Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Divorce rates crashing







Post#1 at 05-11-2007 02:30 PM by 1990 [at Savannah, GA joined Sep 2006 #posts 1,450]
---
05-11-2007, 02:30 PM #1
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Savannah, GA
Posts
1,450

Divorce rates crashing

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.
My Turning-based Map of the World

Thanks, John Xenakis, for hosting my map

Myers-Briggs Type: INFJ







Post#2 at 05-11-2007 03:21 PM by Pink Splice [at St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us) joined Apr 2005 #posts 5,439]
---
05-11-2007, 03:21 PM #2
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us)
Posts
5,439

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
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.







Post#3 at 05-11-2007 03:45 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
05-11-2007, 03:45 PM #3
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

Marriage rates are also crashing.

Quote 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.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#4 at 05-12-2007 11:52 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-12-2007, 11:52 PM #4
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Pink Splice View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Linus View Post
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.
Last edited by herbal tee; 05-12-2007 at 11:55 PM.







Post#5 at 05-13-2007 07:31 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-13-2007, 07:31 PM #5
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
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...
Last edited by Odin; 05-13-2007 at 08:36 PM. Reason: spelling
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#6 at 05-13-2007 07:57 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-13-2007, 07:57 PM #6
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
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.







Post#7 at 05-13-2007 09:01 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
05-13-2007, 09:01 PM #7
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
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?
Last edited by Linus; 05-13-2007 at 09:20 PM.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#8 at 05-14-2007 05:45 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-14-2007, 05:45 PM #8
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by Linus View Post
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.
Last edited by herbal tee; 05-14-2007 at 05:48 PM.







Post#9 at 05-14-2007 06:43 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-14-2007, 06:43 PM #9
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
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.
Yes we did!







Post#10 at 05-14-2007 06:46 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-14-2007, 06:46 PM #10
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Linus View Post
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."
Yes we did!







Post#11 at 05-14-2007 06:51 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-14-2007, 06:51 PM #11
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Linus View Post
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.
Quote Originally Posted by Semo '75 View Post
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.
Yes we did!







Post#12 at 05-15-2007 12:47 PM by 13thGenLawyer [at Suburban MidWest joined Jan 2007 #posts 45]
---
05-15-2007, 12:47 PM #12
Join Date
Jan 2007
Location
Suburban MidWest
Posts
45

Outlook on Marriage.

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).







Post#13 at 05-15-2007 12:52 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-15-2007, 12:52 PM #13
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Marriage as an economic decision

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.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#14 at 05-18-2007 01:49 AM by wanderer [at joined Nov 2006 #posts 120]
---
05-18-2007, 01:49 AM #14
Join Date
Nov 2006
Posts
120

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
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
The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get for it, but what they become of it







Post#15 at 05-18-2007 11:22 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-18-2007, 11:22 AM #15
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#16 at 05-18-2007 04:43 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-18-2007, 04:43 PM #16
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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"?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#17 at 05-18-2007 05:16 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
05-18-2007, 05:16 PM #17
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

The Joys of Doping

Quote Originally Posted by 1990 View Post
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?







Post#18 at 05-18-2007 09:17 PM by wanderer [at joined Nov 2006 #posts 120]
---
05-18-2007, 09:17 PM #18
Join Date
Nov 2006
Posts
120

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
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!
The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get for it, but what they become of it







Post#19 at 05-18-2007 09:18 PM by wanderer [at joined Nov 2006 #posts 120]
---
05-18-2007, 09:18 PM #19
Join Date
Nov 2006
Posts
120

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
Don't you mean "Having your ramen noodles and eating them too"?
umh, last I saw Betty Crocker cake mix is only .99 cents!
The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get for it, but what they become of it







Post#20 at 05-18-2007 09:25 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-18-2007, 09:25 PM #20
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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.
Last edited by herbal tee; 05-18-2007 at 09:51 PM.







Post#21 at 05-19-2007 12:43 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
05-19-2007, 12:43 AM #21
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#22 at 05-19-2007 02:51 AM by wanderer [at joined Nov 2006 #posts 120]
---
05-19-2007, 02:51 AM #22
Join Date
Nov 2006
Posts
120

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
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
The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get for it, but what they become of it







Post#23 at 05-19-2007 02:54 AM by wanderer [at joined Nov 2006 #posts 120]
---
05-19-2007, 02:54 AM #23
Join Date
Nov 2006
Posts
120

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
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
The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get for it, but what they become of it







Post#24 at 05-19-2007 08:20 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-19-2007, 08:20 AM #24
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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. :
Last edited by herbal tee; 05-19-2007 at 08:23 AM.







Post#25 at 05-19-2007 04:11 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
05-19-2007, 04:11 PM #25
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
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!
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
-----------------------------------------