outer driven, but it is unlikely that the next crises will be resolved with America in such a role of being the undisputed sole world power. Again economics may lead to compromises between what many would find ideal and what will prove practical.

A lot of people think of the 1950's as being this idyllic time of strong families and widespread prosperity. To the extent that this was true, what made it true? The last 1t featured an expanding public sector, especially in education, a 91% top tax rate which narrowed the gap between the rich and poor, and a strong safety net for the family. In short, policies very different from what we have now.

I wouldn't advise trying to replecate the past 1t. However, a slightly less conformist period of outer world building starting somewhere around 2025 to 2030 would likely be remembered as a golden age later. Considering my age, I wouldn't mind going "back to the garden" in such a light.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

This will likely be a major fault line in the Democratic primaries next year. The old silent-boomer feminists will generate noises that sound increasingly archaic to the X'er-millie netroots, who will be focusing mostly on economic issues, including the cost of the Iraq war.

And the GOP primary positions will probably sound even more archaic. (Although if "the cost of the Iraq war" is the primary concern among general election voters, then the GOP needn't bother even running a candidate.)

As I observed circa 2004 regarding the whole ridiculous "gay marriage" debate: both political parties were arguing from positions that failed to recognize that the idea of marriage had already changed beyond recognition.

Originally Posted by Linus

Mothers tend to return to the workforce when their kids enter school. That's what my own mother did. Is that really the second coming of the 1950s?

My mother did as well, and worked (as a teacher) until a few years ago. We four kids (Xers all) were latchkey kids and very happy about it. And she was somebody who felt very strongly that "raising kids came first."

Originally Posted by Linus

Okay, but rates of marriage aren't just declining for boomers they're declining for younger generations too, and a lot of people are not getting married but still having children.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Linus is right when he says that this is a consolidation of pre-existing trends rather than a return to more traditional family arrangements.

Well, it *is* a return to tradition, but a much older tradition: namely, the pre-Victorian understanding that marriage was primarily an economic decision rather than a child-rearing decision.

I'm actually considering marrying again just so that my GF can have decent health benefits (she works as a contractor with virtually no bennies). We both thought we'd sworn off marriage forever. Yes, it would be a hassle if we ever split, but breakups are painful regardless.

I agree that marriage is now being looked at more for the economic issue rather than for child-rearing. For years, military personnel have been getting married to reap the increased housing allowances that marriage provides.
I have family-law clients who are getting married for the sole purpose of increasing health benfeits like others have pointed out on this thread.

I agree that this is not a new phenomenon. In days gone by, it was a goal to settle down with someone who could help "take care of you" but in days past, the underlying economic reasons were glossed over. Now, society has reached a point where it is not socially unacceptable to discuss the economic reasons behind a marriage. Society is more "open" to sexually open marriages (pun intended) where a couple can have the insurance/economic benefits of a stable marriage, but the extra-curricular benefits to being sexually active with other people. Entire websites are devoted to this lifestyle.
Once again, we see a new twist to an old story. 13ers don't want to live under the false pretences of their parents' generation. The practical solution is to get married, get the economic benefits, but then live your life in the manner you see fit with no false expectations when it comes to love or sexual commitment. Hence the divorce rate is down because there is no reason to leave a situation that is the best of both worlds. A standard 13er practical response to a perceived "problem."
(I am not a part of this crowd, but I know some 13ers who are and make it work).

My ex has chosen not to marry his GF for economic reasons. Both are disabled. My ex enjoys a Federal Government pension plus government insurance and Social Security disability payments. His GF, also disabled, with a shorter work history, subsists on Social Security's Supplemental Security Income, which gives her an income roughly at the poverty line. She also receives Medicaid and Section 8 housing vouchers. Combined, their income is tight, but they can afford a few frills.

My ex converted one bedrooms in his house to a kitchenette and built a separate entrance, and rents that part of his house to his GF. Were they to marry, my ex's GF would probably lose her SSI and definitely would lose her subsidies, so it would be ruinous for them to marry.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My ex converted one bedrooms in his house to a kitchenette and built a separate entrance, and rents that part of his house to his GF. Were they to marry, my ex's GF would probably lose her SSI and definitely would lose her subsidies, so it would be ruinous for them to marry.

Gee's would that be considered having ur cake & eating it too! LOL

Originally Posted by wanderer

Gee's would that be considered having ur cake & eating it too! LOL

From my vantage point of enjoying a cushy GS-13 salary, I don't think it would be appropriate to condemn choices of people with poverty level income like my ex's GF who are trying to get by on a pittance.

Originally Posted by wanderer

Gee's would that be considered having ur cake & eating it too! LOL

Don't you mean "Having your ramen noodles and eating them too"?

Originally Posted by 1990

Yet another sign of the 4T? Along with falling levels of substance abuse and rising xenophobia, we now have this... Divorce at lowest level since 1970.

Hmm, gays and divorcees are aok... so long as America is adequately abusing dope, eh?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

From my vantage point of enjoying a cushy GS-13 salary, I don't think it would be appropriate to condemn choices of people with poverty level income like my ex's GF who are trying to get by on a pittance.

That wasn’t my intent, sorry if you’re offended. It wasn’t in reference to any individual set on a limited/low income,
rather men who can weasel by without commitment/marriage & use one's financial situation as an excuse. I retract my comment!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Don't you mean "Having your ramen noodles and eating them too"?

umh, last I saw Betty Crocker cake mix is only .99 cents!

Originally Posted by wanderer

men who can weasel by without commitment/marriage & use one's financial situation as an excuse. I retract my comment!

While I have no idea what circles you run in up in Canada, where I come from guys without money don't get nothin' from most women.

And the women they can get are either drunken dopeheads, ugly as medusa and most often are the latter because they are or have been the former.

Originally Posted by wanderer

umh, last I saw Betty Crocker cake mix is only .99 cents!

Oh, my! That shows you how long it's been since I've used one. That seems like an incredibly low price by today's standards.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

While I have no idea what circles you run in up in Canada, where I come from guys without money don't get nothin' from most women.

And the women they can get are either drunken dopeheads, ugly as medusa and most often are the latter because they are or have been the former.

ROLMFAO ..well, I guess it does apply here also Humm, doesn't that make women high maintenance or gold diggers than? lol

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, my! That shows you how long it's been since I've used one. That seems like an incredibly low price by today's standards.

... guess I'm a thrifty shopper. However, its been awhile since picking up an instant mix

Originally Posted by wanderer

Humm, doesn't that make women high maintenance or gold diggers than? lol

Too often it does. I'm just starting to date again myself. Back in the late 90's, I met a woman through church and thought that I would spend the rest of my life with her. In 2004 it all began to fall apart, my church our relationship and almost everything else that mattered to me.
I've recovered slowly, with romance being on the back burner. However, I met a core X'er woman a couple of months ago whose outlook is so brightly positive that she's almost a preseasonal millie. And she really seems to like me a lot.

My view of women is slowly becoming less caustic over time. But I'm not in any hurry to plan a future. Fortunately, she doesn't seem to be either. :

Originally Posted by wanderer

That wasn’t my intent, sorry if you’re offended. It wasn’t in reference to any individual set on a limited/low income,
rather men who can weasel by without commitment/marriage & use one's financial situation as an excuse. I retract my comment!

Generally speaking, my experience has been that it's women who are in fact the ones hoping to "weasel by". They choose men who aren't in a big hurry to commit (for whatever reason that may be), so that they themselves don't have to right away. Indeed, if you should meet a woman like my ex wife who wants to get married next month, I'd give her a wide berth (cut-and-paste golddigger reference here).

Speaking of exes, I just heard through the grapevine that mine just got married for the third time. That, even after putting on an extra three or four sacks of flour. The poor schmuck... I don't even know him, but I already feel his pain!