[Kamikaze]

Millennials Are Causing the U.S. Divorce Rate to Plummet

The link above is a short summary of this article that is currently on a pre-print server, aka, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal just yet.

The general gist...

Millennials and Gen X-ers are divorcing at lower rates relative to baby boomers. This is controlled for age, meaning, at the ages Millennials and Gen X-ers are today, when Boomers were at this age, they were divorcing at much higher rates.

To boot, divorce rates have fallen nationally, in spite of older generations and baby boomers still divorcing at higher rates. If older generations are divorcing at high rates but national divorce rates are falling, you guessed it, younger couples are driving the national trend down.

Other interesting tidbits from the actual article:

Two of the factors most negatively correlated with divorce are being foreign-born and higher education (BA or above), specifically in the case of women, in which this study was based.

Two of the factors most positively correlated with divorce were being African American and having previous marriages ending in divorce. I.e., white, hispanic, and other races have less chance of divorce.

The question, of course, is... why? Why are divorce rates falling? In the age of tinder, I find this interesting.

Not included here is that marriage rates are also falling, although this is corrected for in the study... divorce rates are measured relative to the percentage of married couples, not total population... so in that case it makes sense. Within the married subset, divorce seems to be less attractive in the younger generations. The last few sentences are interesting.

Quote:

“One of the reasons for the decline is that the married population is getting older and more highly educated,” Cohen said. Fewer people are getting married, and those who do are the sort of people who are least likely to get divorced, he said. “Marriage is more and more an achievement of status, rather than something that people do regardless of how they’re doing.”

Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all. They’re living together, and often raising kids together, but deciding not to tie the knot. And studies have shown these cohabiting relationships are less stable than they used to be.

Fewer divorces, therefore, aren’t only bad news for matrimonial lawyers but a sign of America’s widening chasm of inequality. Marriage is becoming a more durable, but far more exclusive, institution.

Agree, disagree, hypotheses, have at it.

[JackinMelbourne]

Less people getting married means less divorce rates among those who are more serious about marriage.

[Kamikaze]

(11-29-2018 01:12 AM)JackinMelbourne Wrote:  

Less people getting married means less divorce rates among those who are more serious about marriage.

Let's dig deeper. Millennials and Gen X-ers are more serious about marriage in the age of tinder? Did you expect this trend? What do you think of the demographic of people taking marriage seriously?

Does it really make sense that there's a reduced chance of divorce, if you get married today, compared to 30 years ago?

[Caduceus]

Gay marriages which are now legal, makes comparisons with earlier times in history pointless.

Secondly, many weak cuckold beta men now tolerate (or encourage !!) their wives fucking other dudes.

Finally, I'm sure when they legalise incest & pedo marriage, and marrying animals, the divorce rates will drop to zero.

Divorce stats mean nothing when the whole defintion of marriage now means nothing. Shit, if men followed the old traditions, women shouldn't even be allowed to wear white wedding dresses, unless they were proven virgins. (Which was the original meaning of the white dress).

[MANic]

Jack pretty much hits the nail on the head. Lower marriage rates means a higher proportion of religious conservatives are present and this segment has always had a lower divorce rate.

Nothing to see here folks. I also offer a caveat in re religious conservatives. Whilst we all (rrgardless of persuasion) firmly believe in coservative values, their existence in current conservative societies does not impede dysgenic trends. What you want ideally is for a mass reversion to conservatism. The average bible-belt fucker or mormon reproducing is dysgenic regardless of the stability of their family units.

[wi30]

We are at the point where sex is no longer taboo. That means fucking/dating/co-habituating are all done naturally instead of guilt-driven, religiously-driven, or family-driven. This will obviously decrease the divorce rate because people aren't getting married because they are 'supposed to'.

(11-29-2018 01:30 AM)Caduceus Wrote:  

Gay marriages which are now legal, makes comparisons with earlier times in history pointless.

Secondly, many weak cuckold beta men now tolerate (or encourage !!) their wives fucking other dudes.

Finally, I'm sure when they legalise incest & pedo marriage, and marrying animals, the divorce rates will drop to zero.

Divorce stats mean nothing when the whole defintion of marriage now means nothing. Shit, if men followed the old traditions, women shouldn't even be allowed to wear white wedding dresses, unless they were proven virgins. (Which was the original meaning of the white dress).

This added a ton of value. Thanks for the continuous commitment to improving the forum!

[Paracelsus]

Most significant question that should be asked and isn't: how many kids are these supposedly-new-believers-in-the-bond-of-marriage having?

The age of women at marriage is higher, which tanks the birth rate. Marriage rates might be higher, but unless they're having kids, it doesn't mean jack shit. About all I can think of as the reason for this is because these generations of kids are the children who saw their parents break up at unprecedented levels in history and who think they won't be like their unsuccessful parents at marriage, they'll stay married. Not that it makes much difference, marriage without kids evidences a bond that's there primarily for selfish reasons.

Also, hypothesis: it is now so difficult to economically pick yourself up off the floor after a bad divorce that people would rather stay in the marriage than leave; they love the money and the house more than they do their partner.

[MongolianAbroad]

(11-29-2018 01:12 AM)JackinMelbourne Wrote:  

Less people getting married means less divorce rates among those who are more serious about marriage.

^^ That's it.

[TutorGuina]

Conclusion from the text:

Quote:

Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all. They’re living together, and often raising kids together, but deciding not to tie the knot. And studies have shown these cohabiting relationships are less stable than they used to be.

I agree with this conclusion, there is no incentive for people to marry anymore, could even argue for the opposite. As a result the masses won't get nudged into marriage, only those with a "vocation" for it will do it
The same idea of women being slutty but birthrates decreasing because of contraception

The Boomer generation was selfish but they still suffered some pressure from general society to live a normal life
Millenials are actively encouraged to be degenerate so only those of them with a strong conviction will be somewhat virtuous.

[nomadbrah]

Women marrying at an older age is probably the most important reason.

[Latina Hunter]

What normal man would want to marry an American or Americanized foreign woman? I certainly would not.

#ThotAudit is a perfect example of the average American girl. So many ho's in the U.S., best to avoid marriage or get a foreign (non-Americanized/Anglo) woman.

[TutorGuina]

^^ It's controlled for age, though, even if what you said is probably true.

I'm also missing statistics about the birthrates from these couples, curious about the young ones. I mean, why was marriage invented in the first place?

[JWLZG]

(11-29-2018 02:36 AM)wi30 Wrote:  

We are at the point where sex is no longer taboo. That means fucking/dating/co-habituating are all done naturally instead of guilt-driven, religiously-driven, or family-driven.

You'll find that in much of the world, outside of the USA, sex indeed hasn't traditionally been a taboo. Perhaps in fundamentalist Sunni Saudi Arabia or Confucianist societies might such taboos on sex be found to equal or greater degrees.

Call us cucks if you want, but, indeed back here in the old world are we able to demonstrate that the society is able to lack censure on such a natural and integral part of human physiology, while still maintaining order over our base instincts. The net result is much healthier and saner relationship between both sexes, and sexual maturity, not to mention an acceptance of "sin" as the natural order of things — as stemming from our Catholic tradition.
Shaming and driving a practice underground stemming from uptightness, the way Americans deal with other vices — indeed, the idea of labelling sex a vice alongside other so-called "vices" such as cannabis is reflective of such — will only serve to funnel such issues outside the bounds of a societal framework that has shunned it where it could in another reality have nurtured and supported it, and, ironically, serve to create sexual disfunction in terms of expressing and providing intimacy a.k.a. game.
...but hey, on that latter point, the moanosphere wouldn't have (((degenerate non-white leftist feminism))) to scapegoat....

[[email protected]]

These articles written by women and aliens are all the same. Always "people" "millennials" "gen-x_y" have lower rates of marriage not "women" with increasing options choosing not to marry or conceive children and opting for the strategy of Chad or hit the wall and go bust. They'll continue to dance around this issue until there's not much left of civilization and move on.

[gework]

I also think lower marriage rates are the main factor.

Take a look at the marriage rates for registered Republicans and Democrats in Maryland:

Married Democrats: 148,438
Unmarried Democrats: 363,574
41% married

Married Republicans: 424,709
Unmarried Republicans: 38,282
90% married

I believe the divorce rate for Repulicans and Democrats is about the same, though if as many Democrats married as Republicans the balance would no doubt shift.

But I think the younger generation will be more conservative. They have lived through leaner times and are going to become leaner.

We've lived in the first ever era when people could turn off reproduction and have lots of instant gratification over building long-term value - and there isn't much more long-term than family.

So I think people who would have been a bit conservative if they'd been born 20 years earlier will now become more conservative.

Then there is also the drying up of the bang market for more guys (as evidenced in other threads). Anyone who can have a lot of sex, will and those that can't will gravitate to getting one girl locked down.

We've also been living in a time where left-wing people have fewer children and there is a correlation between genes and political leanings. It's even stronger when you take into account parenting,

There's been a lot said about the fertility rates of Western countries dropping. But on a closer examiniation, it's just the left.

Maryland state fertility rate by political affiliation:

Republican = 1.99
Democrat = 1.62

Children 18 and under of voters registered to political parties:

Republican: 541,806
Democrat: 485,400

The 2016 Presidential election in Maryland saw 60% of votes for Hillary vs. 34% to Trump.

Looking at a local level -

Prince George's County, Maryland voted for Hillary 88% to Trump's 8%. Here the Democratic fertility rate is 1.22, or about 55% of replacement rate.

Garnett County, Maryland voted 77% for Trump to Hillary's 18%. Here the Republican fertility rate is 2.21.

Their desire to have children is lower and they are now making life decisions that make it increasingly likely they won't have children. But for all of history they had little choice but to procreate.



On a long enough time line the survival rate for leftists drops to zero.

[spokepoker]

I thought the study was controlled for marriage, not for overall population. So between married couples, less are getting divorced now.

[nomadbrah]

To my comment above about marrying older.

Women today have had their time to ride the carousel when they marry. Women in the past divorced specifically to do that, because they married young. That could be a reason.

[Geomann180]

Good, fuck divorce lawyers. They're all scum.

G

[Donfitz007]

As a Gen Y-er i can tell you the reason why the divorce rate is so low is because, people are fearful of being alone. In this age of constant social media, constant access to ANYBODY thru smartphones and stuff, the world has never felt more alone. People are desperate for love. beyonce gave women a sense of superiority and men feel they HAVE to be with somebody in order to be a functioning member of society.

Being a playboy or a payer is shamed while being a "slut" is promoted. Men don't want to be adventurers or heroes because they could just play video games so they have more time to sit around lonely and desperate for human interaction. Women are getting better and better at keeping lovers a secret while having multiple real relationships.

Think about all the talk of hypergamy recently on here, women have access to millions of more guys than they did even 15 years ago. These women can be extremely picky and find the perfect guy for them. Every woman no matter how ugly can be a "trophy" wife to SOME guy. So women always have the upper hand

Also, I blame MGTOW. MGTOW really became a big thing maybe 4 or so years ago. With the stories of Divorce rape and losing custody of children, already married men are now afraid to get both get married and end a marriage.


I know I was all over the place but these are my observations.

[Aurini]

(11-29-2018 01:08 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

Millennials Are Causing the U.S. Divorce Rate to Plummet

The link above is a short summary of this article that is currently on a pre-print server, aka, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal just yet.

The general gist...

Millennials and Gen X-ers are divorcing at lower rates relative to baby boomers. This is controlled for age, meaning, at the ages Millennials and Gen X-ers are today, when Boomers were at this age, they were divorcing at much higher rates.

To boot, divorce rates have fallen nationally, in spite of older generations and baby boomers still divorcing at higher rates. If older generations are divorcing at high rates but national divorce rates are falling, you guessed it, younger couples are driving the national trend down.

Other interesting tidbits from the actual article:

Two of the factors most negatively correlated with divorce are being foreign-born and higher education (BA or above), specifically in the case of women, in which this study was based.

Two of the factors most positively correlated with divorce were being African American and having previous marriages ending in divorce. I.e., white, hispanic, and other races have less chance of divorce.

The question, of course, is... why? Why are divorce rates falling? In the age of tinder, I find this interesting.

Not included here is that marriage rates are also falling, although this is corrected for in the study... divorce rates are measured relative to the percentage of married couples, not total population... so in that case it makes sense. Within the married subset, divorce seems to be less attractive in the younger generations. The last few sentences are interesting.

Quote:

“One of the reasons for the decline is that the married population is getting older and more highly educated,” Cohen said. Fewer people are getting married, and those who do are the sort of people who are least likely to get divorced, he said. “Marriage is more and more an achievement of status, rather than something that people do regardless of how they’re doing.”

Many poorer and less educated Americans are opting not to get married at all. They’re living together, and often raising kids together, but deciding not to tie the knot. And studies have shown these cohabiting relationships are less stable than they used to be.

Fewer divorces, therefore, aren’t only bad news for matrimonial lawyers but a sign of America’s widening chasm of inequality. Marriage is becoming a more durable, but far more exclusive, institution.

Agree, disagree, hypotheses, have at it.

Granted, I haven't looked at the study; but the bolded tidbits match my observations. This is not good news.

The underclass (the salt-of-the-earth, the firmament of the civilization) is abandoning marriage all together. They're still subject to the child-payments and chaos of separation, they're just not bothering to get a government license first. Single moms have all the same rights as divorced moms these days, so the women aren't pushing for it, and then men don't know what sort of standards they should hold a woman to before marrying her.

Meanwhile, the high-IQ immigrants are coming from backgrounds that A) still emphasize a traditional culture, and B) are familiar with poverty. They recognize that marriage is crucial to building wealth.

(Side note: how many of use would be richer and better off if we could have found a woman worth marrying five, ten, fifteen years ago? Two people living together are a more efficient economic unit than singletons.)

This is extremely bad news for Heritage Americans/Canadians - whatever you want to call it. The low-IQ hordes are bad enough, but given their criminal nature they eventually demand that authorities deal with them. High-IQ, high-culture immigrants, however - these will become our new rulers, and while many of them will say the words of American Patriotism, deep in their bones they're still loyal, they're still functioning on the cultural mores of a different civilization.

[scorpion]

The falling divorce rate is entirely caused by the fact that fewer people are getting married in the first place. They claim to have controlled for this by only sampling from married couples and not from the entire population, but this is obviously a flawed methodology. Due to a massive change in social norms over the past few decades there is much less pressure for people to be married. Being single used to carry a huge social stigma, today it's hardly remarkable. This means that the only people getting married today are people who really want to be married. In decades past you had many more people getting married simply due to social expectation. This means you have two very different pools of "married couples" today versus a generation or two ago. They aren't directly comparable. The old pool had a lot more weak marriages (and subsequent divorces) by people who would not have married in today's social climate. In contrast, the pool of married couples today is going to be less prone to divorce, because it contains much fewer couples who felt forced into a marriage they really didn't want simply to satisfy social norms.

In some regard we can say this is one area where the Boomer generation got shafted. They grew up in the era of free love but still faced enormous social pressure to get married from their traditionally-minded parents. And so they did. But as we all know, it's difficult to settle down and remain happily married after having been wildly sexually promiscuous in your youth. Thus it's no surprise that the Boomers as a generation had very high divorce rates. And also not surprising that in response they put less social pressure on their kids to get married.

[Kamikaze]

A lot of you are right on the money, made me think of this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015...-most.html

This is obvious in the context of this thread, but the general summary of that article is liberals are a lot less likely to get married.

What's interesting is the South. Poorer families are not marrying, while wealthy families are getting married more frequently. As the divorce article states, marriage is becoming a status marker. Given the statistics that marriage enables greater advantages to children from two-parent homes, and fatherless homes increase so many adverse outcomes in children, statistics like these I think show yet another widening gap between conservatives and liberals.

The sequence is interesting, if maybe straightforward to most of you guys here:

Marriage is good, divorce is bad for kids -> Liberals are not getting married, conservatives are -> better outcomes for conservative kids

I guess this stuff is also interesting because of the tone of this forum, which is geared towards gaming and taking advantage of this social decline. Those places least likely to get married? Some of the best player havens in the world, with the exception of DC and others.

[christpuncher]

Is this controlled for marriage length and not just age?

Of course the divorce rate of 32 year olds is down if people are getting married at 30 instead of 26.

[TutorGuina]

   

You can get the idea of all the variables they considered by this picture, except the race of the couples.

Tbh the decrease in divorce looks much lower than I expected, seems it just stabilized instead of dropping, in contrast with the generation who endured WW2, boomers and millennials look like two faces of the same degenerate coin.

[Bazzwaldo]

Maybe I'm not getting something here BUT
Doesn't this graph show divorce per 100 married over time and in this case 6.5 units of time (so lets call it years)??
So age bracket 18-34, 12% divorce after 6 years?
And 55 plus 26% divorce after 6 years of marriage?
If one was to extend out the first group's age to 55 years plus, you must also extend out incidence of divorce in that time period (by up to 36 years)?
From my anecdotal observations, if my peers divorce, its usually after 10-12 years marriage or when their kids leave home, so to have statistical importance, extensive units of time is more relevant than simply snapshotting age brackets over a small time sample.....or am I missing something here?